Jump to content
  • Sign Up

WvW Stagnation - Tanking and Cross Server Alliances


Floz.8904
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

I've got a question about the implementation of rewards for servers/guilds that behave honourably in WvW. This pertains to the overall attitude towards Blackgate and the attitude of T2 servers whereby the status quo is to "tank" to avoid having to fight the best server in the game.

For the BG elitists out there, to get this out of the way, I'm a guild leader from SoS. Your skill and your gameplay is the pinnacle of the game. There's no denying it, but this pertains to you lot as well.

Firstly, the attitude that has been created from the servers who try not to win is ridiculous. Playing a game not to win is beyond me. - as many people have alluded to on here before. Blackgate not having linked servers (which reflects its population) is part of this problem. The amount of times you'll have people repping Blackgate guilds who create alt accounts and hop on your server to sabotage your objectives or spy on tag movements is crazy. This cannot happen to BG because it's a full server. Blackgate is effectively immune to sabotage and espionage and exploit that weakness - something that is a a direct consequence of server balance.

This also leads into linked servers. If moderate servers are linked with another decent server and have good synergy with certain guilds they will inevitably be de-linked. Which reflects an inconsistent approach to alliance growth. On the other hand, Blackgate does not need this and will always have consistent forces/player bases/ alliances to work with. Another consequence of server balance.

Now, whilst I understand that you're (apparently) addressing the server balance issue (which by the way if you don't fix the competitive nature of the WvW game mode, or at least give a release date, people will leave to Crowfall and Camelot Unchained, which I'm sure you don't want to happen because it is literally direct competition), there's a bigger game afoot which I think is a complete abuse of the intended spirit of WvW.

When your biggest server starts to tone down, or get bored of no challenge or whatever the reason was to force your biggest guild (KnT - you guys are gods btw) to go and join another open server, carry it to T1 and proxy Blackgate's enemies - that's where things start to get a little bit weak. Going to fight map queues with your own map queue, getting AJd by the third server (part of the game) and then seeing them not fight eachother is some pretty suspicious stuff. Or fighting in one server's objectives, the other server coming to defend it, leaving the lord and bailing is just pathetic.

My question is, not only to Anet but also to Blackgate. If you want to see the competitiveness and the enjoyment come back to WvW how do you intend to balance it? Yep, you guys have proved that you're the best, everyone knows it, but surely it must be stagnant for you as well? If you don't resolve this strange imbalance that has been attained through good play, espionage, sabotage and server locking - I'm sure you'll have a lot of people leaving the game for more fleshed out variations of the WvW game mode.

Cheers,Floz

P.S. Please get out of our Hills :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has all be rather disappointing and it makes me wonder about the longevity of WvW before and after Alliances. Multiple servers (and Alliances) acting as one to create a monopoly over a tier is going to drive players away, and I am not sure what could be done about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way to solve this until the alliance system is in place and resets the population. BG has twice the amount of players than the rest of the servers, it's mostly pugs who make up this population. They're a server than can constantly win, and pugs only care about winning and getting the rewards easily. So their pugs won't move, they cannot be be given a link, and so there's no real choice going forward than to reset the populations. The only players willing to move and help balance populations from a competitive stand point are guilds who eventually are bored of that situation. Until then nothing can be done about it, spying is a part of basically every other server, BG may have to deal with it a lot less than others, but at the end of the day, it's rather pointless even if it was available anyways.

There are a multitude of reasons why servers do not want to face BG anymore, that includes having to face their map queues at times when they don't have one, having to deal with their coverage, having to deal with some guilds or commanders who just want to avoid fights and just ppt. It's not only about winning, sometimes it's also the imbalances are just too much to bother with, sometimes it's sides showing they don't have an interest to play with the other servers, so why would those servers want to waste any more time there?

The rest of the servers have also seen a strange relationship of BG and SoS as well, and what you describe with KnT not wanting to hit BG forces is no different than say Mag has seen with BG and SoS forces ignoring each to come after them. I have recorded video of BG KiS force hitting Mag TTD force, when that fight started going south for BG, SoS BMO came in from behind and ran right past BG to hit Mag, meanwhile BG backup forces sat right behind BMO and did nothing. I've seen it other times as well.

It happens, who knows maybe there's a strong hatred from the commander for another commander or force. Maybe KnT freshly leaving BG didn't want to truck over their friends yet, maybe in a few weeks it'll wear off and they will. In any case even with SoS at it's fullest strength in recent months with returning guilds, couldn't compete with BG to win a match, once again it just comes down to population, coverage, and map politics, BG does it all well.

