Guild Wars 2

When you capture camp, tower or keep you got counter of that color.
camp = 1 counter
tower = 3 counter
keep = 5 counter
When you have 10 or more counter of 1 color, you can’t deal damage to a player, NPC, gate or wall of that color.
To reduce counter you have to capture any objective of another color.

*We can adjust the number of counter, this is just an idea.

Logout, log back in.

“Solution” defeated.

2 v 1 is working as intended, in fact it would be nice if more servers did 2 v 1 the winning server instead of just focussing each other fighting for second. As for win trading which is not really a 2 v 1 thing, that is more a product of seasons and is a different problem.

The EoTM k-train could be fixed very easily by tying the rewards into winning the 3 hour matches instead of flipping empty objectives. Of course you would need to still give people karma, exp and gold for flipping but lower the amount. Instead give some new reward (or more karma/exp/gold) based on your colour’s placement at the end of the match. There would probably be a lot less PvD if the ppt actually meant something.

2v1 is ok and should be allow. Some small server need to team up to have a wining chance. I believe the problem you are facing is trading wins. Which is very much abuse in the current system.

blur.7905:

2v1 is ok and should be allow. Some small server need to team up to have a wining chance. I believe the problem you are facing is trading wins. Which is very much abuse in the current system.

Agreed. 2v1 at any other time fine. Trading wins as a way to manipulate point totals shouldn’t be allowed. But not much you can do about it overall. Anet can’t just go in and ban the servers. They can’t tell them stop. So everyone just needs to deal with it until Anet takes some smart pills and comes up with a real way to do this.

“Hey, server #2, we just capped server #3’s garri. Let’s send a few people to flip it every 4 mins to reduce our counters and keep RI up to prevent server #3 from ever capping it back.”

makken.1754:

“Hey, server #2, we just capped server #3’s garri. Let’s send a few people to flip it every 4 mins to reduce our counters and keep RI up to prevent server #3 from ever capping it back.”

Counter is personal counter and won’t go off when you log off or change character (like dishonorable buff)

The issue isn’t about 2v1, which is an intentional side effect of 3 sides fighting each other. The issue lies with two servers cheating via win trading. I imagine Arena Net is keeping track of the cheaters, and will ban them en masse once the tournament is done. This would result in Black Gate becoming the dominant NA server again, though.

nosleepdemon.1368:

The issue isn’t about 2v1, which is an intentional side effect of 3 sides fighting each other. The issue lies with two servers cheating via win trading. I imagine Arena Net is keeping track of the cheaters, and will ban them en masse once the tournament is done. This would result in Black Gate becoming the dominant NA server again, though.

Do not mention he who shall not be named… This will then turn into a matchup thread.

Hey I didn’t mention any cheaters…

nosleepdemon.1368:

The issue isn’t about 2v1, which is an intentional side effect of 3 sides fighting each other. The issue lies with two servers cheating via win trading. I imagine Arena Net is keeping track of the cheaters, and will ban them en masse once the tournament is done. This would result in Black Gate becoming the dominant NA server again, though.

If you think Anet is going to ban two whole servers you are sadly mistaken, they dont even ban blatant hackers. If they want to avoid this in the third season they need to fix the tournament system. Better yet they could stop having seasons or at least tying the rewards into server placement. It might be nice to have one season where everybody doesnt transfer a week before the season starts.

IMO it is fair to 2v1 the leader in tournament, but not 2v1 all the time bcos 2 servers hate 1 server.

So how about adjusting the max counters.
If Green is #1 Blue #2 Red #3
You can’t deal damage to green if you have 10 green counters.
You can’t deal damage to blue if you have 9 blue counters.
You can’t deal damage to red if you have 8 red counters.

This way the counter will force servers to attack the leader more than 2nd or 3rd place.

KumaTazZ.8054:

IMO it is fair to 2v1 the leader in tournament, but not 2v1 all the time bcos 2 servers hate 1 server.

