Guild Wars 2

To settle this matter for once and for all, and to not start a ‘who did what to whom’ argument, I was hoping ANet could officially just answer the following question:

Rule 22 of the Guild Wars 2 Rules of Conduct states:

While participating in Player-vs-Player (PvP) gameplay, you will not participate in any form of match manipulation. Match manipulation is defined as any action taken to fix or manipulate the outcome of a match or alter or manipulate the rankings or ratings of the ladder.

Given that WvW is clearly PvP gameplay, is the current and widespread practice of “2v1” (i.e. collusion between two teams to the detriment of a third and, it follows, manipulation of the outcome of the match) a violation of the Rules of Conduct?

That’s it. A simple question with hopefully a very simple, one word, answer.

Thank you.

Interesting point. Though we will never see it I would love to hear a developer comment on this… and yes… I know that one has said ANETs stance is 2v1 is ok. To me, the act of 2v1 does in fact breach that rule of the CoC based upon it’s current wording.

No.

Realist.5812:

Look at EU leagues.

Rank 1 gold league: Seafarers Rest, undefeated.
Rank 1 silver league: Gandara, undefeated.
Rank 1 bronze league: Dzagonur, undefeated.

^ All 3 will be undefeated for entire “tournament”. ^

Look at NA leagues

Rank 1 gold league: Blackgate, 2 wins out of 4 possible.
Rank 1 silver league: Henge of Denravi, undefeated.
Rank 1 bronze league: Gate of Madness, undefeated.

Both silver and bronze are going to have a server UNDEFEATED for the entire tournament.

NA gold league is the only league playing 3 way fights correctly.

Having the same predictable result due to the underdogs not working together is what is hurting WvW. The servers need to be more proactive in taking down the higher ranked server.

Btw, WvW and PvP are separate entities. PvP refers to sPvP.

I want to know why this thread, with the exact same title, comes up every year…

Also WvW is PvE with PvP elements… PvP refers to sPvP and tPvP.

tim.8127:

Given that WvW is clearly PvP gameplay, is the current and widespread practice of “2v1” (i.e. collusion between two teams to the detriment of a third and, it follows, manipulation of the outcome of the match) a violation of the Rules of Conduct?

No, it is not. As far as i know WvW counts as PvE for Anet

Zioba.6182:

tim.8127:

Given that WvW is clearly PvP gameplay, is the current and widespread practice of “2v1” (i.e. collusion between two teams to the detriment of a third and, it follows, manipulation of the outcome of the match) a violation of the Rules of Conduct?

No, it is not. As far as i know WvW counts as PvE for Anet

Except it doesn’t get the love PvE does sadly.

Coverage and population wins matchups, can i now label “blackouts” and “stacking” a breach of code too?

2v1 is a feature, Anet has stated as such, im not inclined to quote it but minimal effort is source the quote.

How is abiding by a game mode a breach?

By that definition, NOT 2v1ing is also a breach as it virtually hands the server who has the largest population a win no?

Is that manipulation too?

It’s getting patently ridiculous how the forums are flooded by these threads only now when a certain interesting matchup is in play….

WvW is not PvP.

Nothing much else to address in this thread, moving on.

Rawr.5930:

Coverage and population wins matchups, can i now label “blackouts” and “stacking” a breach of code too? [..]

I would argue that those are more of a match manipulation then 2v1 is
.

tim.8127:

To settle this matter for once and for all, and to not start a ‘who did what to whom’ argument, I was hoping ANet could officially just answer the following question:

Rule 22 of the Guild Wars 2 Rules of Conduct states:

While participating in Player-vs-Player (PvP) gameplay, you will not participate in any form of match manipulation. Match manipulation is defined as any action taken to fix or manipulate the outcome of a match or alter or manipulate the rankings or ratings of the ladder.

Given that WvW is clearly PvP gameplay, is the current and widespread practice of “2v1” (i.e. collusion between two teams to the detriment of a third and, it follows, manipulation of the outcome of the match) a violation of the Rules of Conduct?

That’s it. A simple question with hopefully a very simple, one word, answer.

Thank you.