Lastly I wouldn't worry about CU or Crowfall, both are a ways off, both will have things to attract wvw players I'm sure. CU is another wvw type game based off Daoc but subscriptions will hold it back. Crowfall I haven't read up on in a while, but not sure some of it's pvp aspects will be appealing to wvw players. Meanwhile WvW will be free to play as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all can call other servers "tanking" all the names you want, they just can't compete for various reasons, most of them are not even actively tanking they just don't have the population, coverage, or same desires of wvw to deal with one let alone both tier one servers. There isn't three beefy servers to make tier one competitive like the old days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"XenesisII.1540" said:You all can call other servers "tanking" all the names you want, they just can't compete for various reasons, most of them are not even actively tanking they just don't have the population, coverage, or same desires of wvw to deal with one let alone both tier one servers. There isn't three beefy servers to make tier one competitive like the old days.

Shush you. Dont tell them that they lost because the other team won, thats rude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey there, BG noobie here. Let me just state a few things. The only thing BG has ever wanted is to stay in tier1, winning was not always our priority. I have been on BG for3 and a half years now, when I first came here we never cared about scores and basically let our home bl get ktrained every night, we didn't defend anything and just focused on fights. The reason we were able to lose week after week and stay in tier 1 was because of the old matchmaking system called Glicko, it made it easy for servers to remain in a tier for long periods of time regardless of match results. We would have push weeks like every other month or so to win a week, regain glicko points and maintain our place in tier 1.

There were 3 main changes to the game that made BG more focused on winning matchups, the introduction of linking, skirmishes, and the 1u1d system. We essentially have to win or come in second each matchup to remain in tier one. A few months before linking, several toxic guilds left BG and made it easier for our militia to step up and take on a more prominent role, whereas in the past we were more marginalized because of those toxic guilds.

Coverage is always a key component to staying competitive and replacing people on a server that stop playing or leave the server, this should not be hard to understand. BG has done what every other server has done in order to stay competitive, we also cannot control who leaves, and comes to the server.

BG has an active and dedicated militia population, and when I say active I mean ACTIVE. We play very long hours, being in WvW for up to 8 hours a day is almost a regular thing for some of us. Outside of reset, most of the time we only have one map zerg with no or small queues, that hops maps to defend stuff. These blobs that people are always complaining about are mainly just the same pugs playing long hours that are hopping maps.

The reason BG is still winning, is not because our population is so high, its that because WvW has seen a steady decline over the years and it has hit other servers harder then BG. We have also not been plagued by internal drama like other servers. Our population today would not be anywhere near a t1 server from years ago. We would be in Silver-Bronze lol.

P.S.- We like your hills :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Floz.8904 said:Firstly, the attitude that has been created from the servers who try not to win is ridiculous. Playing a game not to win is beyond me. - as many people have alluded to on here before.Everyone tanks when they don't want to face their opponent(s) in T1, even BG. The last time JQ had links (I was on one of them), they were winning T1 consistently for weeks. BG stopped fielding their usual numbers and dropped into T2.

Personally, I don't know what the solution is. ArenaNet has tried various methods to incentivize people to play... but they can't incentivize winning too much because that will simply encourage a new bandwagon. We'll have to wait to see what matchups are like with the new alliance system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Floz.8904" said:Hi Guys,

[...] and then seeing them not fight eachother is some pretty suspicious [...]

i have been having this conversation a lot lately in EU.so there is this one big fat server, that nobody likes to fight, because they are massive in: numbers, forged alliances, (good) players that joined because said server wins a lot.

right? okay

now lets do a t1 matchuptwo more servers join the matchup, both can not compete with the big server - be it due to numbers, less good players, whatever the reasonnaturally both avoid to fight against the big server and instead fight each other, because there is "something" to win or just less frustrating fights.for the big server on the other hand its either looking for the better fights or easier farming... preferably they fight the server with less siege and bigger numbers, that dont run immediately, because lootbags (lets assume that the third server is running away hiding behind walls with 20 ac most of the time).so two server decided to go the most rewarding way and you feel like you got doubleteamed, because they dont fight each other - but i doubt they ever coordinate the doubleteaming.assuming i interpreted your suspicion the right way.

