Guild Wars 2

As the topic states. Lets have a real tournament. Top 6 or 9 or whatever servers play each other 1 vs 1. Do gold, silver and bronze brackets as we have now. Each server plays each other 1 time and whoever wins the most matches wins. Have a 1 vs 1 if there is a tie score at the end of season. Or have the top 2 finishing servers play each other 3 weeks in a row, first to win 2 weeks wins.

This would settle all the whining, false bravado and bs thats on these forums.

The current “tournament” is hardly a tournament at all. Its a mess of 2 vs 1, servers playing to lose to get a better seating next round and all kinds of other bs.

I want battles where everyone is playing for their home realm and is trying their best to beat the hell out of the other realms on the map that week.

Nothing wrong with the 3 realm format when not in tournament season.

Hope this catches on.

The servers that are higher ranked naturally have better coverage and would lend toward more even matches. I am not suggesting that gold bracket plays bronze bracket.

The server standings alone should determine who has the better coverage.

My whole point is I want knock down, drag out, hard fights. Not the 2 vs 1, losing to get better seating next round and all that crap.

If you have a better solution, by all means, lets hear it. A better solution to the current tournament format is what I am looking to get.

I am not here to flame, troll or anything. I just want to fix the game I enjoy playing.

I play on JQ if that matters in some way.

jojojoon.8607:

OP is from BG pretending to be on JQ.

Jericho.6753:

I play on JQ if that matters in some way.

CALLED AF

Would need a new map. The current ones don’t lend themselves well to 1v1

I think its worth a test at least. The matches might be closer for those servers nearest each other in terms of coverage.

I kinda’ like the idea Jericho.

I’d like to see it as a featured play-off each week. Two similar servers go head to head each week and you can see how they fare. Which ones have more coverage, their peak times, which guilds or Commanders are key players and then how the the other server responds for example after getting blasted in the first 2 days and see how they respond as a community when the going gets tough.

I think it would be intriguing to see how it pans out over seven days and give a great indication of the server spirit.

Sure, there are things to work through while the main WvW battle continues. Maybe a freeze in scores for the participants so they don’t lose anything, I don’t really know, I’ll leave that for others to work out.

I do like the general idea though.

1v1 is a terrible idea. With a 1v1v1 coverage gaps are less pronounced because you still have to worry about a second force hitting you. During a 1v1, as seen during many weeks of season 1, the second you hit an area that has a coverage gap for one team and not the other, the score gets lopsided and then stuff gets taken, then upgraded which become harder to take back leaving one server pinned down and the other with a huge lead. (The weeks I’m referring to are when BG was facing JQ or SoR and a T2 server that spent most of the day with nobody on)

Another good example is the time that JQ and BG were in the same matchup as DB last summer. BG racked up a 111k win because JQ had nobody during late NA/OCX and EU of which BG had sizable populations. Normally during those times there would be a combined force for late NA/OCX for SoR and IRON and sometimes TW during EU. Without those forces to help keep BG in check, JQ lost all its stuff to 10 vs 80 fights and when they finally DID have people on, all their stuff was papers and all of BGs was upgraded.

Then why is this called a tournament at all? And a 2 vs 1 is better? Or realms losing on purpose to get a better matchup next round? When should losing become a viable strategy? This whole tournament is a farce and it discourages everyone except those that die without overwhelming force. Have you seen what is going on in this “tournament”? How is what we have now possibly better than the borefest JQ is experiencing now because of the alliance with TC? Is winning REALLY worth this bs?

Lets not call it a tournament at all then. Its a pile of ….

1v1 magnifies all timezone disparities and destroys the dynamics of how WvW was designed in the first place. The only way to make it remotely meaningful is to run it eotm style in short 4-hour or so windows during a timezone where both servers involved can fully occupy the map(s), but that just shafts the other timezones. Will not happen.

Edit @ above: Congratulations, you have realized that the tournament is a pile of …

The problem is that if 2v1 becomes a thing in WvW, then it will soon turn to 2v0. Then there are two outcomes: either they keep the alliance in which case we will be seen empty maps or they will have to fight each other on 1v1v0. In the latter case, it would be better to just change the mechanics to 1v1.

