Guild Wars 2

Well, since even breathing a few acronyms having to do with specific servers instantly turned into toxic forums redux, let’s try this again.

Anet, since 1v1v1 is inherently unstable as a level playing field, can I suggest a 2v2 WvW instead of 1v1v1. Have two servers be in alliance against two others each week. This would be the best of all worlds. It would keep server loyalty alive, continue the fun of server politics, mix up the situation to make it interesting, and not rely so much on victory by vote.

Yeah, I got it, you already built HoT. Maybe you can file this somewhere to consider later.

2v2 with servers in alliance with each other is the same as 1v1. You would also get the wierd situation where one week a server is “allied” with you, then the next week they are suddenly your enemy while your current enemy may be next weeks ally. It wouldnt work. It would mess up “server politics” so bad. Right now, we know who the enemy is – everyone that’s not your server. Simple and effective.

I think this is a horrible ides for technical reasons.

It would require lowering the cap per side, per map, which means all of my guild couldn’t play together on one map, or suffer more lag. Both are terrible options in my opinion.

I think 3 sides are just right, and I have seen no reasonable argument that gives me even the slightest hint of a reason to change it.

I think instead of changing it from 1v1v1 to a 2v2 because there are now 4 NA T1 servers, maybe the players on those overstacked servers should drop down to T2 and T3 to make nine equal servers to get a similar situation to what’s in EU currently.

i think we should do a 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 personally, or 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 for eu

edit: ohhh, i got my sig back :O

Servers can’t handle that.

How is 1v1v1 inherently unstable and 2v2 somehow not?

Caedmon.6798:

Servers can’t handle that.

I tend to think they should reduce the maximum number of people in WvW, anyway.

It’s often laggy to the point of unplayability, as it is.

I realise that would probably cause further issues with queues, but that is an issue that should be looked at anyway, with the currently full tier 1 servers.

I don’t know all the details, but it’s possible they need to somehow allow more servers into the top tier, so there are fewer people trying to join a few already full servers and so there is less strain on the system.

OP, I agree that wvwvw, although a nice idea, doesn’t really work very well.

I’m on JQ and until recently, TC and BG would pretty much constantly gang up on us.

They would almost never fight each other; only us.

JQ may have been, on average, stronger than either of them individually, but we were obviously never going to be as strong as 2 servers playing as 1.

I haven’t done much “real” WvW recently, but when I did some, JQ and BG (which, apparently, are full of people who play for both sides and also, often, for TC) appeared to now be ganging up on YB.

It’s a mess, frankly.

Chaba.5410:

How is 1v1v1 inherently unstable and 2v2 somehow not?

Presumably, 2v2 would be two servers on the same side vs another two servers on the other side?

So, presumably, it would be 1v1 to all intents and purposes?

As each server couldn’t fight the other server on the same side?

Even if it was wvwvwvw, though, it would still probably be less uneven.

As it’s less likely that people would coordinate 3 servers to intentionally gang-up on 1, all the time.

Unless the 3 servers in question were incredibly weak and the 1 was incredibly strong.

Which is, presumably, less likely than the current (fairly typical) situation of 1 being a little stronger than the other 2.

I guess you might still get 2v1 in that situation, but if you did, you would run the risk of the other 2 servers ganging up on you (and their 2 server alliance might well be stronger than yours).

Of course, while people can play as many sides as they like, simultaneously, it’s never going to be anywhere near as fair, or balanced, as it should be, but still.

I wish there was a deathmatch map that was free for all so that you could even kill allies. Food /stacks everything and anything is permitted. And a score tab of the top 10 highest killers is kept. Friendly fire off.

SpitfireIXA.1807:

Well, since even breathing a few acronyms having to do with specific servers instantly turned into toxic forums redux, let’s try this again.

Anet, since 1v1v1 is inherently unstable as a level playing field, can I suggest a 2v2 WvW instead of 1v1v1. Have two servers be in alliance against two others each week. This would be the best of all worlds. It would keep server loyalty alive, continue the fun of server politics, mix up the situation to make it interesting, and not rely so much on victory by vote.

Yeah, I got it, you already built HoT. Maybe you can file this somewhere to consider later.

If you cant handle Tier 1, don’t bother pushing for it.

Fuzzion.2504:

I wish there was a deathmatch map that was free for all so that you could even kill allies. Food /stacks everything and anything is permitted. And a score tab of the top 10 highest killers is kept. Friendly fire off.

That would be fun. WTB Open-World PK.

T1 need to take them training wheels off and put on their big boy pants. For shame

A 3-way battle was created because it was believed that a 1v1 situation could be terribly imbalanced. And in a 1v1 if one of the servers is much stronger then there is no way for the weaker server to do anything.

It was thought that in a 1v1v1 situation that if one server was much stronger that the other two servers could gang up on it. So 2v1’s were anticipated to happen. However the 2v1’s that actually occur are not against the stronger server. So it is not working as intended.

The reason that its not working as intended is because there is no incentive to attack the stronger server. In fact, with the way Glicko works, there is an incentive to attack the weaker server.

