The two strongest servers almost always pick on the weakest — Guild Wars 2 Forums

The two strongest servers almost always pick on the weakest

Does anyone ells find this to be true? There's no incentive to flip a well populatedT3 BL when you can easily go back to the weakest server's BL and flip all their objectives. When fighting higher tier servers it's not unusual to see a T3 objective held for days on end. The score continues to run away for the leading server, even with the skirmish changes, it's rare to have a match come down to the last day and even rarer to for all 3 servers to have a close battle score at the end of the week.

Is there any kind of game mechanic that could be implemented to keep matches closer for the losing servers?

Comments

  • Loosmaster.8263Loosmaster.8263 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Easier and faster points. More karma and xp.

    Fàther - Create a mount then kill it until it's more useless than PvE. "Smart"
    Tactical Killers
    Server(DR)

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    I am not advocating all of what Chaba said here, but they come up with some interesting ways of looking at the game. Read his whole proposal, and give a couple of minutes to the forced 2v1.

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/20401/how-to-really-fix-wvw-through-game-design#latest

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Yeah sure, I know of one such mechanic. You dont even need to add it. Quite the opposite.

    Delete the kitten tier based PPT.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Yeah sure, I know of one such mechanic. You dont even need to add it. Quite the opposite.

    Delete the kitten tier based PPT.

    Why should a tier 3 keep keep that takes hours to upgrade, be worth the same as a paper keep?

    BG

  • Kovu.7560Kovu.7560 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    2nd place doesn't drop a tier. 3rd place does.
    Servers are selfish. And why shouldn't they be, its a competitive game. Picking on the weakest server to guarantee you won't drop tier is what we're all often going to do, even if we don't outwardly admit to it.
    The desire to not drop a tier severely outpaces the desire to gamble to try and finish first in a matchup, especially in T2 where the 'winner' graduates to fighting Blackgate.

    ~ Kovu

    Ranger main before it was cool.
    Fort Aspenwood.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    2-1-1!
    2-1-1!
    lol jk

    Wvw was built to reward the strongest, there wasn't any consideration to population or coverage imbalances, so there are no mechanics to really force weaker servers to team up on the strongest, the strongest two will always prey on the weakest in the matchup. This is largely because of the ppt system. You can try changes like reset structure tiers on new skirmishes but that really only hurts the weaker teams, if you had 5 people able to hold on to a tier 3 keep, they probably wouldn't on a tier 1 with the same numbers coming at them. There needs to be a strong motivating factor to get the two teams to go against the strongest team, or a forced mechanic is needed.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    all that matters is rewards, small pop servers receive extra pips... all that maters is a game mode to reward towards blob empty bl or server or end beingblobed but capture back strucutre to create gameplay to the blob servers, meanwhile u get rewarded with extra pips.

    Dumb game for dumb people.

  • @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Yeah sure, I know of one such mechanic. You dont even need to add it. Quite the opposite.

    Delete the kitten tier based PPT.

    Why should a tier 3 keep keep that takes hours to upgrade, be worth the same as a paper keep?

    It doesn’t, t3 keeps give more ppt. People who only backcaps and pick up the scraps are just karma trainers.

    Power > Condition

  • @Shining One.1635 said:
    I think the best way to encourage double-teaming the winning server is to take advantage of people's inherent selfishness: Significantly increase the individual rewards for attacking the winning server. Here are some ideas:

    • Flipping the top server's structures provides quadruple WXP and Karma
    • Running on the strongest world's borderland provides double Reward Track Progress and Pips
    • Killing players from the strongest server provides quadruple loot bags and WXP
    • Increase rewards for failed assaults on the top server's structures (this will encourage both other servers to work together on tough enemy structures, no matter who captures it, you both get rewarded)

    I would love to see some type of mechanic kick in if a server was ahead by a certain amount of points. For example, once a server had a 50 point lead they would be worth double XP and rewards. This would would encourage players to continue playing later in the week.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 24, 2017

    @grifflyman.8102 said:
    The two strongest servers almost always pick on the weakest
    Does anyone ells find this to be true?