anyway - my criticism doesnt solve the issue. i've been there a lot in EU. every other matchup looks exactly like this.waiting for the new alliance system and hope for better coverage/calculation of the matchups... although i have been warned, that people already plan to actively play two accounts in two different guilds just to alternate the active guild, when it is matched up with easy kills due to being inactive the previous week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aetatis.5418 said:

@"Floz.8904" said:Hi Guys,

[...] and then seeing them not fight eachother is some pretty suspicious [...]

i have been having this conversation a lot lately in EU.so there is this one big fat server, that nobody likes to fight, because they are massive in: numbers, forged alliances, (good) players that joined because said server wins a lot.

right? okay

now lets do a t1 matchuptwo more servers join the matchup, both can not compete with the big server - be it due to numbers, less good players, whatever the reasonnaturally both avoid to fight against the big server and instead fight each other, because there is "something" to win or just less frustrating fights.for the big server on the other hand its either looking for the better fights or easier farming... preferably they fight the server with less siege and bigger numbers, that dont run immediately, because lootbags (lets assume that the third server is running away hiding behind walls with 20 ac most of the time).so two server decided to go the most rewarding way and you feel like you got doubleteamed, because they dont fight each other - but i doubt they ever coordinate the doubleteaming.assuming i interpreted your suspicion the right way.

anyway - my criticism doesnt solve the issue. i've been there a lot in EU. every other matchup looks exactly like this.waiting for the new alliance system and hope for better coverage/calculation of the matchups... although i have been warned, that people already plan to actively play two accounts in two different guilds just to alternate the active guild, when it is matched up with easy kills due to being inactive the previous week.

Whenever someone brings up 2v1 double teaming, it is usually just attacks of opportunity and the likes , but you may have missed the part which made this particular case different - a guild that left bg is now on yb and it looks more than obvious at times with the babysitting/hand holding that goes around. Of course this is not 100% of the time, but it is a lot of the time, and then they leave soon after helping defend a location, ignoring the other server. I hear about double teaming all the time, and most of it isn't true, however, what I see here has more truth than none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think (correct me if I am wrong) the issue that’s being focused is that sever loyalists can move to another sever (or a link) to assist their origin world. Most servers deal with this issue in moderation; spies, sabotage, discouragement, and so forth. But what do you do once a world is influenced by another? How will this be fixed for Alliances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Floz.8904" said:

Firstly, the attitude that has been created from the servers who try not to win is ridiculous. Playing a game not to win is beyond me. - as many people have alluded to on here before.

You just don't get it: "servers" (or many/most players on it, but not everyone, because there's always a few doing their utmost to contribute to PPT score even if it is pointless, on every server) have given up to compete 24/7 because... it's IMPOSSIBLE. Not because everyone is a quitter or don't like to compete, even if it's about taking an empty objective and then let the score "tick" -- but because COVERAGE is needed, players willing and able to do that 24/7.Repeat again tl;dr style: it's impossible to compete for 1st place in this PPT race, because it's impossible to have the coverage.

Why can't everyone have coverage? Because those who really care about being 1st place in this PPT race, most of them (not all, some put loyalty to their server above everything else), just transfer(red) to 1st place server, because they WANT to "win", they really want it... This happened already 4+ years.

What you see as "the attitude that has been created from the servers who try not to win" it's simply a planning to get into a tier or another, based on which other 2 servers they would like to meet next week, and that sometimes means wanting 2nd place or even 3rd place, and not 1st, in the current tier, because that "rewards" the matchup that most/many want for next week.

Playing for 1st place would be most fun, always playing to win would remove the immense frustration that most WvW players feel at times, but it's simply a recipe for disaster and frustration in the current system. There is a single way currently to "win" -- transfer to Blackgate. I was on Blackgate, I don't hate them or any other servers, and this it's not about Blackgate; but a system that failed a long time ago and was still kept as it is. Once Jade Quarry WAS "Blackgate", and what I mean here: the 1st server with most players willing and able to cover the play for PPT 24/7. Stacking on EU wasn't quite as bad, but they also had and have the flavor of the season server, same bandwagon to "win" PPT #1 place syndrome.

While there ARE good players on "Blackgate" i.e. on the "current most stacked PPT win" flavor of the era, and on every server, that isn't the reason for a "win". Skill is awesome, organization can go a long way, group composition and so on are all great bonuses, but nothing matters in WvW as it is now and was for past 5 years, except 1 single aspect: COVERAGE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aetatis.5418 said:

@"Floz.8904" said:

anyway - my criticism doesnt solve the issue. i've been there a lot in EU. every other matchup looks exactly like this.waiting for the new alliance system and hope for better coverage/calculation of the matchups... although i have been warned, that people already plan to actively play two accounts in two different guilds just to alternate the active guild, when it is matched up with easy kills due to being inactive the previous week.

