Guild Wars 2

I have been following this WvWvW S2 QQ and trolling for awhile now, typical MMo forum emotion. First off if any part of this post comes across as BG victim, TC & JQ bad guys, I apologize in advance and add that’s not my intention.

MMo gamers especially pvp’rs will choose strategy to leverage the games mechanics in their favor and it’s the responsibility of the Devs to counter this natural behavior through balancing mechanics.

Here’s are a few questions I have for the WvWvW community.

1. Is a well managed 2v1 winnable by the out numbered server? Winnable in this context defined as not just fights but ppt and all other micro managed actions contributing to a match victory. All the chest pounding aside, WvWvW success is hugely influenced by the number of fighters a server can field at any one time.

2. Is formal collusion across multiple servers going to become the new gw2 WvWvW meta? Here’s the thing if transferring fighters to your opponents server means they now become your friend against whoever you fight, that seems game breaking to this player.

3. Is leveraging the number of fighters you can field at any one time due to friendly enemy flagged players colluding for a common goal acceptable? Is this buying to win?

Any way thought I would throw my 2 cents into the pot. All bad blood aside I am enjoying the fights this season. My concern is for the longevity of the game that seems to be going down a slippery slope..

1. Yes it can people just have to change their way of thinking and coming up with a new strat to counter. In the same light of what Mag did when they faced superior numbers from a dominate server like FA at the time and they managed to hold their BL with upgrades during the weekday. WvW should be influenced by more than just numbers since if only numbers mattered then it will be coverage wars meaning buying and recruiting guilds to move from low Tier to higher Tier this is bad.

2. No cause normal non season games don’t matter really. Seasons is where it matters.

3. No because those servers working together will typically field less players hence the other server can take advantage of this with a full map blob and at higher levels servers can easily queue 2 maps easily during seasons. It is when a server completely doesn’t change up their strategy and give up is when it seems bad. Nobody can do anything about that.

Brother.1504:

2. Is formal collusion across multiple servers going to become the new gw2 WvWvW meta? Here’s the thing if transferring fighters to your opponents server means they now become your friend against whoever you fight, that seems game breaking to this player.

I doubt it at least not on a long term basis cause there’s no point.

Brother.1504:

1. Is a well managed 2v1 winnable by the out numbered server? Winnable in this context defined as not just fights but ppt and all other micro managed actions contributing to a match victory. All the chest pounding aside, WvWvW success is hugely influenced by the number of fighters a server can field at any one time.

2. Is formal collusion across multiple servers going to become the new gw2 WvWvW meta? Here’s the thing if transferring fighters to your opponents server means they now become your friend against whoever you fight, that seems game breaking to this player.

3. Is leveraging the number of fighters you can field at any one time due to friendly enemy flagged players colluding for a common goal acceptable? Is this buying to win?

Any way thought I would throw my 2 cents into the pot. All bad blood aside I am enjoying the fights this season. My concern is for the longevity of the game that seems to be going down a slippery slope..

1. Welcome to the reality of a non-stacked server up against one with a population advantage – this is exactly what it’s like. No matter where you are or what you’re doing, there’s a ridiculously larger group already there or able to respond at a moment’s notice.

Every fight you’re in you’re outnumbered 2:1, 3:1, 10:1… whatever. Yes, 10:1 sometimes.

Whatever level of autonomy your smaller team/groups can manage, your overpopulated opponent can do it better and in more places at the same time. Did you just capture a tower? Wonderful! Your opponent just captured half of the objectives on the map simultaneously while you did that, and are now standing outside the one where your RI is rapidly ticking down.

So you have to learn to suck it up. Are you from a server that has sought out people from other servers to come stack yours? The effects of a 2v1 and what I describe above is what you’ve left other servers to deal with.

You will find that it makes you a better player, if you continue to play. You get better because anything you can do number-wise (population, damage) can be outdone many times over by who you’re facing, and you have to include that in your play style. You have to make each skill count, you’ll learn the benefit of each pixel of terrain on the map, you’ll learn… that playing for PPT isn’t an option for you any more. You’ll learn that you’d better come to enjoy playing wvw for its own sake because there isn’t a lot of other options for you.

And you’ll learn to nurture the idea that people who transfer servers should be required to pay cash for it, not convert gold. It might not fix the problem, but it’ll certainly slow 25 stacks of desertion down to something you can accomodate.