And why are posters here assuming JQ would lose. I have seen us win many good fights. We have many good commanders and guilds. If we need abit more coverage make a deal with a guild and bring them in. All the top servers have done it including BG, JQ, TC, SoR and the like.

Let us look at the last week of t1 (BG SOS) 2v1, JQ commander overtime two days open pin 24 hours to catch up with the PPT, JQ can, BG why not

WINSON.3278:

Let us look at the last week of t1 (BG SOS) 2v1, JQ commander overtime two days open pin 24 hours to catch up with the PPT, JQ can, BG why not

Because SoS isn’t a t1 server. Their active population and coverage don’t come close to TC’s.

WINSON.3278:

Let us look at the last week of t1 (BG SOS) 2v1, JQ commander overtime two days open pin 24 hours to catch up with the PPT, JQ can, BG why not

SoS decided to start focusing on BG, in turn BG had to focus on SoS which led to JQ being able to catch up without a problem. I am sure BG can do the same if TC started focusing on JQ or vice versa.

BG has better coverage and off hours than TC or JQ. TC and JQ’s solution? Combine their strengths to eliminate their weaknesses… BG buy’s guilds, sends spies and pays off players to do their bidding, that’s their strategy, this is ours…

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

BG has better coverage and off hours than TC or JQ. TC and JQ’s solution? Combine their strengths to eliminate their weaknesses… BG buy’s guilds, sends spies and pays off players to do their bidding, that’s their strategy, this is ours…

We think JQ is paying TC. You can make your baseless assumptions and I can make mine.

Eh good idea @ OP.

While you are at it, why not suggesting to remove those guilds that are bought by BG, so it’d be more fair too?

#beegeehanginthere2014

Renny.6571:

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

BG has better coverage and off hours than TC or JQ. TC and JQ’s solution? Combine their strengths to eliminate their weaknesses… BG buy’s guilds, sends spies and pays off players to do their bidding, that’s their strategy, this is ours…

We think JQ is paying TC. You can make your baseless assumptions and I can make mine.

So in that case you’re saying you can buy people off but we can’t? BG logic never fails to entertain me.

Please devs, completely change WvW in the next 2 weeks to anything where BG can win, to put an end to these threads!
#BGT

A lot of passive aggressiveness going on here. Why always the BG tears thing? I think this was started with the intent to discuss. If you start on with things like that, it’s difficult to have an actual discussion. If you fairly judge this tournament, it’s kind of messed up. Take a look at the breakdowns for awards. Doesn’t really matter much who places 1-3. Maybe even up to 4 and 5 as well.

The OP raises a good point that a lot of the competitive WvW play seems centered around positioning match-ups. From my perspective as a primarily PvE player, I do not enjoy zerging and do not have the PC for it. I do however enjoy havoc and scouting. I think you’ll find that match-ups like this are very dull and unenjoyable for a great deal of players (regardless of the side you are on).

You’ve got some people so heavily, emotionally invested in this stuff that they’re willing to create boring match-ups and really ruin a lot of the gameplay for either the rewards or just to ‘stick it to’ another server.

Saint.5647:

A lot of passive aggressiveness going on here. Why always the BG tears thing? I think this was started with the intent to discuss. If you start on with things like that, it’s difficult to have an actual discussion. If you fairly judge this tournament, it’s kind of messed up. Take a look at the breakdowns for awards. Doesn’t really matter much who places 1-3. Maybe even up to 4 and 5 as well.

The OP raises a good point that a lot of the competitive WvW play seems centered around positioning match-ups. From my perspective as a primarily PvE player, I do not enjoy zerging and do not have the PC for it. I do however enjoy havoc and scouting. I think you’ll find that match-ups like this are very dull and unenjoyable for a great deal of players (regardless of the side you are on).

You’ve got some people so heavily, emotionally invested in this stuff that they’re willing to create boring match-ups and really ruin a lot of the gameplay for either the rewards or just to ‘stick it to’ another server.

You make a good point; if you aren’t a hardcore WvW guy you probably find this very boring.