    It's true, it's always been true, but nothing will be done about it. They won't adjust anything to do with core mechanics of WvW - they never have. Players have suggested a million ways to incentivise attacking the stronger side or handicapping (or balancing) WvW, but nothing whatsoever has been said, let alone done in this regard.

    Here's the story of Arenanet vs WvW:
    The rumour is that the developers of WvW were all temporary staff who built WvW (when GW2 was first being put together) in their lunchbreaks because they loved DAoC. They all got "moved on" when the game released and the remaining developers don't understand how it works, the producers don't understand why it's popular so nobody touched it for ages - then they tried what they thought was a popular move, introducing EotM. Sadly this wasn't what the community wanted - it was TOO clever and convoluted. So they learnt a few things from that and when the desert map came along in HoT they got panned by quite a chunk of the WvW players (not all, by a long chalk, but a quite a number). It was shortly after this that they decided to give up making big adjustments to WvW altogether, culminating in O'Brien making this statement on Reddit in 2017,

    This year we also took a different approach with PvP and WvW releases. In PvE, we make fresh new content with the goal of surprising and delighting you with our work, but in competitive modes, the community owns the game modes and chooses what we work on, and we definitely shouldn’t be surprising you with where we take those game modes. Instead our goal this year was to develop more incrementally, test with the community on Live, and take feedback every step of the way.

    We've had no changes to the way WvW works and we don't expect any. It's all about proffering ways to gain similar rewards to those that PvE players get without having to resort to doing PvE. This sort of thing is important to a sizeable number of WvW players, but it's not the groundbreaking change a lot of WvW players might approve because they are UNDERSTANDABLY scared to touch it.

    Necro. Never knowingly blasting combo fields since 2012.

  • Maybe the server should get good? Learn to fight and they won't bully you anymore. ez

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • @hunkamania.7561 said:
    Maybe the server should get good? Learn to fight and they won't bully you anymore. ez

    Maybe your server should transfer all your SEA/OCX players to us to fight blobs when we like 10vs50 and jumping maps here and there trying to save what we have left.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Yeah sure, I know of one such mechanic. You dont even need to add it. Quite the opposite.

    Delete the kitten tier based PPT.

    Why should a tier 3 keep keep that takes hours to upgrade, be worth the same as a paper keep?

    Because its already "worth" 10x more in the ability to defend it and support/attack nearby objectives. People not being able to cap it, thus holding it longer = more PPT. Using tier based PPT is like giving the rich a tax break on top them already being rich swines. It also makes PPK a marginal part of WvW whereas when Anet started the skirmish implementation without tier based PPT it mattered quite a bit, but hey it's not like anybody likes fighting in WvW?

  • Korgov.7645Korgov.7645 Member ✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    2-1-1!
    2-1-1!
    lol jk

    Wvw was built to reward the strongest, there wasn't any consideration to population or coverage imbalances, so there are no mechanics to really force weaker servers to team up on the strongest, the strongest two will always prey on the weakest in the matchup. This is largely because of the ppt system. You can try changes like reset structure tiers on new skirmishes but that really only hurts the weaker teams, if you had 5 people able to hold on to a tier 3 keep, they probably wouldn't on a tier 1 with the same numbers coming at them. There needs to be a strong motivating factor to get the two teams to go against the strongest team, or a forced mechanic is needed.

    2-1-1 was already tried. It did not work, and the second servers still kept picking on the last.

    Maybe it was not incentive enough. You did not get anything from winning a matchup. Especially if you were on a linked world.

    It will take more than a victory point to change players' behavior.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I did say lol jk...

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    I did say lol jk...

    Should have said /s.

    People have no humor left.

  • Torolan.5816Torolan.5816 Member ✭✭✭

    @Svarty.8019 said:

    @grifflyman.8102 said:
    The two strongest servers almost always pick on the weakest
    Does anyone ells find this to be true?

    It's true, it's always been true, but nothing will be done about it. They won't adjust anything to do with core mechanics of WvW - they never have. Players have suggested a million ways to incentivise attacking the stronger side or handicapping (or balancing) WvW, but nothing whatsoever has been said, let alone done in this regard.

