wvwvw format thought.

WvW in its current format either has the same top dogs fighting it out and when a server that is not a "top dog" gets put into the mix they usually get dominated.  They have tried buffs and debuffs and some other gimicks to try and even things out for the underdog server but they all seem to fall short.  What i was thinking would be an interesting mix up would be to have the top 3 servers not just battle two other servers but 4 other servers.  So two ebs two reds two greens two blues.  They would not have to create more maps (that would be nice if they kept the current format to freshen things up tho) but just allow the top three servers to que into red "a" or red "b", etc.  This would give the other "lower wvw pop" servers a fighting chance and give the top servers a fun mix up.....it would be cool to fight 4 other servers and have it come down to the wire.  I don't think it would require much programing changes to the way things currently work to do this and would be a fun way to liven things up.  Even if they did it as a "christmas" special or limited time "event" (they could see all the ramifications by rolling it out that way tho) it would be really fun imo.  What do you all think or do you just want to keep the current format and have the devs create different and or more maps to wvw on (that would require more time and work on there end i think).

thoughts???

Don't mean to shoot you down, but we can't even get a last login timestamp in game, there no way in the world we're getting a new system like that before christmas. Keep in mind they are already working on content 2-3 months away. This idea is very similar to the one I suggested about creating 3 more borderlands and I did that at launch. Right now what we need more than anything else is a way to tie a community together through chat channels. Imagine if we had a /channel_join RealmDefense and everyone could discuss where the zergs were on which map. It would be a tremendous help. Alliances could be born and we could stand a better chance against our foes. It would be nice to have multi-server "alliances" for each week but I doubt we'll see that anytime soon. 

the last login timestamp seriously boggles my mind on why they couldn't put that in relatively easily with minimal work hours/time investment.  It seems like such a simple "core" part of the framework of any mmo game.  i see your points though, i was just thinking pitting the best servers against multiple servers would be the least amount of work for them and put into effect something fresh.  Creating more content is a huge time sink...it is great but takes lots of time to create/test/tweak/retest/launch/fix....lol

Sadly, anet prefers to prioritize investments in new PVE and SPVP content. WvW gets the back seat. Having multiple low-pop servers face off against a single high-pop server seems to make a lot of sense. Think about it, in SoR and other T1(ish) servers, one of the biggest issues is queues. In low pop servers, the problem is empty borderlands, which in my opinion is far worse. 

You should post your ideas on the official gw2 forums. I know anet reads them and occasionally responds. Anet actually just announced that they were changing wxp in wvw from being character bound to account bound, in spite of making statements in the past about DEFINITELY not making that change.  

First I just want to say - I do have fun in WvWvW - but there are so many things they could do to make it better and although I like your idea, I agree with Fog - they have a lot to work on and those ideas seem to be on the slow yak.  In other words - don't hold your breath because you will turn blue.  Yet, I also like idea of posting you idea on the official forums and hopefully they will read it.

Their Gem store design is biting them in the butt.  When they decided to allow spending gold to buy gems, it took a chunk out of their long-term profit goals.  The impact may not have been apparent at first, when they thought they could control the gold flow with an iron fist, but due to longevity as well as having to increase gold acquisition in order to keep players interested... its starting to show, you can see it in the Gems market fluctuations.

They should remove it, but its too late now.  A large number of players would dump this game if they could no longer spend gold to buy gems.  (Although I would love to see some numbers comparing real dollars to gold for gem purchases.)

So, we're stuck with a focus on content that attempts to encourage non-gold gem sales by offering more items than the average player will have available gold for.  

WvW is not that type of content, if it was people would cry about WvW being Pay to Win.

I'd love to go work for Anet, especially for their WvW team.  I've tossed around the idea a lot, but never taken the step.  Why?  Well, on one hand I could bring a lot to their table, but on the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reality would be that they wouldn't bother to listen to anyone "new", even someone with my level of experience with these games.

I actually experienced the opposite regarding gems. I initially bought gems with gold but after the rates got to high started using real money for them when needed. Maybe it is because I don't mind paying a little to support the game. Really though, I probably wouldn't have bought any with real money had I not gotten used to the idea by using in game resources first. (sorry for the rabbit trail)

I don't really have much use for gold so try to keep my bank at 50g or so in case I want a skin or something. The rest gets converted to gems every couple days. Gold depreciates in value rapidly. Gems don't. Worst case, I sell my gems back in the future for profit.