Besides, what did you want? Server A hits server B hits server C hits server A? Is the diagram of wvw to be the universal recycling symbol? Two servers on one is sometimes winnable by the focused server, and immediately transfers full bragging rights to them should they do so.

2. What if it is? People are still talking about the second to last silver league match from season one where communication across servers lead to an upset from the predicted outcome. And frankly, if the final outcome of a series of matches are predictable then we should have more upsets.

Although one should keep in mind that a server isn’t a unified whole, no matter how it’s organized. Your server “colluding” with my server puts me under no obligation to do anything at all. I can still hit all of your assets and am still completely within the game model.

Even better – I can go along with it and then flip when you’re vulnerable or overextended… and it’s still okay.

If you’re from Blackgate as you alluded and this is one of umpteen threads motivated by the current focusing of you in your matches, then among other things you’re getting this because everybody likes to see the #1 fall. Especially one that, to a lot of people, lowered the bar on poor behavior and mindsets that has affected how the entirety of wvw is played in NA.

3. Buying to win is when the first copper is sent from one server to another as enticement to puff up population. Finding oneself in a position where that puffed up population doesn’t help? Wry amusement from the servers that provided you with the puff.

Perhaps the servers at the top of the gold league will square their mighty shoulders and find a strategy that the rest of us dregs can use when we are in similar matches and constantly overrun. Ideally one that doesn’t set a precedent for future destruction of servers.

We await the future innovations of our Glicko betters with marginal interst – we’re still dealing with the fallout of your last one.

There’s a difference between natural and organic 2 v 1 that happens in a match than systematically Trading Weeks that is happening this season in Tier 1 matches between JQ, BG, and TC. If two servers decide to “allow” the other to win as well as organizing 2 v 1, then there is nothing you can do about that. 2 v 1 will always happen and should happen against the stronger server as a strategy. However, Match Manipulation should not be allowed and Anet now has a problem it needs to solve.

Jado Cast.1805:

There’s a difference between natural and organic 2 v 1 that happens in a match than systematically Trading Weeks that is happening this season in Tier 1 matches between JQ, BG, and TC. If two servers decide to “allow” the other to win as well as organizing 2 v 1, then there is nothing you can do about that. 2 v 1 will always happen and should happen against the stronger server as a strategy. However, Match Manipulation should not be allowed and Anet now has a problem it needs to solve.

Match manipulation is basically happening at every tier. Because everyone knows week 5 doesn’t mean jack in any other league and that 2nd-5th place is truly decided the final week of the tournament when everyone but first is just trading off the same 6 pts every 2 weeks. No point in burning out now.

someone close this like the rest. 2v1 is a thing, it doesn’t happen often, everyone breath deeply and let it go.

Swiss style is just to boring,and it last 9weeks vs same servers again and again…

Brother.1504:

1. Is a well managed 2v1 winnable by the out numbered server?

Yes. Easily. Here’s a hint – you stop the 2v1. Being unable to do that doesn’t justify that server crying incessantly about it. Also amusingly, this wasn’t a huge problem when that server was winning with 2v1s. Or when that same server won Season One because of a 2v1 they organized week one. But now that it’s flipped on them its a huge issue that everyone needs to drop everything and discuss. So pathetic.

2. Is formal collusion across multiple servers going to become the new gw2 WvWvW meta?

As long as coverage is the determining factor otherwise, why not. The alternative is to just live in the old system where the biggest server always wins. I know that players who stack certain servers want to keep their ez-mode, but breaking the blob servers is a good thing overall for wvw.

3. Is leveraging the number of fighters you can field at any one time due to friendly enemy flagged players colluding for a common goal acceptable? Is this buying to win?

Is flooding the forum with posts trying to stop an enemy you can’t beat otherwise an acceptable strategy? Is this crying to win?

T1 problems…

Perhaps its time for BG to ask all those guilds they stole from the lower tiers how guerrilla tactics work.

Vague thread title lures me into another NA t1 yawn thread. Close this kitten already.

Jado Cast.1805:

There’s a difference between natural and organic 2 v 1 that happens in a match than systematically Trading Weeks that is happening this season in Tier 1 matches between JQ, BG, and TC. If two servers decide to “allow” the other to win as well as organizing 2 v 1, then there is nothing you can do about that. 2 v 1 will always happen and should happen against the stronger server as a strategy. However, Match Manipulation should not be allowed and Anet now has a problem it needs to solve.

