Guild Wars 2

I think it’s time we had a discussion about this shameful practice. I’ve been playing WvW since launch and have witnessed multiple incidents of intentional double-teaming. Sometimes servers unintentionally hit the same target, but I’m talking about commanders from two servers colluding to gang up on the third server. I’ve never done it and I think it should be considered dishonorable and tantamount to cheating. The whole point of WvW is that it’s a 3 way match up. It’s gotten to the point where I think Anet should implement some changes to help discourage this kind of knavery. This recent match up (I won’t mention servers) I was shocked because one server approached us to team up against the third server. Our noble commanders declined. Then the server that approached us teamed up with the other server to “get us back” for not teaming up with them. As if we were offending them by NOT wanting to cheat. It’s gone too far.

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on what can be done to prevent or discourage teaming up. Can it be fixed? Should it be fixed? Is it cheating? Discuss…

The whole point of a 3 way match is the weaker sides join and take on the bigger foe if the need arises. Else there would be only 2 sides.

I kind of wish the player base would start encouraging double teaming tbh. Its the basic point of making a 3 way match.
Cross server communication to arrange it is vaguely dumb imo, it should just be an unspoken understanding thakittens a good strategy

Weaker two servers should team up against dominating one in the extend they can. If they gain enough momentum they will automatically dismantle their “treaty” and attack each other. It is hard to even gain unity among server – red name is a red name and it is an enemy.

Double teaming is only problem when strongerst and weakliest server join and stomp middle server.
But its just how 3-way fight works sometimes. Its normal. Not fair, but normal.

but what happened was usually the 2nd strongest server would attack the weakest server instead, because (they know) they do not have the strength to take on the no.1 strongest server of the 3…..

hence 2v1 is usually against the weakest server….

its just not a competitive format, more like a schoolyard bullying kids format with constant 2v1 and a milion ways to set it up.

azizul.8469:

but what happened was usually the 2nd strongest server would attack the weakest server instead, because (they know) they do not have the strength to take on the no.1 strongest server of the 3…..

hence 2v1 is usually against the weakest server….

Not really, most of the times, 1st attacks 2nd because of bigger treat. But it also depends on overall strength of those servers.
If 2nd is almost as good as 1st than 1st attacks 2nd. If 1st is far to better than 2nd, then 2nd and 3rd are defending and if attack than attack themselves because they dont have numbers for 1st.

I don’t understand how it is cheating, or bullying for that matter. It makes sound common sense, even when it is the 2 strongest against the weakest.

It’s happening all the time in WvWvW – even when it isn’t intended. The very fact that there are 3 servers involved. If it wasn’t like that, the weakest server would never have an opportunity to get points.

Have you ever been involved in a 3-way where the 2nd strongest is beating down on Strongest server’s Keep’s front door while the the weakest server sneaks in through the back door and caps? Best feeling in the world! Is it double teaming? Hell yea! Was it intended? Of course not!

I don’t really care about double teaming, sometimes it makes things interesting. However, the middle server can get kittened because the third server can’t attack the strongest and the strongest is trying to keep a possible threat from the second place server at arm’s length which leaves the weakest to gobble up the remains that the middle server can’t defend. If this is what is happening to you guys, I can understand why you might be upset.

There are two types of ‘double-teaming’. The first is when two servers find it most useful to both attack the third, while leaving each other alone. There can be any number of reasons for this: that server is weakest at the time; they want to flip upgrades on certain keeps/towers; that server has too much ppt; or, quite commonly, just because they can see that the other (of the two servers) is attacking the third server, so they know it’s a good time for them to do so as well. This sort of double-teaming is, I think, very much what was intended in WvWvW.

The other sort of double-teaming involves communication between two servers. It can potentially be organised and involve coordination. This sort of double-teaming is rather more controversial. I, personally, am against it.

The problem, of course, is that, unless you have some evidence of communication, it’s very hard to tell whether the double-teaming that is going on is the first type or the second type. I’ve noticed a tendency for people to assume that it’s the second.