Okay cool here is two quotes from other devs

From the earliest days of development, we knew that we wanted to include some form of large-scale PvP combat in Guild Wars 2, but how would it work? We knew right away that we wanted three teams fighting against one another on a series of huge maps in the Mists (our world vs. world battleground) and that each team would be composed of an entire server full of players. Including three forces in world vs. world acts as an excellent balancing factor, preventing one team from growing too powerful and ruining the competitive balance of the game. Two teams can gang up to counter a more dominant third team, a dynamic that simply isn’t possible with only two opposing factions.

At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.

GG mate

Do TS has any evidence that the any matchup in question are “fixed”? Else, it is just your personal opinions.

RoChan.1926:

Also WvW is PvE with PvP elements… PvP refers to sPvP and tPvP.

On the Competitive Play page, WvW is described thus:

World vs. World (WvW) is PvP combat that involves hundred of players.
…
World vs. World—it’s PvP combat on an epic scale!

Note the clear and unambiguous use of ‘PvP’ in not only the text but the URI as well? PvE is not mentioned — at all.

An objective reader would almost certainly come to the conclusion (from ANet’s own description) that WvW was a format of PvP gameplay and thus apply Rule 22 of the Rules of Conduct to it.

That said, if ANet’s description on its own website is confusing the issue, then perhaps their response to this thread could clarify that as well?

Thank you for pointing out a potential source of confusion.

WvW is finally working as intended. If there is a dominant server, then the two weaker servers need to cooperate and collaborate to knock them down.

In NA during Season 1 was had a dominant server get a weaker server to be their kittens to target their rivals…still legal…but not satisfying for the kitten server (in fact they imploded right after Season 1…most likely due to the shame and embarrassment of their failed strategy.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Latest-War-council-meeting/first#post3963012

Maybe make so that second and third server can only attack against leading server. That would make game more interesting.

tim.8127:

RoChan.1926:

Also WvW is PvE with PvP elements… PvP refers to sPvP and tPvP.

On the Competitive Play page, WvW is described thus:

World vs. World (WvW) is PvP combat that involves hundred of players.
…
World vs. World—it’s PvP combat on an epic scale!

Note the clear and unambiguous use of ‘PvP’ in not only the text but the URI as well? PvE is not mentioned — at all.

An objective reader would almost certainly come to the conclusion (from ANet’s own description) that WvW was a format of PvP gameplay and thus apply Rule 22 of the Rules of Conduct to it.

That said, if ANet’s description on its own website is confusing the issue, then perhaps their response to this thread could clarify that as well?

Thank you for pointing out a potential source of confusion.

I can see where the source of confusion comes about because there is no mention of PvE. However, like any document interpretation without full context is useless in understanding any sort of rules or regulations. sPvP has a separation from PvE while WvW heavily is integrated with PvE. WvW is and has always has been PvE. Has PvE rewards, has no unification of armor stats, is part of PvE progression, and occasionally is integrated with the Living Story. PvP, in the context of the rules you are reading however, does refer to sPvP and tPvP where it is a separate entity from anything PvE until recent for wardrobe unification to avoid double grinding.

But for argument’s sake, let’s say that holds true. How are you going to prove there is a 2v1 occurring through mutual agreement and not through circumstances? What would be the evidence to accept? Verbal recording without the consent of the parties (though in some states that’s illegal)? Written proof (that isn’t a pair of troll players)?

As you can see that cannot occur in a match that largely deals with numerous amount of people and can only be considered with small scale fights where communication is limited to those specific players during that current match. You can also not prove that 2 servers are not trying to be self serving where as in a match of 2 groups you can as you can watch the way points are capped.

Therefore it is only logical to assume that the rules stated apply to a small scale, 2 teamed PvP. I.e. sPvP and tPvP.

If anything, two servers manipulate one another to beat another server. This has absolutely no semblance of manipulation toward the tourney or its rules. The outcome will be what it is. I’m confused about how strategy is deemed manipulation to change the outcome of a situation in this instance. By op’s point, which is highly subjective, merely playing the game is manipulation. Nobody is trying to manipulate anything in an illegal way here…unless by manipulation you mean win/cause the other guys to lose.