Because it is the strat. If one server wins too much say JQ then they will get 2v1 and they don’t want that. If TC wins too much they will get 2v1. So naturally even if both servers don’t talk about it the same result will occur. Because there is an understanding of how the tournament system works. Saying it is match manipulation is like saying stacking and mass transfer to HoD for a free win is match manipulation as well. Since you are manipulating your chances of getting 1st by stacking to unstoppable coverage in your tier.

There’s a server we play against that openly approaches commanders on other servers requesting teaming against the larger server. It makes sense to them but it just feels like matchfixing to me and I find it distasteful.

Btw when I say teaming I mean down to the level of coordinating timed strikes on enemy keeps. One hits bay, one hits hills. Stuff like that.

After they got the idea that our commanders wouldn’t play ball, they stopped asking. But we still play against them, and we’re now enjoying the fruits of declining their scumbaggery, as we have our bay and hills wiped at the same time.

Alls fair in love and WvW I guess. Nothing can really be done about it.

I like the term “Glicko Betters”.

See you on the battlefields.

Brother.1504:

1. Is a well managed 2v1 winnable by the out numbered server? Winnable in this context defined as not just fights but ppt and all other micro managed actions contributing to a match victory.

No.

160>80.

Even if the commander was a gorilla warfare master and the map follows his order perfectly and every player had every buff you can imagine. The main issue is map caps when it comes to truly organized collusion between 2 servers against 1. That commander can split up and mix groups under his command all he wants, but he wont be able to win against a true organized 2v1. And that is only taking “The Greatest Gorilla Warfare Commander Ever”’s play time into consideration. Once he logged the 2v1 would sweep over everything.

Where the whole 2 servers vs 1 overstacked server argument breaks down is that the “overstacked” server cannot use it’s superior population against 2 servers in collusion.

Those kitten dirty apes are waging war?

As someone said in the other thread,

We hear your complaints, they may very well be logical and justified.

We don’t care.

Iluth.6875:

against the larger server.

One hits bay, one hits hills. Stuff like that.

If you’re up against a larger server this is what you should be doing. Its called strategy.

JFC JFC JFC…..This game has been around for a while now, and for the entirety of that time it has been a 2v1 in WvW….1&2 vs 3….In 90% of the matches I have taken part of the #2 server realizes that #3 either:
A. Can’t pull its own weight
B. Is a much easier target than all the T3 fully upgraded junk than that of the larger #1 server (with likely many more defenders)

EVERYONE knew this, and OCCASIONALLY you would get a QQ post about it, and people would give the standard: recruit moar, try harder, stop QQing….

Now it happens as it probably should have from the get-go, (#2 and #3 ganging up on #1) and its a travesty…Seriously, 3/4 of the people in this game are the problem with this game…I am done blaming ANET, nothing will change, but when I read posts from people QQing about double-teaming the most stacked server in history its just enough.

If you don’t like getting double teamed transfer down and destack that garbage tier and finally give this sad state of the game some relief…..

The behavior of the top-3 servers during their matchups this season, especially the reactions of those accustomed to winning, are really the final proof of what fight-based players have been trying to tell ppters for the past year or more. The score is not a meaningful competitive metric. It is not indicative of how well you play. It is not indicative of how well your guild plays. It is not indicative of how well your server plays.

This idea threatens the ego of certain players who conceptualize weekly victory as an accomplishment. Hopefully losing through no fault of their own will open their eyes.

Reading this makes me think some people use “2v1” and “focus” interchangeably.

I use them as follows:

When you have no agreement in place but you hit one server more than the other, that is focusing (reminds me of having to focus down the adds in a boss fight). When you team up with a server to be friendly with one another and only hit the third server, that is a 2v1.

To use the words my way, it seems like like people are saying they have a problem with the 2v1, as focusing is how it is intended to work.

Facet.5914:

The behavior of the top-3 servers during their matchups this season, especially the reactions of those accustomed to winning, are really the final proof of what fight-based players have been trying to tell ppters for the past year or more. The score is not a meaningful competitive metric. It is not indicative of how well you play. It is not indicative of how well your guild plays. It is not indicative of how well your server plays.