Here’s a little story,

Once upon a time there was a game play format in the land of Tyria called World vs World were two worlds would fight on a magical plane to proof who was the best. The 6 gods found out quickly that once one world gained so many points the others on the opposite side would go home and stop playing in the war games.

So the gods came up with a plan to add another world to mix up the game play, have the fights be more dynamic and unpredictable and the weaker worlds stood a chance against their stronger. This new plane of magical plane of existence would now be called World vs World vs World. Where teaming up and not giving up was promoted.

The End.

So many interviews and writings from Anet stating they made WvWvW they way is now from Alpha testing, so cross communication and teaming up is possible and intended. I am sorry to the original poster, but maybe Structured PvP would be a better format for you, where its 1 team vs 1 team.

Cheating is when you fly over a wall, not when you give a wink to your opponent and turn on the third guy for a few hits. Not much of a wrestling fan or Nascar (racing in general)?

I’ll use Nascar, they have team mates (other cars) out on the track they will help each other when need be, but when near the end of the race its every man for them selves.

This is an MMO, its about being social. W3 brings a unique aspect of getting to know others from a different server. So do the dungeons, which is awesome. Also whole servers alliances? It’s more a few guilds work together and have an understanding. To suggest a server and its hundreds of commanders can control thousands of players 24/7 is just, tin foil hat time.

In closing everyone is free to express how they feel and I hope both sides of the discussion is being typed. This is just my opinion on the matter and how I feel about this topic when is brought up.

azizul.8469:

but what happened was usually the 2nd strongest server would attack the weakest server instead, because (they know) they do not have the strength to take on the no.1 strongest server of the 3…..

hence 2v1 is usually against the weakest server….

And this is where the weakest team needs to be more felexible. Sooner or later either server #1 will view #2 as a threat and turn on them, or #2 will want to take the #1 spot. At his point the #3 server can then join in on the attackers and make a 2v1 in their favour

Assume a match A – B – C, A and B are nearly equal strong and C is much weaker as it has much less man power and no queue.

Some loyal guilds of B decide to switch to C, with that they can fight A additionally to Bs manpower instead of waiting in Bs queue. B and these C-mercs together clearly out man A, which is bound by it’s queue.

Valid tactic that anyone with some spare diamonds should use or cheating?

survivor: wvw edition. i say no holds barred. alliances and betrayals are parts of war

Entropy.4732:

I think it’s time we had a discussion about this shameful practice. I’ve been playing WvW since launch and have witnessed multiple incidents of intentional double-teaming. Sometimes servers unintentionally hit the same target, but I’m talking about commanders from two servers colluding to gang up on the third server. I’ve never done it and I think it should be considered dishonorable and tantamount to cheating. The whole point of WvW is that it’s a 3 way match up. It’s gotten to the point where I think Anet should implement some changes to help discourage this kind of knavery. This recent match up (I won’t mention servers) I was shocked because one server approached us to team up against the third server. Our noble commanders declined. Then the server that approached us teamed up with the other server to “get us back” for not teaming up with them. As if we were offending them by NOT wanting to cheat. It’s gone too far.

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on what can be done to prevent or discourage teaming up. Can it be fixed? Should it be fixed? Is it cheating? Discuss…

LOL….

It’s not cheating… lol

What’s a double team precious? What’s a double team? I have no idea what your talking about.

I’m not completely against double teaming, for the reasons people have stated before.

What i think is ruining wvw is skill lag from blobs (if the servers can’t take it, Anet should do something to prevent blobs) and night capping (mainly night capping).

Dayra.7405:

Valid tactic that anyone with some spare diamonds should use or cheating?

Perfectly valid tactic. With the bonus that Server C benefits from an influx of a guild, who might decide to stay after the match-up because they enjoyed the freedom of getting on without queues.

If you need your hand held with fair and balanced carebear XvX matches, you should maybe go check out sPvP or tPvP. They also have no food buffs and extremely simplified equipment so all of your build decisions can be made for you.

But real men go to war.
And in war, sometimes you just have to fight two opponents at once and still win to tell the tale.