    Here's the story of Arenanet vs WvW:
    The rumour is that the developers of WvW were all temporary staff who built WvW (when GW2 was first being put together) in their lunchbreaks because they loved DAoC. They all got "moved on" when the game released and the remaining developers don't understand how it works, the producers don't understand why it's popular so nobody touched it for ages - then they tried what they thought was a popular move, introducing EotM. Sadly this wasn't what the community wanted - it was TOO clever and convoluted. So they learnt a few things from that and when the desert map came along in HoT they got panned by quite a chunk of the WvW players (not all, by a long chalk, but a quite a number). It was shortly after this that they decided to give up making big adjustments to WvW altogether, culminating in O'Brien making this statement on Reddit in 2017,

    This year we also took a different approach with PvP and WvW releases. In PvE, we make fresh new content with the goal of surprising and delighting you with our work, but in competitive modes, the community owns the game modes and chooses what we work on, and we definitely shouldn’t be surprising you with where we take those game modes. Instead our goal this year was to develop more incrementally, test with the community on Live, and take feedback every step of the way.

    We've had no changes to the way WvW works and we don't expect any. It's all about proffering ways to gain similar rewards to those that PvE players get without having to resort to doing PvE. This sort of thing is important to a sizeable number of WvW players, but it's not the groundbreaking change a lot of WvW players might approve because they are UNDERSTANDABLY scared to touch it.

    Lol, wut? That would be an absolute brilliant fail, but how hard would it be to hire a guy that formerly worked for Mythic to tell them how wvw actually works and what made it so popular?

    I would immediately dust my tinfoil hat off if that was actually true. :)

    and the opinion which MO has about wvwers is well known, they´re PvEers who like to play wvw.

  • Usually yes I find that to be true.

    What I would like Anet to do for a weekend or 2 (much like golem rush), is just impose an alliance between red and blue and make them both friendly to each other. Can't kill each other, can't take each other's structures forcing them to only attack the other server. Would make things interesting. Could it happen? Possibly, Anet has nothing to gain or lose by doing it by simply conducting an "experiment" for a week or 2, to shake things up.

  • shiri.4257shiri.4257 Member ✭✭✭

    the easiest solution to this is to tank to the bottom of t4. oh wait, that's like everyone but blackgate.

    Spectre [VII] - Wood League Champion. Making "fight guilds" stack on higher tiers since 2013.
    Wood League News Network [WLNN]- www.twitch.tv/shirirx

  • Rayya.2591Rayya.2591 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 25, 2017

    @grifflyman.8102 said:
    Does anyone ells find this to be true? There's no incentive to flip a well populatedT3 BL when you can easily go back to the weakest server's BL and flip all their objectives. When fighting higher tier servers it's not unusual to see a T3 objective held for days on end. The score continues to run away for the leading server, even with the skirmish changes, it's rare to have a match come down to the last day and even rarer to for all 3 servers to have a close battle score at the end of the week.

    Is there any kind of game mechanic that could be implemented to keep matches closer for the losing servers?

    nobody want to attack tier 3 because is a waste of time.
    Best way to take a tier 3 is 20 guild golems, , rush undefended keeps and hope you take it under 3 minutes. But who will pay 15 gold to take a keep ?
    Now considering you go for normal way: 5 supperior rams /gate , outer /inner 2/ shield generators /gate +supply drain you will need 1000 supply . 2 minutes /gates if your sieges won;t be disabled and no defenders. Even if you succed to open outer and inner gate, in current meta if a defending zerg with siege wait you behind inner gate, they will win 95% of the time. So you waste 20 minutes to gather supply and attempt 1 attack ?
    Tier 3 objectives are stupid and imbalanced. Current meta " 80% scourge /revs/eles / will lack any sustain under constant arrrow cart / mortar cannon - damage .
    So that's why almost nobody care to attack tier 3. 5+ minutes is more than enough time for defenders to reach at objective
    Before POF, on melee train meta, decent blobs could sustain under siege, now nobody care