This idea threatens the ego of certain players who conceptualize weekly victory as an accomplishment. Hopefully losing through no fault of their own will open their eyes.

It is interesting you put it that way, considering the top two ranked servers going into league teamed up on the third server after the third won their first match in over 2 months.

Fighting for PPT is not about winning at all costs, but more like playing the objective. If you go into a BF4 map you can sit in the back and snipe people as they respawn on a point. It may be fun but it is not playing the objective. Same in GW2, to me at least.

I think that JQ and TC have (perhaps unintentionally) created the new wvw seasons meta.

I think that in future seasons it will make sense for server leaders from the strongest servers to have pre-arranged agreements about who will win and who will lose. First and second place will be decided before the season even begins and everyone else will just fight for the lower placements.

That way people from the strongest servers can all come together and pick a server they don’t like and grief them hardcore the entire season to make sure that not only do they not win but that they never even have a hope of winning. Undoubtedly people with prior knowledge of these agreements will want to leave the server slated to lose which will also have the bonus of destroying the servers nobody likes.

It’s really quite brilliant I just want to know which server is preset to win next time so I can get all the tickets.

Be careful what you ask for (or complain about) folks, because you just might get it.

What I mean is that although there are many possible solutions to the entire server “coverage/population” issues in WvW, in all likelihood Anet will eventually choose the simplest and cheapest solution. And the cheapest and simplest solution would be: Green vs Blue vs Red, with a bunch of modifiers thrown in to increase the chance of being with your guild or people on your friends list. And to be honest, despite their recent declarations about understanding the community importance of maintaining server identity in WvW, I think B v R v G is the road they intend to go down anyway, just not right now.

I personally find the current situation hilarious. Be as it may, BG just needs to do to JQ what it did in the SoS matchup last week.
Don’t attack TC, just go all out on JQ. Only fight TC when they push into your territory.
TC has crappy PuG discipline, and eventually they’ll attack JQ; and problem solved.

Now quit these embarrassing posts or xfer to a server that doesn’t tick the others off so much that they get 2v1’d every week.

That would be stupid. It’s more likely an alliance system. It’s what most games with large scale battles are doing, and it allows some form of identity/pride.

Chris.3290:

I personally find the current situation hilarious. Be as it may, BG just needs to do to JQ what it did in the SoS matchup last week.
Don’t attack TC, just go all out on JQ. Only fight TC when they push into your territory.
TC has crappy PuG discipline, and eventually they’ll attack JQ; and problem solved.

Now quit these embarrassing posts or xfer to a server that doesn’t tick the others off so much that they get 2v1’d every week.

Man, that answer is so simple. Why hasn’t BG tried that. It’s almost like reality and theory aren’t the same thing.

In case you haven’t figured it out, the QQ over the 2v1 is a good mask as to what’s actually going on.

This whole mess started because of the Swiss matchmaking system. Based on the results of the first week, it was predicted that if this trend continued that one of the Tier 1 servers would finish 4th or even 5th. The alliance that formed was motivated more out of self-interest than spite – although the spite and the complaining is a very good smokescreen.

Over the next couple of weeks, the alliance will just trade wins/losses, ensuring they stay together and secure their positions as #1 and #2 and will continue to do this until the end of the tournament. If you don’t believe me, then here is the roadmap for Tier 1:

If you don’t believe me, feel free to check back at this post’s prediction. I won’t edit it.

No the whole mess started because of the PPT system in the first place. That is the root of the problem here.

SlothBear.9846:

No the whole mess started because of the PPT system in the first place. That is the root of the problem here.

Yeah because so many alliances existed before this tournament.

/sarcasm.

Somewhere, somehow, some self proclaimed server leaders decided to buy guilds, to form alliances with enemy servers, and other such nonsense.

This is clearly an artifact of this seasons idea and imo has somewhat ruined wvw for a decent majority of players. These players are the ones who go to work all day, raise a family, then want to just log in at the end of a long day and have some good, fun, competition to enjoy. I bet this is a vast majority of the player base.

What do we get instead?
We log into a map where either we’re dominating or being dominated, that the only thing to do is maybe find a karma train or roam hoping to find a 1v1. Constant yelling in map chat about who to attack or not attack, who we’re in a truce with….