The solution is for Anet to put in an incentive to attack the stronger server instead of the weaker one. That way you could have proper 2v1’s form and WvW would be much more balanced and fun.

Unfortunately its been 3 years and nothing has been done on this front even though it has been pointed out since launch. So don’t expect anything to change.

Johje Holan.4607:

The solution is for Anet to put in an incentive to attack the stronger server instead of the weaker one. That way you could have proper 2v1’s form and WvW would be much more balanced and fun.

Unfortunately its been 3 years and nothing has been done on this front even though it has been pointed out since launch. So don’t expect anything to change.

This is not a solution. it is a very bad suggestion. Artificially rewarding certain servers and not others, is a horrible idea. Only winning should offer any reward.

Why institute bad ideas or suggestions, simply because it has been three years?

dancingmonkey.4902:

Johje Holan.4607:

The solution is for Anet to put in an incentive to attack the stronger server instead of the weaker one. That way you could have proper 2v1’s form and WvW would be much more balanced and fun.

Unfortunately its been 3 years and nothing has been done on this front even though it has been pointed out since launch. So don’t expect anything to change.

This is not a solution. it is a very bad suggestion. Artificially rewarding certain servers and not others, is a horrible idea. Only winning should offer any reward.

Why institute bad ideas or suggestions, simply because it has been three years?

Its a good idea. And its not artificially rewarding certain servers. Its rewarding certain actions in a match. Just like certain actions in the match are rewarded now.

It would attempt to mitigate the natural imbalance in a match. And this is exactly what Anet intended to happen. It just didn’t work out like they planned because of human nature. And Glicko.

If they would’ve instituted something like this at launch or early on it would’ve preserved a much more active WvW.

Now I admit if this were done then a different matchmaking scheme would need to be put into place. Because it would mess with the Glicko ratings of servers. And this is one reason I think Anet didn’t do it.

SpitfireIXA.1807:

Anet, since 1v1v1 is inherently unstable as a level playing field

WvW is not supposed to be a level playing field. 2v1s are supposed to happen.

Keira Ferland.5619:

SpitfireIXA.1807:

Anet, since 1v1v1 is inherently unstable as a level playing field

WvW is not supposed to be a level playing field. 2v1s are supposed to happen.

Yes, for several weeks now, FA and SoS have been 2v1 first by YB, then BG, and now TC, just like WvW is supposed to be.

Swamurabi.7890:

Keira Ferland.5619:

SpitfireIXA.1807:

Anet, since 1v1v1 is inherently unstable as a level playing field

WvW is not supposed to be a level playing field. 2v1s are supposed to happen.

Yes, for several weeks now, FA and SoS have been 2v1 first by YB, then BG, and now TC, just like WvW is supposed to be.

How can 2 servers be 2v1’d in a 3 server matchup?

I agree that this destructive gameplay by the player base is caused by the glicko system.

As in previous threads a 1 up, 1 down system would put and end to both glicko manipulation and match stagnation. While also giving and actual meaning to first, second, and third place finishes.

Keira Ferland.5619:

Swamurabi.7890:

Keira Ferland.5619:

SpitfireIXA.1807:

Anet, since 1v1v1 is inherently unstable as a level playing field

WvW is not supposed to be a level playing field. 2v1s are supposed to happen.

Yes, for several weeks now, FA and SoS have been 2v1 first by YB, then BG, and now TC, just like WvW is supposed to be.

How can 2 servers be 2v1’d in a 3 server matchup?

Just look at the last month of NA T2 matchups and you’ll see how 2 servers can be on the wrong end of a 2v1. It also happens frequently in NA T8.

displayname.8315:

I agree that this destructive gameplay by the player base is caused by the glicko system.

As in previous threads a 1 up, 1 down system would put and end to both glicko manipulation and match stagnation. While also giving and actual meaning to first, second, and third place finishes.

With the differences in population/coverage between tiers in NA, a one up one down system has been shown (see tournament season 2 and 3) that every other week is a three tier matchup, which actually keeps players away from WvW.

I saw and played in both of those seasons. Neither of those where 1 up 1 down.

Can someone please explain to me why the coverage gaps from 2 years ago are being used as current figures for server population?

Overstacking is a thing of the past, anet wasn’t about to boot people but they can only shrink now

displayname.8315:

I saw and played in both of those seasons. Neither of those where 1 up 1 down.

Can someone please explain to me why the coverage gaps from 2 years ago are being used as current figures for server population?

Overstacking is a thing of the past, anet wasn’t about to boot people but they can only shrink now

We haven’t played in a 1u1d tournament, but season 2, since it was longer, eventually stabilized into a 1u1d format. Season 3 had the same scoring and started to stabilize into 1u1d.

As for overstacking, it may be a thing of the past, but based upon FA going from full to very high and the relative scores of NA T2 the past month, the four NA overstacked servers need to lose a significant number of players before they reach the lowest level of full.

This isn’t an awful idea.
But instead of 2v2 I’d suggest 2v2v2, Highest/lowest server in a group paired together.
1st and 24th, 2nd and 23rd, 3rd and 22nd.