So how about adjusting the max counters.
If Green is #1 Blue #2 Red #3
You can’t deal damage to green if you have 10 green counters.
You can’t deal damage to blue if you have 9 blue counters.
You can’t deal damage to red if you have 8 red counters.

This way the counter will force servers to attack the leader more than 2nd or 3rd place.

I have a better idea; take your idea but roll it into how many guilds/players one server has in over another..

If Green is #1 Blue #2 Red #3

Give 1 counter for each guild and 1 counter for each 50 WvW players one server has over another. Also give another counter for every guild that transferred over to another server 6 weeks prior to a WvW season starting.

Hard to follow? Not so much, it would look like this

Lets say the “Red” server has 10 guilds that transfer to it but lose 1, that would give them 9 counters. Suppose both green and red has 3 guilds transfer to them between them.. this would bring the overall counter to 6 to red.

Now suppose red, has 24/7 coverage across the board and Anet calculates it at Red has an average of about 200 more WvW players than the other servers, well that’s another 4 counters. (now were at 10).

Suppose Red also has 6 more active WvW guilds than Blue or green, that would bring their counters to 16.

Let’s change the name “counters” to “fair play ticks” If your fair play ticks reach 10, you can no longer capture any structures, and the moment your fair play ticks hits 10, all structures owned become neutral. Your overall war score gets sliced in half. The only way the fair play ticks diminish is if Blue or Green have enough guilds to transfer to them to balance it out + have enough WvW players to reduce Red’s fair play ticks. Either that, or Red’s guilds and players transfer to another server.

Sound fair? I actually like this idea, it would certainly stop one server from over-stacking.

nosleepdemon.1368:

The issue isn’t about 2v1, which is an intentional side effect of 3 sides fighting each other. The issue lies with two servers cheating via win trading. I imagine Arena Net is keeping track of the cheaters, and will ban them en masse once the tournament is done. This would result in Black Gate becoming the dominant NA server again, though.

#bgdreams

Seriously it isn’t even win trading. Nobody wants to be 2v1ed. If TC gets multiple wins in a row there is no point to 2v1ing BG and they target turns to TC. JQ will get the same treatment if JQ wins multiple times. Just how tournaments work. To keep up the 2v1 this dynamic is at play where neither side wants to win multiple times.

I have a suggestion: each time that a BG player gives us a suggestion to change the rules of WvW because of the 2v1, he should give a suggestion too for the situation where the coverage and numbers of a server is unbeatable.

lmperdigao.2567:

I have a suggestion: each time that a BG player gives us a suggestion to change the rules of WvW because of the 2v1, he should give a suggestion too for the situation where the coverage and numbers of a server is unbeatable.

It is very hard to fix the coverage problem as some time zone have lesser player. Some player can play longer hours. As for the numbers problem i would suggest a fix number of free transfer depending on the server wvw size. Big wvw server have their problem too Queue and guild not able to get in and play together in the same map. The current system of every server have 4 battle ground just make the problem worst. Server should be able to fight in the number of battle ground they are comfortable in. Bigger server can have more battle ground as they have more player. This would will at less keep the map battle more balance.

So what happens in the lower teirs during the weeks where fights on the borderland tend to be 1v1…

Soon neither side can hurt the other until they leave?

This idea is so terrible all around.

I find that most of the people advocating 2v1s come from the servers organized enough to arrange them.

The problem with 2v1 in the game right now is that on NA side, it tends to be the 1st and 3rd server vs the 2nd. I never saw 3 way fights having this intention. 2v1 would logically be two weaker servers vs the strong server. Instead, it’s the weak server and strong server brokering a deal to nullify the 2nd server. This gives the third server a 2nd place and makes it even more easy mode for the strongest server.

Basically, the community screwed it up.

etiolate.9185:

The problem with 2v1 in the game right now is that on NA side, it tends to be the 1st and 3rd server vs the 2nd.