To self proclaimed leaders, your interests don’t reflect most of the player base. To Anet, please, no more seasons until something can be done about putting so much power in the hands of a vocal few.

BAITness.1083:

It is interesting you put it that way, considering the top two ranked servers going into league teamed up on the third server after the third won their first match in over 2 months.

This is just being disingenuous, as the first week proved BG was always going to have better coverage through new transfers and PvX players coming back for the season.

Just to clear up a sentiment on this thread: the 2v1 going on now in T1 is not like the natural 2v1s we would see as a part of map politics, or two servers both focusing a third. This was a planned, colluded, alliance between two servers, where they reportedly even are sharing a TS, and taking turns finishing first each week while not allowing the third server to even play the game by both spawn camping them. They are fixing the matches instead of playing to win each match. This is not something that has ever happened in this game before, and it is not a good precedent. If this kind of cross server alliance starts to become the norm in WvW, I could see it destroying the game pretty quickly. Servers are not supposed to collude with each other like this, it is supposed to be a 3 way battle.

Wraith.9426:

Just to clear up a sentiment on this thread: the 2v1 going on now in T1 is not like the natural 2v1s we would see as a part of map politics, or two servers both focusing a third. This was a planned, colluded, alliance between two servers, where they reportedly even are sharing a TS, and taking turns finishing first each week while not allowing the third server to even play the game by both spawn camping them. They are fixing the matches instead of playing to win each match. This is not something that has ever happened in this game before, and it is not a good precedent. If this kind of cross server alliance starts to become the norm in WvW, I could see it destroying the game pretty quickly. Servers are not supposed to collude with each other like this, it is supposed to be a 3 way battle.

As for why this is happening, it’s because no matter how well the 2 vs the 1 do while they have players, the 1 has the non-primetime coverage to overcome the advances of either of the other servers in a more traditional three way battle. Alliances are almost certainly bad for the game in the long term, but needing them to overcome the enemy probably isn’t helping.

FA loving read the BG QQ from the 2 vs 1. That is all! #beastgate lol

Nokaru.7831:

In case you haven’t figured it out, the QQ over the 2v1 is a good mask as to what’s actually going on.

This whole mess started because of the Swiss matchmaking system. Based on the results of the first week, it was predicted that if this trend continued that one of the Tier 1 servers would finish 4th or even 5th. The alliance that formed was motivated more out of self-interest than spite – although the spite and the complaining is a very good smokescreen.

Over the next couple of weeks, the alliance will just trade wins/losses, ensuring they stay together and secure their positions as #1 and #2 and will continue to do this until the end of the tournament. If you don’t believe me, then here is the roadmap for Tier 1:

Road Map

hide spoiler

4/9/14 – JQ: 22 (1st), TC: 22 (2nd)
4/16/14 – TC: 27 (1st), JQ: 25 (2nd)
4/23/14 – JQ: 30 (1st), TC: 30 (2nd)

Final week will decide which server is 1st and which is 2nd

If you don’t believe me, feel free to check back at this post’s prediction. I won’t edit it.

If JQ takes a dive next week on purpose so that SoS places second, both TC and JQ will be first and can share the rewards together. BG will then be 4th place.

Wraith.9426:

the 2v1 going on now in T1 is not like the natural 2v1s we would see as a part of map politics

Just to be clear.

The BG/TC vs JQ of week one is natural.
The JQ/TC vs BG of week three is not natural (judging by the explosion of QQ posts).
The BG/SoS vs JQ of week four is not official, but natural.

FearedbytheGods.8617:

Wraith.9426:

the 2v1 going on now in T1 is not like the natural 2v1s we would see as a part of map politics

Just to be clear.

The BG/TC vs JQ of week one is natural.
The JQ/TC vs BG of week three is not natural (judging by the explosion of QQ posts).
The BG/SoS vs JQ of week four is not official, but natural.

Everyone bow down to BG, they deserve to win seasons unchallenged.

I don’t normally comment on WvW but I was actually there on BG during the fourth week. We were fighting them (SoS) on the borderlands and if there were any formal alliance between the two, we would have kept JQ on 3rd.

The level of coordination between TC and JQ is something I’ve never seen before. Even on small scale roaming, I’ve seen TC and JQ groups ignore each other and go for BG.