It’s strategy when i win.

It’s manipulation when they win.

Realist.5812:

No.

NA gold league is the only league playing 3 way fights correctly.

Having the same predictable result due to the underdogs not working together is what is hurting WvW. The servers need to be more proactive in taking down the higher ranked server.

^— This

This topic is the best one so far!

Do people only get worked up over “2v1” when they are the 1?

You will always have two servers against one. That is the very nature of WvW where there are three servers fighting each other.

Red and blue can attack green. 2v1
Blue and green can attack red. 2v1
Green and red can attack blue. 2v1

WvW is one big “2v1” fight.

If it is in a server’s best interest to focus on a particular server, then so be it, they are just playing strategically. This seems to be a difficult concept to grasp for some people.

And the way the rules are worded can be open to interpretation, and should probably be reworded to clarify its intentions.

Does doing your best to become first equal “match manipulation”? Should a server go “Oh, we have more players in WvW than the other two players combined, we’re a shoo-in for first if we log in and fight, better not do that as that would be fixing the match to make us first.”

BG have bought in their lawyers?

Classic, yes this one is by far the best thread in the recent BG crop.

Rawr.5930:

It’s strategy when i win.

It’s manipulation when they win.

lol nice post.

What made it funny but also terribly sad is that attitude defines their thinking.

I’m pretty sure that the Protoss double teaming the Zerg with the Terran is not allowed.

people STILL play for ppt? how kittening sad

2 v 1 can suck for the target.

BUT

2 v 1 is legit.

the 2v1 is unfair by this:
if each server have a limit to wvw (that’s why there is QUEUES)…and they can’t get more of their world inside cause of of the limit…then lets move to another server half of the people and then when this 2 worlds match against each other they just focus on the 3rd world their against with!

so this way they can have in WvW the twice the number of the 3rd world…its like a coward thing “can’t fight fair…cheat it” something like that…works for low standards/prideless persons…gz for them.

Im glad Im not from any of those 2 worlds! They may win like this…but…whats the point of winning when everyone knows they only win by playing 2v1 cause they can’t do nothing alone?!

And yes this is cheating…but can be concidered as tactical also…but still cheating!

Period!

BG: stop it. Look at the comments in every single one of these threads. No one sympathizes with you.

Hopefully you’ll be 2v1’d every week instead of every other week and end up 4th (or lower).

(Not on BG, JQ, or TC.)

So if me and my friend from the same guild decide to roam and find a solo roamer, and proceed to 2v1 him, are we breaking the rules? hah.

JJBigs.8456:

So if me and my friend from the same guild decide to roam and find a solo roamer, and proceed to 2v1 him, are we breaking the rules? hah.

If the solo roamer is from BG then certainly yes.

hanZou.3645:

the 2v1 is unfair by this:
if each server have a limit to wvw (that’s why there is QUEUES)…and they can’t get more of their world inside cause of of the limit…then lets move to another server half of the people and then when this 2 worlds match against each other they just focus on the 3rd world their against with!

so this way they can have in WvW the twice the number of the 3rd world…its like a coward thing “can’t fight fair…cheat it” something like that…works for low standards/prideless persons…gz for them.

Im glad Im not from any of those 2 worlds! They may win like this…but…whats the point of winning when everyone knows they only win by playing 2v1 cause they can’t do nothing alone?!

And yes this is cheating…but can be concidered as tactical also…but still cheating!

Period!

You are not from JQ or TC actually playing the match, so you will not understand.
1. QUEUE is not always there for 24 hr on all map
2. At any point of time BG can field equal or greater than any other opponents when all 4 maps are combined
3. We are not fighting for the win, we are fighting for #bgtears
4. When there is 3 way fight, 2v1 will happen (intended or not) but in our case enemy of my enemy is my friend.

No.

If you take a strict literal approach, Rule 22 does no apply
to World vs World vs World combat

Further, if with take a view based on a purposive approach using
extrinsic articles from Anet, you will find that 2 servers focusing a single enemy is
not a breach of the rule.