To conclude this post seriously and without mocking: sPvP exists for balanced matches, Anet said from the very conception of WvW that wasn’t going to be as balanced as a competitive part of the game. The opportunity to 2v1, make alliances, and other things that supersede the mundane RunToTower → Lay Siege → Maybe Defend Siege → BreakDoor → CaptureTower → RunToNextObjective → Repeat gameplay that WvW is pretty much otherwise.

I’ve always been a strong advocate of the social gameplay aspect of wvw, which basically includes any strategy that isn’t directly combat oriented. If I wanted faceless enemies who I had no impact on, I would be in PvE.

Postscript: I got sidetracked somewhere, but I’m posting it anyway.

The game has been out almost a year. Do you really think that commanders or even players on opposing sides haven’t opened up lines of communication to each other???

Double teaming can only last so long. In the end it has to stop because one way or another one of the servers doing the double teaming is going to hurt because of it and in the end each server needs to do what is best for themselves and/or they will find themselves mismatched without an allied server.

jdmThor.3806:

survivor: wvw edition. i say no holds barred. alliances and betrayals are parts of war

Sadly that is quite the truth of it really and sums it up very nicely.

@OP Yeah the double team can be annoying at times but you know deep down you want the loot bags like the rest of us do.

A proper double team is the most fair, honorable and fun thing that can happen in a match. This would be a double team by two weaker servers against the stronger one.

Any other kind is just lame and weak.

I have no problem with a natural, unintended targeting of a larger server by the other two servers or a spur of the moment “Look they are attacking SM, let’s attack the other side and try to weaken it’s defenses… etc.” What I have a problem with is commanders from two different servers having communication and agreeing ahead of time through email to work together to destroy another server. Yes, that is a form of cheating and it gets really ugly. I recall this happening awhile back and looking out into a super army sea of two mixed servers all standing next to each other not attacking, camping our spawn.

And I hate to break it to you, but MOST of the double teaming I’ve seen is NOT between two weaker servers who are like, “Let’s get the big guy!” Most of them are a team up of the 1st and 2nd place server to get the weakest server. This scenario is what actually precipitated my posting here.

The dynamic goes something like this: The 2nd server panics because the 3rd server is gaining ground, threatening to over take them. The 2nd server makes a deal with the devil (the 1st server) in order to team up against the weaker, upstart server (3rd) in order to wipe them from the map and preserve their second place slot.

No one can convince me that Anet intended commanders sending emails to eachother to gang up on the weakest server. That’s total bunk. Say what you will, but ethically I think double-teaming is wrong. The best WvW set up is a good 3-way fight to the death!

Get a crew that is dedicated to sieging and defending stuff. Basically aim to siege cap every inch of every keep with arrow carts and then get people with 3 to 5 points in AC mastery to man them. Anybody that has less than 28k health and 3.2k armor should fall dead instantly if they walk into arrow cart range of your keeps. Once you guys wipe both zergs with arrow carts 2-3 times, they’ll eventually get tired of it and attack each other.

Oh and build counter trebs where possible so that you can kill any catas that get put up. Have a strike force ready to go take out any trebs that they build that can’t be countered trebbed like trebbing lake from hills.

Finally, come on the forums and post videos of your server wiping both zergs at the same time multiple times.

I mean you understand the design of the borderlands maps right? They are INTENDED to be 2v1 against the HOME bl…

Eternal is the only map intended to be a 3 way fight.

It’s not about the 2 weaker servers ganging up on the stronger server. It’s simply the logistics of the BL’s except Eternal.

Gamadorn.2659:

I mean you understand the design of the borderlands maps right? They are INTENDED to be 2v1 against the HOME bl…

Eternal is the only map intended to be a 3 way fight.

It’s not about the 2 weaker servers ganging up on the stronger server. It’s simply the logistics of the BL’s except Eternal.

Again, no one is talking about design or unintentional double-teaming. I have ZERO problem with that. We are talking about INTENDED coordination in RL between Commanders. Nuff said.