Yujin.1785:

if there were any formal alliance

You’re not part of BG’s inner circle?

FearedbytheGods.8617:

Yujin.1785:

if there were any formal alliance

You’re either lying or not part of BG’s inner circle.

Can’t really say anything about that screenshot since that’s SoS and doesn’t that show that we are fighting them?

As I said, I only got on the fourth week so that should be indicative that I’m not a WvW hardcore. There are a lot of us PUGs and our commanders didn’t prohibit us in attacking SoS, or at least the one I’ve been to.

Again, the level of coordination between TC and JQ is another whole level. Even a PUG like me can see that just by logging in and seeing how groups interact in the borderlands.

Yujin.1785:

Can’t really say anything about that screenshot since that’s SoS and doesn’t that show that we are fighting them?

You should look at it again.

In any event we’re at an impasse it would seem.

Most JQ/TC posters are sick of replying to BG posters who just post about the same thing again and again but in a different context. It’s been left up to other servers now to point out to you that 2v1’s happen and just because BG say ’it’s a 2v1 but not a 2v1’ doesn’t impress anyone.

FearedbytheGods.8617:

Yujin.1785:

Can’t really say anything about that screenshot since that’s SoS and doesn’t that show that we are fighting them?

You should look at it again.

In any event we’re at an impasse it would seem.

Most JQ/TC posters are sick of replying to BG posters who just post about the same thing again and again but in a different context. It’s been left up to other servers now to point out to you that 2v1’s happen and just because BG say ’it’s a 2v1 but not a 2v1’ doesn’t impress anyone.

Because I’ve never seen a satisfactory reply or explanation to that level of coordination between the two. Because it’s not exactly pleasing reading a line BG tears in almost every thread.

I’ve never seen a satisfactory reason or explanation that if there was something really going on between SoS and BG during that week, I would have thought that JQ would be third on that week. I mean really, the rhetoric around this forum is that BG has so much coverage that we can do anything. So ok, why couldn’t we keep SoS on second on that week?

Yujin.1785:

FearedbytheGods.8617:

Yujin.1785:

Can’t really say anything about that screenshot since that’s SoS and doesn’t that show that we are fighting them?

You should look at it again.

In any event we’re at an impasse it would seem.

Most JQ/TC posters are sick of replying to BG posters who just post about the same thing again and again but in a different context. It’s been left up to other servers now to point out to you that 2v1’s happen and just because BG say ’it’s a 2v1 but not a 2v1’ doesn’t impress anyone.

Because I’ve never seen a satisfactory reply or explanation to that level of coordination between the two. Because it’s not exactly pleasing reading a line BG tears in almost every thread.

I’ve never seen a satisfactory reason or explanation that if there was something really going on between SoS and BG during that week, I would have thought that JQ would be third on that week. I mean really, the rhetoric around this forum is that BG has so much coverage that we can do anything. So ok, why couldn’t we keep SoS on second on that week?

One of the Anet Devs (Cant remember which one) specifically stated the 3 way WvW system was in place to allow 2 servers to take down the larger server. It’s working as intended. The only reason this is cropping up now is because no servers have ever bothered to really engage in a true coordinated 2vs1. 2vs1 is boring no matter what way you look at it, I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone on TC or JQ who finds it fun. They’d much rather have a completely even match up, but of course since BG is content stacking their server, it’s not even.

The reason you (BG) can’t keep JQ down the entire time is because SoS’s coverage pales in comparison to any of the T1 server’s coverage. It wouldn’t matter how much BG attacked JQ; if SoS’s structures are left un-defended for a period of time, a simple 5 man small guild run can take most things down. Couple that with the fact that it doesn’t take much to wipe a BG zerg, they don’t make very good defenders of allied structures.

DeadlySynz.3471:

Yujin.1785:

FearedbytheGods.8617:

Yujin.1785:

Can’t really say anything about that screenshot since that’s SoS and doesn’t that show that we are fighting them?

You should look at it again.

In any event we’re at an impasse it would seem.

Most JQ/TC posters are sick of replying to BG posters who just post about the same thing again and again but in a different context. It’s been left up to other servers now to point out to you that 2v1’s happen and just because BG say ’it’s a 2v1 but not a 2v1’ doesn’t impress anyone.