    If you try to attack with lower ammount of siege, you will get borred before outer gate is down
    also upgrading objectives require nothing. So if you flip a tier 3 and leave map , will be tier 3 in 2 hours again . So really no reason to take them

  • Drecien.4508Drecien.4508 Member ✭✭✭

    Let's look at this from a different perspective, one of Blackgate. We are at constant war against the mag blob and whoever they team up with. Tc, jq, dB, SOS, they all do an alliance dance with the blob to try to slaughter us. We do what we have to to keep evil at bay. Blackgate must fight so that mag doesn't destroy us all. 😊

    30 Beautiful new mount skins?! Anet take my money!

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 25, 2017

    @Rayya.2591 said:

    @grifflyman.8102 said:
    Does anyone ells find this to be true? There's no incentive to flip a well populatedT3 BL when you can easily go back to the weakest server's BL and flip all their objectives. When fighting higher tier servers it's not unusual to see a T3 objective held for days on end. The score continues to run away for the leading server, even with the skirmish changes, it's rare to have a match come down to the last day and even rarer to for all 3 servers to have a close battle score at the end of the week.

    Is there any kind of game mechanic that could be implemented to keep matches closer for the losing servers?

    nobody want to attack tier 3 because is a waste of time.
    Best way to take a tier 3 is 20 guild golems, , rush undefended keeps and hope you take it under 3 minutes. But who will pay 15 gold to take a keep ?
    Now considering you go for normal way: 5 supperior rams /gate , outer /inner 2/ shield generators /gate +supply drain you will need 1000 supply . 2 minutes /gates if your sieges won;t be disabled and no defenders. Even if you succed to open outer and inner gate, in current meta if a defending zerg with siege wait you behind inner gate, they will win 95% of the time. So you waste 20 minutes to gather supply and attempt 1 attack ?
    Tier 3 objectives are stupid and imbalanced. Current meta " 80% scourge /revs/eles / will lack any sustain under constant arrrow cart / mortar cannon - damage .
    So that's why almost nobody care to attack tier 3. 5+ minutes is more than enough time for defenders to reach at objective
    Before POF, on melee train meta, decent blobs could sustain under siege, now nobody care

    If you try to attack with lower ammount of siege, you will get borred before outer gate is down
    also upgrading objectives require nothing. So if you flip a tier 3 and leave map , will be tier 3 in 2 hours again . So really no reason to take them

    Its not even a matter of cost. Its manpower. Its just easy to defend with equally strong siege as anything the attackers can put up, plus extras like mortars and kitten. Anything below 20 people dont stand a chance at taking a defended T3 - and even then a 50 man is the only thing that can withstand a full call to defense. That makes T3 very, very difficult to take on outside of primetime. I often play a couple of hours before and whenever we see a T3 its just forget about it. Ignore. Run around. We dont care. I'm not afraid to try - I've been tagged up and spent 2 god kitten hours trying to take down T3 bay. At the end the only thing we could say to the primetime raid was "well at least we finally got it fully drained, glhf :/". Its such a massive waste of time, every time I wish I never bothered - because the primetime raid will of course use overwhelming force when the enemy server is busy elsewhere to breach outer and inner in minutes regardless of what we did.

    What happens when WvW inevitably drop even lower in population? It will become exponentially harder to do anything other than cap camps. Some people just kittens on this, brushing it off as being a "karma trainer" for wanting easier flips and more fights, but apparently those that say that only take part in zerging for some mysterious reason.

    I absolutely loathe T3 and to a lesser degree T2, the tier based PPT is just icing on the kittencake Anet serves.

  • This happen to BG and SoS they made pact not to attack each other big objective as keep/garri.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DKRathalos.9625 said:
    This happen to BG and SoS they made pact not to attack each other big objective as keep/garri.

    This is total nonsense.

    BG

  • @X T D.6458 said:

    @DKRathalos.9625 said:
    This happen to BG and SoS they made pact not to attack each other big objective as keep/garri.