Entropy.4732:

Gamadorn.2659:

I mean you understand the design of the borderlands maps right? They are INTENDED to be 2v1 against the HOME bl…

Eternal is the only map intended to be a 3 way fight.

It’s not about the 2 weaker servers ganging up on the stronger server. It’s simply the logistics of the BL’s except Eternal.

Again, no one is talking about design or unintentional double-teaming. I have ZERO problem with that. We are talking about INTENDED coordination in RL between Commanders. Nuff said.

K…. so it isn’t changing, so adapt and learn how to deal with being double teamed. Escort your dolyacs to get walls/gates upgraded, build siege, and so on.

Entropy.4732:

The dynamic goes something like this: The 2nd server panics because the 3rd server is gaining ground, threatening to over take them. The 2nd server makes a deal with the devil (the 1st server) in order to team up against the weaker, upstart server (3rd) in order to wipe them from the map and preserve their second place slot.

Well yeah that is cowardly.

I don’t have a problem with it. Part of war and all that. Preferably it would be the two losing servers against the winning one, to balance out some of these lopsided matches we’ve been having. But obviously it doesn’t always go that way, which is unfortunate.

Of course rarely if ever is there an actual server agreement. It isn’t some Yalta conference where alliances are forged. Usually it’s two or a handful of commanders collaborating (hey, don’t hit us and we won’t hit you!), but it’s usually a limited time offer. This ceasefire/truce/alliance is usually limited to one map, and/or only lasts a few hours, at which point one of the collaborators leaves, and somebody decides the time is ripe to break the agreement (or someone else who doesn’t know there is an agreement does something), and everything goes back to normal.

As for whether it’s actually against the rules and what Anet intends, I really have no idea. The very first time I tried WvW a guildmate was complaining about how badly we were getting stomped. I asked why we didn’t team up with the other losing server that was also getting stomped and team up. He told me he thought it was against the rules, but when I looked into it I saw a lot of vague wording, and pages upon pages of people arguing about it.

I personally would rather like to explore the more diplomacy-esque side of things, with all the alliances, spying, counter-intelligence, betrayals, backstabbing, and other interesting opportunities that entails. But it seems like only a minority of the playerbase is also interested, and it’s “legality” is questionable.

Figulus.2709:

But it seems like only a minority of the playerbase is also interested, and it’s “legality” is questionable.

Yes only a minority of the playerbase is interested in it – but the interest is growing. I’ve been trying to get people to do it for a very long time. And I’ve heard more in support of a 2v1 against the strongest server since the matchmaking system changed than I have in all the previous months since launch.

That’s one thing I’m hoping the new matchmaking system does – encourage proper 2v1’s against the stronger server. It makes an unbalanced match so much more fun.

As to the “legality” – it is actually supported by Anet and they have said that this is one of the reasons for having 3 servers in a match. Its one reason it is WvWvW and not just WvW.

3 way faction is supposed to stop the top server from overwhelming the other two. Except that NEVER HAPPENS, it is always a double team on the 2nd server or the 3rd server.

pot.6805:

3 way faction is supposed to stop the top server from overwhelming the other two. Except that NEVER HAPPENS, it is always a double team on the 2nd server or the 3rd server.

Because commanders on the 2nd or 3rd server disagree and dont want to hit the top server. So it ends up being 2nd or 3rd getting double teamed all cause someone has too much “Pride” and “Honor”

While I’d agree that alliances are not particularly honorable, it’s a subjective opinion.

In general, I really don’t get all these posts about how it’s “supposed to work”. You are supposed to try to win, or at least improve your lot. That’s what the score tells you. Maybe that can involve an alliance… maybe it doesn’t. It depends on the situation.

The funny thing about the alliances I’ve seen in WvW is that they mostly benefit one server in the matchup. The best part is reading all the rhetoric in the forums whereby the benefactors of the alliance tries to convince the lackey that the alliance is in their best interest.

Banzie.5248:

pot.6805:

3 way faction is supposed to stop the top server from overwhelming the other two. Except that NEVER HAPPENS, it is always a double team on the 2nd server or the 3rd server.