Some feature that motivates servers not to double team would be welcome, for example if you own 2 towers in server A’s territory, then getting a tower from server B’s territory would give you a one time bonus of points/influence, whatever.

sazaw.1347:

You are not from JQ or TC actually playing the match, so you will not understand.
1. QUEUE is not always there for 24 hr on all map
2. At any point of time BG can field equal or greater than any other opponents when all 4 maps are combined
3. We are not fighting for the win, we are fighting for #bgtears
4. When there is 3 way fight, 2v1 will happen (intended or not) but in our case enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Bgtears?! Im proud that i’ve moved to bg im feeling special now! Ok…if you don’t play to win…I’m gessing you’re used to lose…thats ok cause seeing that is needed 2 servers to take us down…only means one thing…nahh… not gonna say… just GG and HF (the main point of GW2 is HF besides most of the ppl already forgot that)

ohhh and when you say this “2. At any point of time BG can field equal or greater than any other opponents when all 4 maps are combined” ….well let me quote you “You are not from” BG “actually” cause you would know thats not true.

Rawr.5930:

Coverage and population wins matchups, can i now label “blackouts” and “stacking” a breach of code too?

2v1 is a feature, Anet has stated as such, im not inclined to quote it but minimal effort is source the quote.

How is abiding by a game mode a breach?

By that definition, NOT 2v1ing is also a breach as it virtually hands the server who has the largest population a win no?

Is that manipulation too?

It’s getting patently ridiculous how the forums are flooded by these threads only now when a certain interesting matchup is in play….

Let’s put it that BG did a blackout to invite guilds in their server, at the start of the season all 3 servers have all BLs on queue means there’s no outnumbering even if a server recruited guilds in. For sure BG wouldnt mind if either JQ and TC will do a blackout too to invite guilds in just not the nasty 2v1 where BG is like fighting 2 zergs vs 1 on every BL. What JQ and TC are doing is not hitting each other and pushing BG on both sides simultaneously, both servers just divide the BG territories equally and even defending the “friendly” faction when it is getting attacked by BG.

Everybody knows 2v1 isnt winnable and the couple servers are just denying it to cover their cowardness. If any from TC or JQ thinks otherwise then answer the question, can any of you beat BG without doing the 2v1? I doubt it. If you are gonna go throw the blackout excuse again then TC go move to JQ server so you’ll become one and show BG some balls.

P.S. Let’s take a peek at history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUOSd6Ipi-Y

sazaw.1347:

hanZou.3645:

the 2v1 is unfair by this:
if each server have a limit to wvw (that’s why there is QUEUES)…and they can’t get more of their world inside cause of of the limit…then lets move to another server half of the people and then when this 2 worlds match against each other they just focus on the 3rd world their against with!

so this way they can have in WvW the twice the number of the 3rd world…its like a coward thing “can’t fight fair…cheat it” something like that…works for low standards/prideless persons…gz for them.

Im glad Im not from any of those 2 worlds! They may win like this…but…whats the point of winning when everyone knows they only win by playing 2v1 cause they can’t do nothing alone?!

And yes this is cheating…but can be concidered as tactical also…but still cheating!

Period!

You are not from JQ or TC actually playing the match, so you will not understand.
1. QUEUE is not always there for 24 hr on all map
2. At any point of time BG can field equal or greater than any other opponents when all 4 maps are combined
3. We are not fighting for the win, we are fighting for #bgtears
4. When there is 3 way fight, 2v1 will happen (intended or not) but in our case enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You are not BG actually playing the match, so you might not understand.
1. The EXACT same applies to BG. You’re delusional if you think otherwise that BG is this monster that has queues all hours of the day. You’ve been hand-fed propaganda and lies to help ease the pain that the only reason you’re losing is simply due to being outnumbered everywhere. It’s not true. Literally the ONLY timezone BG has queues on every map is NA prime, and MAYBE Oceanic if the NA players are staying up later than usual. That’s it.
2. The exact same can be said for JQ or TC. JQ literally just showed it last week when their SEA logged in EARLY during Tuesday OCX, a timezone BG is very weak in and does not queue except for maybe EB/home BL. TC’s EU is very strong as well and can become quite the heavy hitter when it revs up.
3. Fighting not to win is the very aspect of a losers mentality. Are you Ex-SoR? With however many BG, fairweather or not, cry or complain just as many if not more revel in the fact that when they look at the scoreboard it’s taking two FULL T1 servers to coordinate so thoroughly through voice comms, and pre-planning to knock them down. You’re feeding the beast.
4. Anet intended for 2v1’s, but they also intended for people to play for first up until the very last minute, not hand it off before the weekend is even over. The 2v1 being coordinated by TC and JQ is an example of win-trading, and is far more disgusting an act than what has been spewed on the forums.