    This is total nonsense.

    Then why the almighty BG can't take their keep/garri, I know BG can do it but seems don't want to?

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    you dont do what you dont need to

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @DKRathalos.9625 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @DKRathalos.9625 said:
    This happen to BG and SoS they made pact not to attack each other big objective as keep/garri.

    This is total nonsense.

    Then why the almighty BG can't take their keep/garri, I know BG can do it but seems don't want to?

    Because SoS actively defends their objectives

  • Hitman.5829Hitman.5829 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 25, 2017

    2 words: MORE BAGS!
    I personally engage in attacking the red team in tier 1 because read team is filled with noobs and the rewards are great, I get more bags because I can easily fight them 1 vs 5 and kill all 5 by myself.

    Charr Warrior Master Race!
    Black Gate Beast Roamer chicken chaser!

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DKRathalos.9625 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @DKRathalos.9625 said:
    This happen to BG and SoS they made pact not to attack each other big objective as keep/garri.

    This is total nonsense.

    Then why the almighty BG can't take their keep/garri, I know BG can do it but seems don't want to?

    What would we gain from doing that? On blue bl we typically just stay on our corner and go for hills. On eb we prefer to have fights in and around SMC. Taking red/blues corner in EB would just break the flow of fights and force them to spend hours recapping and upgrading, not to mention demoralizing them. Sometimes we will tap a keep and hit some cannons just to wake them up.

    Personally speaking, I like SoS. They give us good fights.

    BG

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 26, 2017

    Probably nothing. The pug blob demands pips and while they may accept brief delays to accommodate you, anything like assaulting the biggest server's keep for prolonged periods of time is going to have people walking out on it faster than a Tommy Wiseau film.

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 26, 2017

    Remove all the doors from towers then remove all siege from the game.

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    whisper enemy server coms and say 2x stronger enemy.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @sephiroth.4217 said:
    Remove all the doors from towers then remove all siege from the game.

    The giant laser more-or-less did this, but players complained.

    Necro. Never knowingly blasting combo fields since 2012.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Svarty.8019 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:
    Remove all the doors from towers then remove all siege from the game.

    The giant laser more-or-less did this, but players complained.

    players complain because they lazy

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 26, 2017

    anti ac? have 5 man block burn guard team.

    Minstrel fb on sigil of energy transference and mercy runes.

    DIRE fb block burn on burst sigil and guardian runes

    Sciurge scourge spell breaker.

    party x 10.

    No ac siege can stop you.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 26, 2017

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Yeah sure, I know of one such mechanic. You dont even need to add it. Quite the opposite.

    Delete the kitten tier based PPT.

    Why should a tier 3 keep keep that takes hours to upgrade, be worth the same as a paper keep?

    It doesn’t, t3 keeps give more ppt. People who only backcaps and pick up the scraps are just karma trainers.

    wich is what happens 90% of the time..... some blobs even cant take t1 stuff and then 2 server5s apear to take it by turns from the outmaned server...

    @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    Probably nothing. The pug blob demands pips and while they may accept brief delays to accommodate you, anything like assaulting the biggest server's keep for prolonged periods of time is going to have people walking out on it faster than a Tommy Wiseau film.

    That's because Anet brainwashed alot of players into lame mode, expect low effort with rewards.. or full stack/blob to hit a smaller group, wit h lots if not all aoe spamable classes...
    It's the design and "mentality" in the game itself that made players behave like that...

    I do remember a post in the older forum where Anet stated what was hapening was the weakest population servers were picking up the bigger ones..lol and this was 2 years ago, this guys are ok with lame behaviors its like a game from lamers to lamers.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Svarty.8019 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:
    Remove all the doors from towers then remove all siege from the game.