Because commanders on the 2nd or 3rd server disagree and dont want to hit the top server. So it ends up being 2nd or 3rd getting double teamed all cause someone has too much “Pride” and “Honor”

Where I come from “Pride” and “Honor” are good things. I fight fair, I play fair, I don’t game the system, look for exploits, pull sketchy moves, cheat, steal, or anything of the kind. I’m one of those rare people who still pays for music and movies on the internet.

What’s interesting is that this debate has been raging since the birth of actual war throughout the ages. The two arguments are always the same. One side argues that even in a time of war there are certain rules of honorable conduct most sides must adhere to. Treatment of POW’s, use of torture, etc. The Geneva Conventions in RL were written to try and establish these rules of war. Then there’s the other side, which argues that war is hell and any tactic that allows you to win is justified. This attitude has led to genocide, human rights atrocities, etc. In this context we are in a war simulator, so the standard of what is immoral is clearly altered. Although if torture was possible in the game I have NO doubt some servers would resort to it.

In my mind, there SHOULD be honor during wartime (fictional or otherwise) and certain tactics should be off limits for WvW matches such as:

1) Coordinated, intentional double-teaming.
2) Spying
3) Sabotage (building useless siege in an enemy’s keep to waste supply)
4) Hacking/exploits
5) Spawn camping

The ancient Greeks had an interesting debate over this very thing. It was often common practice on the battlefield to sacrifice your POW’s to your gods. Not only did it boost morale among your ranks but it also struck fear into the enemy. Most Greeks frowned on human sacrifice and considered it deplorable, but there were some who engaged in it during wartime regardless, sparking a national debate. The general consensus was that it was a dishonorable practice. Achilles broke this taboo during the war with Troy after his lover, Patroclus, was killed in combat. He swore to sacrifice any trojan who was captured alive. Some argue that this why the gods punished him.

Entropy.4732:

Banzie.5248:

pot.6805:

3 way faction is supposed to stop the top server from overwhelming the other two. Except that NEVER HAPPENS, it is always a double team on the 2nd server or the 3rd server.

Because commanders on the 2nd or 3rd server disagree and dont want to hit the top server. So it ends up being 2nd or 3rd getting double teamed all cause someone has too much “Pride” and “Honor”

Where I come from “Pride” and “Honor” are good things. I fight fair, I play fair, I don’t game the system, look for exploits, pull sketchy moves, cheat, steal, or anything of the kind. I’m one of those rare people who still pays for music and movies on the internet.

What’s interesting is that this debate has been raging since the birth of actual war throughout the ages. The two arguments are always the same. One side argues that even in a time of war there are certain rules of honorable conduct most sides must adhere to. Treatment of POW’s, use of torture, etc. The Geneva Conventions in RL were written to try and establish these rules of war. Then there’s the other side, which argues that war is hell and any tactic that allows you to win is justified. This attitude has led to genocide, human rights atrocities, etc. In this context we are in a war simulator, so the standard of what is immoral is clearly altered. Although if torture was possible in the game I have NO doubt some servers would resort to it.

In my mind, there SHOULD be honor during wartime (fictional or otherwise) and certain tactics should be off limits for WvW matches such as:

1) Coordinated, intentional double-teaming.
2) Spying
3) Sabotage (building useless siege in an enemy’s keep to waste supply)
4) Hacking/exploits
5) Spawn camping

The ancient Greeks had an interesting debate over this very thing. It was often common practice on the battlefield to sacrifice your POW’s to your gods. Not only did it boost morale among your ranks but it also struck fear into the enemy. Most Greeks frowned on human sacrifice and considered it deplorable, but there were some who engaged in it during wartime regardless, sparking a national debate. The general consensus was that it was a dishonorable practice. Achilles broke this taboo during the war with Troy after his lover, Patroclus, was killed in combat. He swore to sacrifice any trojan who was captured alive. Some argue that this why the gods punished him.

