Stand The Wall.6987 Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 if two servers are outnumbered by another zerg server, then those two smaller servers are put on the same side and can't attack each other. if they have one anothers objectives, they get neutralized.obviously outnumbered would have to be changed in such a way that it couldn't be manipulated - how to do that I don't know.anyway just a thought.editsquad by squad basis makes more sense, sort of lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 I would prefer not having to hard force sides to cooperate to beat on the winning or biggest side currently online, they should make sense of the situation and make that choice themselves, I would prefer mechanics in the game to steer people in those directions. Like if a side has outnumbered their objectives are worth 0 for capture but they earn 5x points for capturing something, while the winning side objectives are worth like 10x more than normal capture points. The scaling rewards they mentioned, of having to take a harder defended objective being worth more than something that had barely anyone defending. There needs to be mechanics in the game to force double teams onto the winning bigger sides, not focus and streamroll on the weakest and easiest side to conquer, that's always been this games major flaw for a 3 way setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonWing.9480 Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 It isn't a bad idea but the winning side should also be ahead in score for multiple skirmishes and outnumber on all maps, not just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 @Stand The Wall.6987 said:if two servers are outnumbered by another zerg server, then those two smaller servers are put on the same side and can't attack each other. if they have one anothers objectives, they get neutralized.obviously outnumbered would have to be changed in such a way that it couldn't be manipulated - how to do that I don't know.anyway just a thought. ...@Stand The Wall.6987 said:wow lol this is a horrible idea.WvW is a 3 sided match. Outnumbered servers do work together at times anyway, and that should be an option, not a forced design choice. And it defeats the purpose of tactical decision making and player autonomy the mode was built around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted September 2, 2019 Author Share Posted September 2, 2019 @XenesisII.1540 said:snipsyeah not a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted September 2, 2019 Author Share Posted September 2, 2019 @ArchonWing.9480 said:It isn't a bad idea but the winning side should also be ahead in score for multiple skirmishes and outnumber on all maps, not just one. agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted September 2, 2019 Author Share Posted September 2, 2019 @Swagger.1459 said:snips@Stand The Wall.6987 said:wow lol this is a horrible idea.so you are still salty about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 @Stand The Wall.6987 said:@Swagger.1459 said:snips@Stand The Wall.6987 said:wow lol this is a horrible idea.so you are still salty about that.Not at all, was just appropriate for the idea lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNOwen.7132 Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 Hm, no I dont think this works very well. For one you have the question of how you handle 2 servers trying to capture the same objective. Or what about the leading of the 2 outnumbered teams simply trying to grief the other team? Too many things that could go wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yasai.3549 Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 Double team already works regardless of outnumbered or not.The two leading servers in the current match will always double team the weakest server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted September 2, 2019 Author Share Posted September 2, 2019 @UNOwen.7132 said:Hm, no I dont think this works very well. For one you have the question of how you handle 2 servers trying to capture the same objective. Or what about the leading of the 2 outnumbered teams simply trying to grief the other team? Too many things that could go wrong. hmm that would be a pickle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapasmurf.5623 Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 While I like the concept itself, as a roamer that would cut the number of people I can get into a skirmish as well as "teaming up" should be optional instead of forced imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted September 4, 2019 Author Share Posted September 4, 2019 @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:While I like the concept itself, as a roamer that would cut the number of people I can get into a skirmish as well as "teaming up" should be optional instead of forced imo.hmm maybe it could be a squad by squad basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiri.4257 Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 that takes away half of fight guilds game play. we like to lurk on the server trying to take a t3 objective of the winning server. then pounce on them when they're not looking with stealth for glorious 1 push montages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joneirikb.7506 Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 I'd prefer the idea of encouraging teams to fight the leading team by increasing rewards (points, participation, wxp, pips, whatever) to take on the leading team. And possibly reducing the same for fighting the losing team. Don't take away the choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straegen.2938 Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 Until they fix the rewards paper gives it will almost always be weakest server gets ganged up on. It is far more rewarding to cap a tower with no resistance in about 2 minutes than a T3 guarded by a populated server when both give exactly the same reward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 @joneirikb.7506 said:I'd prefer the idea of encouraging teams to fight the leading team by increasing rewards (points, participation, wxp, pips, whatever) to take on the leading team. And possibly reducing the same for fighting the losing team. Don't take away the choice.This ^^^^, make it more worth while to go after the big fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now