    The giant laser more-or-less did this, but players complained.

    players complain because they lazy

    Or the event lagged up the map for a lot of people... and obviously anet couldn't fix the lag so it was removed.
    /shrug

    As to the suggestion to remove doors... might as well not even have structures then.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • ThunderPanda.1872ThunderPanda.1872 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 26, 2017

    @Rayya.2591 said:

    @grifflyman.8102 said:
    Does anyone ells find this to be true? There's no incentive to flip a well populatedT3 BL when you can easily go back to the weakest server's BL and flip all their objectives. When fighting higher tier servers it's not unusual to see a T3 objective held for days on end. The score continues to run away for the leading server, even with the skirmish changes, it's rare to have a match come down to the last day and even rarer to for all 3 servers to have a close battle score at the end of the week.

    Is there any kind of game mechanic that could be implemented to keep matches closer for the losing servers?

    nobody want to attack tier 3 because is a waste of time.
    Best way to take a tier 3 is 20 guild golems, , rush undefended keeps and hope you take it under 3 minutes. But who will pay 15 gold to take a keep ?
    Now considering you go for normal way: 5 supperior rams /gate , outer /inner 2/ shield generators /gate +supply drain you will need 1000 supply . 2 minutes /gates if your sieges won;t be disabled and no defenders. Even if you succed to open outer and inner gate, in current meta if a defending zerg with siege wait you behind inner gate, they will win 95% of the time. So you waste 20 minutes to gather supply and attempt 1 attack ?
    Tier 3 objectives are stupid and imbalanced. Current meta " 80% scourge /revs/eles / will lack any sustain under constant arrrow cart / mortar cannon - damage .
    So that's why almost nobody care to attack tier 3. 5+ minutes is more than enough time for defenders to reach at objective
    Before POF, on melee train meta, decent blobs could sustain under siege, now nobody care

    If you try to attack with lower ammount of siege, you will get borred before outer gate is down
    also upgrading objectives require nothing. So if you flip a tier 3 and leave map , will be tier 3 in 2 hours again . So really no reason to take them

    All I see is disable after disable after disable after disable, and shield gen. Even if you build like 40 omegas, it's still hard as kitten to take a t3 keep with minimal defenders. The easiest way nowadays is just have a huge overpowering blob, time and inifinite patience. Sad to say it's no longer 2013/2014, back when you defend keeps mainly by fighting with a good waypoint system and arguably warrior banners that funnels people back in and keep us in the fight.

    Power > Condition

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 27, 2017

    omegas meet my scourge. gg

    rams? meet my firebrand.gg

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Trajan.4953Trajan.4953 Member ✭✭✭

    Until "balance" is dealt with...

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

    Sorry... Had to laugh, Balance will never be dealt with...

    Heading to the bar, anyone need a drink?

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @grifflyman.8102 said:
    Does anyone ells find this to be true? There's no incentive to flip a well populatedT3 BL when you can easily go back to the weakest server's BL and flip all their objectives. When fighting higher tier servers it's not unusual to see a T3 objective held for days on end. The score continues to run away for the leading server, even with the skirmish changes, it's rare to have a match come down to the last day and even rarer to for all 3 servers to have a close battle score at the end of the week.

    Is there any kind of game mechanic that could be implemented to keep matches closer for the losing servers?

    What you describe is a situation with a dominating server when both of the other servers have no realistic hopes of winning the match. For both of them, it is only normal to focus on one another in a fight for the second place. Instead of going on a desperate missions against the well supplied and highly defended t3 objectives of the leader, they choose to do something actually productive in getting some points. This creates the feeling of "double-teaming" for both of them while in fact one is legitimately fighting them for second and the other is just looking for some fun/karma/xp.

    In the end, it's mostly up to participation. You can't have a close score between a server that plays actively with high numbers and one that doesn't. Of course you can design a mechanic that counters that, but it would be missing the whole point of the game mode.

  • Henry.5713Henry.5713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'd call it choosing your battles wisely. Simple as that. It is a war simulation after all. Something that is not supposed to be truely balanced or fair. Do what is needed to win.

    Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. ~ Robert Heinlein

  • I've found, in T1 at least, that the 2nd server tries to fight BG, and the 3rd server sneaks around backcapping things, hoping the other two zergs won't notice them.

  • We are closing this thread because Match Up threads are not allowed.

This discussion has been closed.
©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.