Ya well I'm pretty confident that there won't be enough people actually trying to play two accounts to make a difference of any sort. In the new system I think people will find that things like this aren't going to be a "thing" to do. Balance, or something as close to balance as we can get will be more of a reality and hopefully that means all of us will see a lot more fun in WvW than we've done in years... fingers crossed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Floz.8904 said:

Firstly, the attitude that has been created from the servers who try not to win is ridiculous. Playing a game not to win is beyond me. - as many people have alluded to on here before.

That's because there is 0 incentive to win. There isn't even really a reason to take T3 keeps other than to destroy the waypoint. People like waypoints though and will sometimes keep them so the enemies respawn faster so they can keep fighting. Its purely a bragging rights thing to win and that's pushing it because nobody cares anymore. Everyone has burned out at this point when it comes to PPT and winning a matchup. That's why we see threads of people asking for siege balance, lowering health of T2 and T3 structures, and the whole alliance and restructuring plan. Winning means nothing. People just want to kill each other, not attack a T3 keep for an hour under 10 arrow carts while a blob just looks down on them from the walls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big part of the problem is Anet has largely done nothing to try and combat stacking. Red flags were raised back in 2013 when the static JQ/BG/SOR began to destabilize and the WvW team did nothing.

Not sure if their fault or the higher ups, anyway whatever the solution is they should really try some different and drastic measures before the game mode does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no incentive to "win." what are we winning? to go to T1 where BG and SOS sit in towers/ keeps and run from fights? Ofc WvW will be stagnant, you are making yourself sit in the same matchup with the same server just so you can bash your head against the wall and not win. What exactly has SOS won last few months? they arent beating BG in ppt and they have the lowest KDR every week so they arent winning on the battlefield either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There any number of player types that want to join and participate in WvW. Included in these numbers or those that want casual gameplay, those that want competitive matches and those whose want to be on the side that "wins". Birds of a feather flock together and those that are focused on winning in a sytem that allows one to switch to other servers at will tend to want to join the server that always "wins'. It has less to do with the invidual skill of that player then it does the individuals preference towars a given outcome.

I myself would be bored to tears on a server that always won. I am much more interested in competitive matchups where evrything from open field fights, tower and keep sieges are , from small scale roaming to havoc groups both possible and rewarding. As such a system that has one dominant server is in fact bad for gameplay overall.

I am on a smaller server which can get numbers time to time so to this issue over "tanking" and why some would do it. When I am on during hours where we outnumbered on there 5 or 6 of us againt a blob that flips the entire board with 50 plus, I find gameplay tedious and boring. There not a lot of fun in it. I tend to log off. When I am on that same server during the hours our population peaked and WE have a group with a blob against some small handful of defenders, I find gameplay boring and might roam with the group for a while and then log off or flip to another map to solo roam.

When we do get into equal matchup fights , win or lose , or meet those very TIGHT and coordinated groups of an enemy that our equal or even superior numbers lose to, I keep coming back and fighting. I have no desire to want to "join the other side" because they always win even as I have as a personal goal wanting to win a given fight or matchup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Floz.8904" said:Firstly, the attitude that has been created from the servers who try not to win is ridiculous. Playing a game not to win is beyond me.

How you still think you're "playing to win" after months of getting roflstomped is beyond me. The only thing you people have accomplished is becoming BG's most enthusiastic free range chicken farm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Floz.8904" said:Firstly, the attitude that has been created from the servers who try not to win is ridiculous. Playing a game not to win is beyond me.

How you still think you're "playing to win" after months of getting roflstomped is beyond me. The only thing you people have accomplished is becoming BG's most enthusiastic free range chicken farmyea im not sure what they are trying to win. not winning in PPT and not winning in KDR. maybe a participation trophy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@X T D.6458 said:The reason BG is still winning, is not because our population is so high, its that because WvW has seen a steady decline over the years and it has hit other servers harder then BG.

Doesn't matter whether relative to other servers or relative to historic population, just another way of saying the population is high - yes BG is still winning because it has the highest population. Don't make me link the image generated by the dev that showed BG having highest population both in playhours and individual accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...