Not with the recent T1 alliance.

blur.7905:

lmperdigao.2567:

I have a suggestion: each time that a BG player gives us a suggestion to change the rules of WvW because of the 2v1, he should give a suggestion too for the situation where the coverage and numbers of a server is unbeatable.

It is very hard to fix the coverage problem

~BG player~

Not if they quit having seasons/tournaments offering rewards.

morrolan.9608:

etiolate.9185:

The problem with 2v1 in the game right now is that on NA side, it tends to be the 1st and 3rd server vs the 2nd.

Not with the recent T1 alliance.

Doesn’t that depend on which week it is?

FearedbytheGods.8617:

blur.7905:

lmperdigao.2567:

I have a suggestion: each time that a BG player gives us a suggestion to change the rules of WvW because of the 2v1, he should give a suggestion too for the situation where the coverage and numbers of a server is unbeatable.

It is very hard to fix the coverage problem

~BG player~

Well this is not helping at all, at less I did give some suggestion on how to reduce the number different between server. Do you have any suggestion to fix the coverage problem?

Honestly, next season.. The 1 server in the 2v1 can make an alliance with another server… I bet that will be the case.

blur.7905:

FearedbytheGods.8617:

blur.7905:

lmperdigao.2567:

I have a suggestion: each time that a BG player gives us a suggestion to change the rules of WvW because of the 2v1, he should give a suggestion too for the situation where the coverage and numbers of a server is unbeatable.

It is very hard to fix the coverage problem

~BG player~

Well this is not helping at all, at less I did give some suggestion on how to reduce the number different between server. Do you have any suggestion to fix the coverage problem?

As a matter of fact I do. How about you and all BG posters crying about 2v1 transfer to a T2 server, where (1) you won’t get 2v1 anymore, (2) T1 starts to become balanced again. Take some steps yourself in rebalancing the game, instead of crying when the odds start becoming against you because other servers have figured a strategy against your over-stacking server. Once you balance T1, there would be no incentive for the other two servers to 2v1 you anymore, as long as every server has a fair chance to win.

To be honest the mistake made in the WvW battle with the endless 2v1’ing is that the season is actually pushing the servers to dualpush. If the top server wants to stay on top, he’ll have to focus on his concurrent (the middle server), the bottom server doesn’t have any intention in winning the matchup, because the top server is just much stronger then their own server, so the best thing they can do is to go for 2nd place.

If everyone is just acting on a rational way, the top and down server should basically always attack the second place, which is in my opinion a fundamental misstake in this whole tournament.

I don’t think the 1v1v1 has worked since DaoC

grifflyman.8102:

I don’t think the 1v1v1 has worked since DaoC

Thanks for mentioning DaoC. I think the 1 v 1 v 1 was more clearly defined there because of the lores of Albion v Hibernia v Midgard. Each side had a unique culture, but in this game all the races are mixed together and servers can be populated with any of the races. Makes you wonder what might happen if they separated out the races in WvW (Human v Charr v Sylvari v Norn v Asura).

I’ve created a separate thread to discuss that idea https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/What-if-WvW-were-Race-vs-Race-instead/

Isaac.6041:

grifflyman.8102:

I don’t think the 1v1v1 has worked since DaoC

Thanks for mentioning DaoC. I think the 1 v 1 v 1 was more clearly defined there because of the lores of Albion v Hibernia v Midgard. Each side had a unique culture, but in this game all the races are mixed together and servers can be populated with any of the races. Makes you wonder what might happen if they separated out the races in WvW (Human v Charr v Sylvari v Norn v Asura).

I’ve created a separate thread to discuss that idea https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/What-if-WvW-were-Race-vs-Race-instead/

Server identity was a really big thing when GW2 first came out, but now it’s pretty much a joke with megaservers and how often people jump ship for the next great WvW server.