I agree that there shouldn’t bee Coordinated efforts between servers, and that didn’t happen either. All the rest I agree on as well as a matter of fact. We were double teamed for months not just one week though, in the end the largest server continues to have the say. With the new rating system you dont have to worry about that, more guilds will stay then leave for the hope of an even and fair match up then just leave because they will be stuck in a free fall or stale match up like we were for months. DT happens, it will happen, it wont stop, it will keep going and if you get stuck with higher tier servers its not gonna be fun.

salluks.6017:

The whole point of a 3 way match is the weaker sides join and take on the bigger foe if the need arises. Else there would be only 2 sides.

Lol from SoR. When JQ was dominant JQ and SOR 2v1 BG, When BG is more dominant SOR and JQ 2v1 BG, When SOR is Dominant JQ and SoR 2v1 BG. For about an hour the other night SOR was wanting a 2v1 with BG against JQ, just knowing the 2 sides were cooperating put a bad taste in my mouth. After the weeks and weeks and weeks of jq & sor teaming up on BG I wanted no part in continuing that crap. Especially with all the rumors of the JQ and SoR communications and tower, keep, garrison swapping.
Now it may work ok in lower tiers where the pop of server A and B = C, but when its huge map zergs, no thank ya. The amount of skill lag caused by an entire map zerg is enough to shut the game off let alone 2 or 3 map zergs.
Shuffling the matchups is a step in the right direction. More variety and less bumbuddies.

Entropy.4732:

Where I come from “Pride” and “Honor” are good things. I fight fair, I play fair, I don’t game the system, look for exploits, pull sketchy moves, cheat, steal, or anything of the kind. I’m one of those rare people who still pays for music and movies on the internet.

What’s interesting is that this debate has been raging since the birth of actual war throughout the ages. The two arguments are always the same. One side argues that even in a time of war there are certain rules of honorable conduct most sides must adhere to. Treatment of POW’s, use of torture, etc. The Geneva Conventions in RL were written to try and establish these rules of war. Then there’s the other side, which argues that war is hell and any tactic that allows you to win is justified. This attitude has led to genocide, human rights atrocities, etc. In this context we are in a war simulator, so the standard of what is immoral is clearly altered. Although if torture was possible in the game I have NO doubt some servers would resort to it.

In my mind, there SHOULD be honor during wartime (fictional or otherwise) and certain tactics should be off limits for WvW matches such as:

1) Coordinated, intentional double-teaming.
2) Spying
3) Sabotage (building useless siege in an enemy’s keep to waste supply)
4) Hacking/exploits
5) Spawn camping

The ancient Greeks had an interesting debate over this very thing. It was often common practice on the battlefield to sacrifice your POW’s to your gods. Not only did it boost morale among your ranks but it also struck fear into the enemy. Most Greeks frowned on human sacrifice and considered it deplorable, but there were some who engaged in it during wartime regardless, sparking a national debate. The general consensus was that it was a dishonorable practice. Achilles broke this taboo during the war with Troy after his lover, Patroclus, was killed in combat. He swore to sacrifice any trojan who was captured alive. Some argue that this why the gods punished him.

So let me get this straight with your logic. You think the allies in World War 2 were all cowards had no pride or honor? Should have not Coordinated, intentional double-teaming.
I guess France, Poland, the United Kingdom, British Commonwealth (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa). The Soviet Union, the United States of America. China and other Allies included Belgium, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Free Danes, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway and Yugoslavia.

All these countries were not playing fair against Germany, Italy and Japan.
Well I guess they should have all kept to themselves and dealt with the situation on their own for they would have had honor, pride and would have lost fair to their attackers.

No one is sacrificing Invaders (POW’s). Unless one is just having fun running head into zerg’s. Which is just stupid fun sometimes.

Double teaming happens…but most of the time double teaming looks obvious, it’s not, it’s just 1 server taking advantage of another server being busy with the other server. Keeps are a perfect example of that…if one server breaks into a keep and is set up on 1 inner keeping the other server busy…the uninvolved server would be stupid from trying to come in and steal it from them. It may LOOK like double teaming…it’s just smart playing.