The thing is, all of us “hardcore WvW” types ENJOY this sort of thing. It’s FUN for us. We actively try to get any advantage we can, because for us winning is the goal. You can’t have both a hardcore WvW environment and empty zones/zergless havoc, because if you have enough players who want to WvW seriously then we’re going to group up because it’s the most efficient way to kill the enemy.

Yeah, I get that. It’s easy to see it from different perspectives. It’s very much a ‘play to win’ thing. I keep that mindset for PvE and I keep it for sPvP. I of course do as much as I can in WvW to win as well in the skirmishes I get into, although I just don’t find the large scale fights very fun. I won’t argue with efficiency though.

I do hope they do something with the system right now though. I think 2v1 is a very legit tactic for a shuffled competition. BG won by a huge margin in a previous match up. It’s reasonable to team up to win, and then move on to the next week.

The problem I’m seeing now is that you have this 2v1 as a way to manipulate the standing. The Swiss tournament guarantees a match-up with these teams on a very regular basis because of their performances against other servers. So, it becomes imperative to ‘team up’ with someone else to try to force either TC or JQ down so that they are no longer matched up with BG. It’s annoying to know that you have to play a certain way in order to ensure you don’t get 2v1 in a coming week instead of everyone just giving their 100% each week.

I think it’s a problem when we’re playing the rankings more than we’re playing the game. I tried to play this week and I just got shafted at the spawn a few times. Left to do other things.

Anyways, my two cents.

Blackgate vs JQ, i’d like to see this WITHOUT TC there.

I am from BG and i say that it is a bad idea. Yes we would most likely win, but that would be boring. having a 3rd server there is what makes wvw interesting.

15 years of Mmo history has shown 1vs1 doesn’t work. Especially when you have stuff like coverage determine the outcome. If anything, the next Large scale pvp MMO should have more servers linked. It would be even harder for one server to dominate. Of course there would be challenges with lag, but a well designed 5-7 servers all duking it out would be interesting

Or what about 5 way matches :O

I have 3 words to solve this problem and stop the tears flowing into these forums and to solve the problem with coverage, PPT, 2v1, and so on since everyone wants to play WvW for fights:

GvG

Make it happen!

Renny.6571:

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

BG has better coverage and off hours than TC or JQ. TC and JQ’s solution? Combine their strengths to eliminate their weaknesses… BG buy’s guilds, sends spies and pays off players to do their bidding, that’s their strategy, this is ours…

We think JQ is paying TC. You can make your baseless assumptions and I can make mine.

Being from JQ I can confirm that our ninja spies raided the so called super secret BG war chest to pay TC to 2v1 BG. :P

In a 1v1 BG would win. Not because of skill but because during NA we do not match their numbers and during EU they can form an entire queue blob and we can barely get a zerg going.

In all honesty, between TC JQ and BG, they all wipe each other about the same. Theres no dominant skill server. Anyone who says different is chest thumping and/or delusional.

So basically the server with the greatest coverage wins then.

How about this, how about we split the PPT score into 3 separate scores. Midnight to 8, 8 to 4, and 4 to midnight. So basically there is a potential for 3 points per match, and none of those PPT scores interact with each other.

Basically those servers with massive coverage during Midnight to 8 are guaranteed a point for that time slot. The beauty of this is, it doesn’t guarantee them a win in the other 2 time slots. In order to win the match, a server must win at least 2 out of the 3 time slots.

More emphasis is now moved towards skill and less towards coverage. So basically those servers with little skill and lots of coverage are doomed.

Do you support that OP?

^You would have to reset the maps completely too. Because one time zones T3’s would roll over and create a clear advantage.

DeWolfe.2174:

^You would have to reset the maps completely too. Because one time zones T3’s would roll over and create a clear advantage.

Good point, everything resets at 0 during each time slot, a much better idea.