What they need to do is designate all the servers into three factions, for example:

10 servers into the “Phoenix”
10 servers into the “Turtle”
10 servers into the “Rabbit”

hyman.7526:

blur.7905:

FearedbytheGods.8617:

blur.7905:

lmperdigao.2567:

I have a suggestion: each time that a BG player gives us a suggestion to change the rules of WvW because of the 2v1, he should give a suggestion too for the situation where the coverage and numbers of a server is unbeatable.

It is very hard to fix the coverage problem

~BG player~

Well this is not helping at all, at less I did give some suggestion on how to reduce the number different between server. Do you have any suggestion to fix the coverage problem?

As a matter of fact I do. How about you and all BG posters crying about 2v1 transfer to a T2 server, where (1) you won’t get 2v1 anymore, (2) T1 starts to become balanced again. Take some steps yourself in rebalancing the game, instead of crying when the odds start becoming against you because other servers have figured a strategy against your over-stacking server. Once you balance T1, there would be no incentive for the other two servers to 2v1 you anymore, as long as every server has a fair chance to win.

1) I think I have make my point clear.
2v1 is ok and should be allow. Some small server need to team up to have a wining chance. I believe the problem you are facing is trading wins.

2) There will never be fair in the current WvW system. All server is of different size and coverage. The problem is not only on BG. All the bigger server draw player from smaller server.

3) To me T1 top 3 server is the most balance. I would not say they are of the same size and coverage. But the gap between them is smaller compare to other servers. Week 1 result show clearly that any server have a chance to win. It is clearly much more balance than the current trading win we are having now. If you dislike unbalance and hate coverage problem you will not create or take part in this trading win which create a bigger unbalance in T1.

blur.7905:

3) To me T1 top 3 server is the most balance. I would not say they are of the same size and coverage. But the gap between them is smaller compare to other servers. Week 1 result show clearly that any server have a chance to win. It is clearly much more balance than the current trading win we are having now. If you dislike unbalance and hate coverage problem you will not create or take part in this trading win which create a bigger unbalance in T1.

I think it was pretty clear to anyone playing in T1 during in week 1 that Blackgate was the only server with good 24/7 coverage and that playing the matchups as every man for himself was just going to give them an easy win and the other two servers would be fighting for 3rd and 5th due to the design of the tournament. Blackgate romping away with an easy tournament victory did not equal a balanced competition in the minds of players on the other two servers so this lead to a temporary and very shaky alliance between JQ and TC for three weeks of the tournament that resulted in BG losing those 3 weeks.

Now two weeks from the end of the tournament can you honestly say who is going to be the overall winner? This is the only league in the whole of NA and EU that hasn’t already been decided and it likely won’t be until the last week. This is a good thing.

I would agree with what you say. The main problem is the way the tournament work. I can understand that the only way for JQ and TC to keep up their alliance is to trade win or keep their score close. What are your thoughts on trading win? Is it match manipulation? Should it be allow in the current wvw system? Will more server come together to trade win to secure their ranking?

Only issue i see with this intended 2v1 personally is if in a matchup where all 3 servers are almost equal…they still 2v1 another server. I don’t see the “2 lower servers trying to beat the bigger one” in that thing. It’s completely something else then what was intended. And if u 2v1 in a matchup where they are very balanced it will always result in the third server loosing whatever the tactics they apply (literally always…it’s a 100% guaranteed loss)….because wvw is a numbers game. This in time will destabilize the matchup.

2v1 works for ex in the case of 2xT2 servers against 1xT1 server. That’s what was intended in the first place.

Apart from abusing a system that was intended to be aimed at lower servers not equal servers, i find 2v1 a nice thing for WvW…but again, read what i said above.

2v1 is a double edged sword system. U risk to 100% guarantee the destabilizing of a server in an equal matchup because of how easy and risk-free it is to abuse the system.

Now if we could only get a few servers to “out coverage” BG, then we could have 200 posts a week about how “coverage is unfair”…..