How about when two weak servers battle each other then the third (superior) server gate crashes almost every battle to gain control. The game is unfair when mismatched servers play against one another.
I understand the scenario the thread author is talking about and suggest more often than not it would be unintentional.

If it’s indeed collusion, then that’s normally bad form and must take some of the fun out of WvW for the two who gang up against the one. At least it would for me. I mean, what fun is such a lopsided matchup unless pvdoor is what ppl enjoy…?

The only exception is if one server is dominating points and the two weakers ones realize their only hope is to stop fighting each other and to fight the points leader. In that case, the dominant server is normally more than able to defend (and even attack) on two fronts…

And then, there are times it’s just a lucky coincidence (or unlucky, depending on which side you’re one). Sometimes what seems like collusion is honestly just dumb luck.

Finally, once in a great while, it’s the result of well-planned meta-strategy, but most servers view WvW like “checkers” instead of “chess”, so this kind of scenario is much rarer: http://www.guildwars2guru.com/topic/77216-corons-guide-to-diplomacy-the-2v1-and-you/

Hule.8794:

Double teaming is only problem when strongerst and weakliest server join and stomp middle server.
But its just how 3-way fight works sometimes. Its normal. Not fair, but normal.

I really don’t understand your logic. The most common setup is 2 stronger servers picking on the weakest one, who is often even outmanned. And that is unfair.

I am fighting for Desolation. We have been double teamed whole year 2013. We are generally outmanned and the two stronger servers double team us week after week. Despite we lost many weeks in a row, we got once again pitted against EU #1 (and #3). With winner goes up and loser goes down this would have never been possible.

I don’t understand the point of double teaming. Why not just have two sides and flip a coin at the end to see who wins? Same difference.

like i said, ideally we want : number 2&3 vs number 1/leading server

reality : number 1&2 vs number 3/weakest server …..

deny all you want but that’s the reality….

3 server system is the only way to go. Having only 2 servers fighting would result in BIGGER blowouts and BIGGER imbalances. Using a 3 server system, double teaming at times allows weaker servers to take out bigger servers.

It allows for corrections in population and off-peak populations.

Why do i feel like the poster of the thread is from BG?

azizul.8469:

like i said, ideally we want : number 2&3 vs number 1/leading server

reality : number 1&2 vs number 3/weakest server …..

deny all you want but that’s the reality….

Exactly. Those trying to deny this have just haven’t been enough on the receiving side or have been probably too long time on a server which has been winning.

Double Teaming, when the badges arrive in double quantities!

Entropy.4732:

I think it’s time we had a discussion about this shameful practice. I’ve been playing WvW since launch and have witnessed multiple incidents of intentional double-teaming. Sometimes servers unintentionally hit the same target, but I’m talking about commanders from two servers colluding to gang up on the third server. I’ve never done it and I think it should be considered dishonorable and tantamount to cheating. The whole point of WvW is that it’s a 3 way match up. It’s gotten to the point where I think Anet should implement some changes to help discourage this kind of knavery. This recent match up (I won’t mention servers) I was shocked because one server approached us to team up against the third server. Our noble commanders declined. Then the server that approached us teamed up with the other server to “get us back” for not teaming up with them. As if we were offending them by NOT wanting to cheat. It’s gone too far.

I’m curious to hear your thoughts on what can be done to prevent or discourage teaming up. Can it be fixed? Should it be fixed? Is it cheating? Discuss…

If you were here since launch you should know that 2 vs 1 IS the balancing solution ANET has planned for WvW. They stated that numerous times. Of course the two weaker servers are meant to ally against the 1st place holder. Sadly, few people/commanders understand this, or gave up long ago, due to lack of an in-game cross server diplomacy system I proposed many times, so most of the time the tactic is to ‘take Anza’ no matter who owns it. I’m always against striking anyone else but the leading server, having the big picture in mind, but most people seem to focus on getting 2nd place, so they hit the weakest server. That’s how you get the ridiculous end results.

In other words what happened to you is impressive it’s good to hear some commanders consider alliances – only if its against the leading server though. Allying WITH the leading server is indeed dishonorable.