RoChan.1926:

But for argument’s sake, let’s say that holds true. How are you going to prove there is a 2v1 occurring through mutual agreement and not through circumstances? What would be the evidence to accept? Verbal recording without the consent of the parties (though in some states that’s illegal)? Written proof (that isn’t a pair of troll players)?

As you can see that cannot occur in a match that largely deals with numerous amount of people and can only be considered with small scale fights where communication is limited to those specific players during that current match. You can also not prove that 2 servers are not trying to be self serving where as in a match of 2 groups you can as you can watch the way points are capped.

If ANet responds and says that Rule 22 does not apply to WvW then the point is moot.

If, however, ANet deems Rule 22 to apply then methods of detection would need to be considered. I do not want this thread to be derailed by arguments about potential detection and enforcement methods, although I can (off the top of my head) think of a few:

1) Consider A and B engaged in 2v1 against C. A launches an assault on C’s keep whilst B spawn camps. Were it to occur but once, one could simply reason that A might have simply launched an opportunistic ninja attack whilst B was happy farming C. No foul. However, if an hour later the roles are reversed, and B assaults whilst A spawn camps, then we veer sharply away from the realm of coincidence into the realm of collusion.

2) An ANet employee, logged into a regular account, joins A’s zerg. TeamSpeak details are obtained and the employee joins TeamSpeak as well to hear the commander. During manoeuvres the commander says something like “Don’t attack B. We’re not attacking B this week. Only attack C.” When queried in /t why A is not attacking B, the response comes back “We need C to come last so that they will drop down a tier and we will play D next week.” This is quite clearly manipulation of the ladder. A publicly accessible TeamSpeak channel is legally recordable and the company’s own /t chat logs are likewise — sufficient evidence to verify a breach.

3) As far as enforcement of consequences is concerned, this has to fall squarely on the shoulders of the commanders. Whilst the grand strategy may have been devised behind closed doors by parties unknown, the zerg follows the commander almost blindly. It defies belief that a commander would unknowingly or unwillingly lead their zerg repeatedly on manoeuvres over the course of days, week, even months, that are collusive in nature. Perhaps a first warning could be that they lose their badge on the commanding character, a second could be loss of all badges for all characters on the account along with a 3-month prohibition on purchasing another, and the third strike could be an account ban.

As I said, however, let us not get bogged down in ‘what if / how then’ speculation as ANet has not made an official response and such a discussion may end up moot. The above examples are just off the top of my head, so were developers or the community to collectively address this issue I am sure much better methods could be devised. Suffice to say that relatively simple and effective ways to detect collusion of the 2v1 kind, and enforce consequences, exist — if they (‘solutions’ to the ‘problem’) didn’t exist then I would not have bothered posting in the first place.

Thanks again for your continued input into this discussion.

Don’t try to argue with BG… they’ll come up with more bullkitten, and it’s like talking to a brick wall. They’ll keep coming up with excuses, or crying for ANet intervention, which is absolutely not going to happen.

BG needs to nut up and take the loss. I know that when BG bought your guild, you were promised a season 2 win, but it’s still a competition. Hopefully other leagues follow suit in season 3, rather than letting themselves be pummeled into the ground.

match up manipulation is if i control 2 servers and decided i let one of my server lose intentionally for the benifit of the other. teaming up is not a match manipulation its called strategy. just funny to think all this peeps who switch to BG for the promise of being number 1 has thier hopes crushed lol

sazaw.1347:

hanZou.3645:

the 2v1 is unfair by this:
if each server have a limit to wvw (that’s why there is QUEUES)…and they can’t get more of their world inside cause of of the limit…then lets move to another server half of the people and then when this 2 worlds match against each other they just focus on the 3rd world their against with!

so this way they can have in WvW the twice the number of the 3rd world…its like a coward thing “can’t fight fair…cheat it” something like that…works for low standards/prideless persons…gz for them.