Because I’ve never seen a satisfactory reply or explanation to that level of coordination between the two. Because it’s not exactly pleasing reading a line BG tears in almost every thread.

I’ve never seen a satisfactory reason or explanation that if there was something really going on between SoS and BG during that week, I would have thought that JQ would be third on that week. I mean really, the rhetoric around this forum is that BG has so much coverage that we can do anything. So ok, why couldn’t we keep SoS on second on that week?

One of the Anet Devs (Cant remember which one) specifically stated the 3 way WvW system was in place to allow 2 servers to take down the larger server. It’s working as intended. The only reason this is cropping up now is because no servers have ever bothered to really engage in a true coordinated 2vs1. 2vs1 is boring no matter what way you look at it, I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone on TC or JQ who finds it fun. They’d much rather have a completely even match up, but of course since BG is content stacking their server, it’s not even.

The reason you (BG) can’t keep JQ down the entire time is because SoS’s coverage pales in comparison to any of the T1 server’s coverage. It wouldn’t matter how much BG attacked JQ; if SoS’s structures are left un-defended for a period of time, a simple 5 man small guild run can take most things down. Couple that with the fact that it doesn’t take much to wipe a BG zerg, they don’t make very good defenders of allied structures.

Now this explains a lot what I’m looking for, thanks. Also, I’m glad that you didn’t gloss over the fact that BG and SoS had any short lasting alliance is no where what we have between TC and JQ.

Wraith.9426:

Just to clear up a sentiment on this thread: the 2v1 going on now in T1 is not like the natural 2v1s we would see as a part of map politics, or two servers both focusing a third. This was a planned, colluded, alliance between two servers, where they reportedly even are sharing a TS, and taking turns finishing first each week while not allowing the third server to even play the game by both spawn camping them. They are fixing the matches instead of playing to win each match. This is not something that has ever happened in this game before, and it is not a good precedent. If this kind of cross server alliance starts to become the norm in WvW, I could see it destroying the game pretty quickly. Servers are not supposed to collude with each other like this, it is supposed to be a 3 way battle.

BG 2v1ing other servers = “natural” “map politics”

Other Server 2v1ing BG = “never happened before” “not a good precedent” “going to destroy the game”

morrolan.9608:

BAITness.1083:

It is interesting you put it that way, considering the top two ranked servers going into league teamed up on the third server after the third won their first match in over 2 months.

This is just being disingenuous, as the first week proved BG was always going to have better coverage through new transfers and PvX players coming back for the season.

That’s bs. All 3 t1 servers had 24/7 queues over the weekend. Coverage had little to no impact that week because all the PvE achieve hunters were out in force from every time zone. In fact, TC’s queues were more or less comparable to BG’s queues except during a couple of hours at the end of Oceanic and start of SEA, though a queue is still a queue, regardless of the number. Don’t know about JQ as I have no friends your server but I assume no different there, except with JQ’s queues dropping off during EU.

Reverence.6915:

That’s bs. All 3 t1 servers had 24/7 queues over the weekend. Coverage had little to no impact that week because all the PvE achieve hunters were out in force from every time zone. In fact, TC’s queues were more or less comparable to BG’s queues except during a couple of hours at the end of Oceanic and start of SEA, though a queue is still a queue, regardless of the number. Don’t know about JQ as I have no friends your server but I assume no different there, except with JQ’s queues dropping off during EU.

Sure coverage had nothing to do with week 1 of this season :P. http://www.gw2score.com/server/Tarnished-Coast?match=5

During the weekend of week 1 ppt was pretty even. Once monday came BG had higher ppt all day until NA when TC was dominate. BG had an average of ~280 ppt every day after the weekend. I can understand taking it easy before the season but not exploding and increasing your normal ppt by 50% (190 to 270k) in comparison to the 2 weeks prior to week 1 of this season.

you know what is more boring than reading about 2v1 is actually doing it. I about cried when I heard that this deal is still on. I cant believe people would want to keep doing this long term.

The future of WvW?

Hi everyone,

Since this thread has turned into a match-up one, we’ll now close it.

Please note that we do not allow Match-up threads on the Guild Wars 2 forum. You can read about our forum changes here:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Guild-Wars-2-Forum-Moderation-Updates
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Upcoming-Forum-Changes-to-WvW-Match-ups-Sub-forum

Thank you for your understanding.