Im glad Im not from any of those 2 worlds! They may win like this…but…whats the point of winning when everyone knows they only win by playing 2v1 cause they can’t do nothing alone?!

And yes this is cheating…but can be concidered as tactical also…but still cheating!

Period!

You are not from JQ or TC actually playing the match, so you will not understand.
1. QUEUE is not always there for 24 hr on all map
2. At any point of time BG can field equal or greater than any other opponents when all 4 maps are combined
3. We are not fighting for the win, we are fighting for #bgtears
4. When there is 3 way fight, 2v1 will happen (intended or not) but in our case enemy of my enemy is my friend.

2 is a load of bullocks.
Your number 3 and 4 just proves that this continous 2v1 is actually an intentional manipulation aimed at trolling on the frustration of others.

Yagami.1640:

Rawr.5930:

Coverage and population wins matchups, can i now label “blackouts” and “stacking” a breach of code too?

2v1 is a feature, Anet has stated as such, im not inclined to quote it but minimal effort is source the quote.

How is abiding by a game mode a breach?

By that definition, NOT 2v1ing is also a breach as it virtually hands the server who has the largest population a win no?

Is that manipulation too?

It’s getting patently ridiculous how the forums are flooded by these threads only now when a certain interesting matchup is in play….

For sure BG wouldnt mind if either JQ and TC will do a blackout too to invite guilds in just not the nasty 2v1 where BG is like fighting 2 zergs vs 1 on every BL.

So your solution to the problem instigated by BG is have the other servers do the same thing they did?

It’s like you’re oblivious to it all…

Less QQ Blackgate. 2v1 is normal in a three way fight.

Akkadian.7206:

sazaw.1347:

hanZou.3645:

the 2v1 is unfair by this:
if each server have a limit to wvw (that’s why there is QUEUES)…and they can’t get more of their world inside cause of of the limit…then lets move to another server half of the people and then when this 2 worlds match against each other they just focus on the 3rd world their against with!

so this way they can have in WvW the twice the number of the 3rd world…its like a coward thing “can’t fight fair…cheat it” something like that…works for low standards/prideless persons…gz for them.

Im glad Im not from any of those 2 worlds! They may win like this…but…whats the point of winning when everyone knows they only win by playing 2v1 cause they can’t do nothing alone?!

And yes this is cheating…but can be concidered as tactical also…but still cheating!

Period!

You are not from JQ or TC actually playing the match, so you will not understand.
1. QUEUE is not always there for 24 hr on all map
2. At any point of time BG can field equal or greater than any other opponents when all 4 maps are combined
3. We are not fighting for the win, we are fighting for #bgtears
4. When there is 3 way fight, 2v1 will happen (intended or not) but in our case enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You are not BG actually playing the match, so you might not understand.
1. The EXACT same applies to BG. You’re delusional if you think otherwise that BG is this monster that has queues all hours of the day. You’ve been hand-fed propaganda and lies to help ease the pain that the only reason you’re losing is simply due to being outnumbered everywhere. It’s not true. Literally the ONLY timezone BG has queues on every map is NA prime, and MAYBE Oceanic if the NA players are staying up later than usual. That’s it.
2. The exact same can be said for JQ or TC. JQ literally just showed it last week when their SEA logged in EARLY during Tuesday OCX, a timezone BG is very weak in and does not queue except for maybe EB/home BL. TC’s EU is very strong as well and can become quite the heavy hitter when it revs up.
3. Fighting not to win is the very aspect of a losers mentality. Are you Ex-SoR? With however many BG, fairweather or not, cry or complain just as many if not more revel in the fact that when they look at the scoreboard it’s taking two FULL T1 servers to coordinate so thoroughly through voice comms, and pre-planning to knock them down. You’re feeding the beast.
4. Anet intended for 2v1’s, but they also intended for people to play for first up until the very last minute, not hand it off before the weekend is even over. The 2v1 being coordinated by TC and JQ is an example of win-trading, and is far more disgusting an act than what has been spewed on the forums.

I was about to reply to him…but what can i say more?! You said everything!!

Seriously we’re f$%#ing special they want our tears seriously from now on when I WvW I’ll be always thinking “how can people play for tears instead of focus to winning” xD

BG won already…Im proud that we managed to have 2 servers against us…that’s how special and important we are for them.

roxybudgy.8205:

You will always have two servers against one. That is the very nature of WvW where there are three servers fighting each other.

Red and blue can attack green. 2v1
Blue and green can attack red. 2v1
Green and red can attack blue. 2v1

WvW is one big “2v1” fight.

I would like to point out that you have missed the following permutations:

Red vs Green; Green vs Blue; Blue vs Red. 1v1v1
Red vs Blue; Blue vs Green; Green vs Red. 1v1v1

Perhaps most importantly, you missed out the one that is the most simple, obvious and intended:

Red vs Green vs Blue. 1v1v1

A three team format, whilst it enables the possibility of 2v1 collusion and match fixing, does not mandate 2v1 collusion and match fixing. Correlation does not imply causation, as they say.

And the way the rules are worded can be open to interpretation, and should probably be reworded to clarify its intentions.

I think you are correct.

hanZou.3645:

sazaw.1347:

You are not from JQ or TC actually playing the match, so you will not understand.
1. QUEUE is not always there for 24 hr on all map
2. At any point of time BG can field equal or greater than any other opponents when all 4 maps are combined
3. We are not fighting for the win, we are fighting for #bgtears
4. When there is 3 way fight, 2v1 will happen (intended or not) but in our case enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Bgtears?! Im proud that i’ve moved to bg im feeling special now! Ok…if you don’t play to win…I’m gessing you’re used to lose…thats ok cause seeing that is needed 2 servers to take us down…only means one thing…nahh… not gonna say… just GG and HF (the main point of GW2 is HF besides most of the ppl already forgot that)

ohhh and when you say this “2. At any point of time BG can field equal or greater than any other opponents when all 4 maps are combined” ….well let me quote you “You are not from” BG “actually” cause you would know thats not true.

Umm actually we have been winning way before BG comes to T1. We have seen servers come up and go down. Personally I think winning for a long time is bad for us. I don’t want that to happen. It attracts fair whether. Because I know winning in WvW means more number and coverage only.
I’m not on BG but c’mon we’ve been fighting BG long time of course we know your number and coverage.

ps: i’m not ex-sor. I’m on JQ since 3 days headstart.

Another one of these threads??? @OP: I get it. You were promised an easy mode ride to a win when the server bought you.

ANET has already said they did 3 way matches for a reason. The purpose is to beat down a stronger server (or beat down a server with the most complainers)

Let them cheat & then justify it Doesnt mean we dont have more talent than them by a wide margin….Just means we choose not to cheat to win.
Simple as that
Fighting without honor is just that…

RoChan.1926:

Rawr.5930:

Coverage and population wins matchups, can i now label “blackouts” and “stacking” a breach of code too? [..]

I would argue that those are more of a match manipulation then 2v1 is
.

TC got 10+ guilds from SOR, JQ got 2 guilds just from BG plus the others. BG got 2. So which servers are really “stacking”? Coverage in T1 is very even, with JQ being the only of the 3 servers with full 24 hour coverage. Coverage and has nothing to do with the current dynamics in T1.

The problem usually is that the 2vs1 scenario applies to #1 & #2 are farming #3 which applies to 90% of the fights.
The #2 placed world will get easier loot, karma and PPT if they raid #3 most of the time, because #1 might be too hard to fight.

IMO Anet missed a chance to encourage teaming up against the #1 server when the worlds are not equally matched.

But still, coverage is a main problem in playing for points and player zergs vs. door has to end.

lmao bg is looking into the fine print and terms and conditions. What’s next BG, a class action lawsuit for punitive damages and such? lmao….ohhh you guyyyyys.