I don’t know if 1v1 would be better or not, that is for the devs and the players after testing to decide.
Forget about this season and who did what or say that. Dead and buried.
But let´s analyze the next WvW season under ceteris paribus on the current trend. NO NAMES, it is just an analysis.
Let’s suppose that the 4 top servers of each league will make an alliance for 2v1. On the first day, on the top tier of each league there will be an alliance, and by taking turn on winning/losing they will always be on the top tier for the whole season. That means that on day 1 we will already know the contestants for the 1st and 2nd place. Nobody can do anything to change that outcome regardless of staking/coverage/skill/guild buying/server blackout/whinnying/ etc.
The other alliance will never actually have the opportunity of doing 2v1 because they will never share the map.
Because the server playing against a 2v1 that week (which will change each week) will be facing an unwinnable situation and the player’s leisure time is limited (let’s assume they consider it valuable) they will have very little incentive to play on that week, so we will probably be seeing empty maps on borderland on the top tiers.
Then only real battle on the top tier will be on the 9th week to decide the 1st and 2nd position.

If you wanted to do a 1v1, you would have to do a couple things.

1st, you would have to do away with PPT as we know it. It might still get to exist, but it would have to be done more in line with how EOTM does it. You break the day up into several matches with fixed scores ending at each period. Then you tally up the matches for the week.

So its NA vs NA, EU vs EU, Oceanic vs Oceanic etc etc.

Then you also need a new map, as mentioned, the map isn’t designed for 1v1.

you probably should also just make Bloodlust a static bonus during this time. Every stomp counts for 1 pt and there is no swing in stats.

Over the course of a week, im not sure much really changes.

BG has better coverage than JQ or TC at this time (and for various reasons).

Id suspect that it all comes out in the wash. JQ, TC, and BG all have large zerg guilds, havoc squads, and roamers. All three have exceptional talent and hapless nubs.

I don’t think anything ANET does is going to change how T1 plays out. I think a bigger factor in how T1 goes in the future can be found in the release dates of other games.

its been 2 years, its been a good run, people are going to leave. The game is going stale.

OP is a load of crock.

Make it such that maps and populations are dynamically balanced and then maybe you can have a proper 1v1.

Asking for such a format only serves to completely bias the game in favor of higher population and coverage, which is just SO FUN.

Before I start, let me say that I’m from Blackgate. I don’t mind 2vs1, its the way AgAvE was designed.

The problem isn’t 2v1, its the tournament style that creates a BGvTCvJQ matchup that allows for a fixed result before we are even a quarter of the way through the season.

A seeded matchup seystem that allowed each server to play each other once or twice in the season would change that.

With three servers fighting, there will always be 2v1 at some point. There’s a big difference between that and a coordinated 2v1 for the entire match where wins are traded between teaming servers for each alternating match up.

shocking.3269:

Before I start, let me say that I’m from Blackgate. I don’t mind 2vs1, its the way AgAvE was designed.

The problem isn’t 2v1, its the tournament style that creates a BGvTCvJQ matchup that allows for a fixed result before we are even a quarter of the way through the season.

A seeded matchup seystem that allowed each server to play each other once or twice in the season would change that.

I guest you were not here for season 1. NA gold has to few servers and the difference in tiers promotes blowout matches. Going up against a server once would be the same as last season. Most of last seasons winners won undefeated in that set-up.

In the other 9 server leagues the swiss tournament enables them to have closer match-ups. This is because a server will no go up against one that is more than 6 ranks above them. The match-ups this season are closer than last season because of that.

Not closer. Manufactured.

To be honest to do it properly you either have to have a league system where all servers play (no gold silver or bronze league, just one league.)
Or have seeded pools where depending on your rank at the end of the pool matches puts you in a series of 1 or 2 play off matches to determine the winner etc. (such as Soccer World Cup or NFL divisonals and playoffs to superbowl.)

DeadlySynz.3471:

So basically the server with the greatest coverage wins then.

How about this, how about we split the PPT score into 3 separate scores. Midnight to 8, 8 to 4, and 4 to midnight. So basically there is a potential for 3 points per match, and none of those PPT scores interact with each other.

Basically those servers with massive coverage during Midnight to 8 are guaranteed a point for that time slot. The beauty of this is, it doesn’t guarantee them a win in the other 2 time slots. In order to win the match, a server must win at least 2 out of the 3 time slots.

More emphasis is now moved towards skill and less towards coverage. So basically those servers with little skill and lots of coverage are doomed.

Do you support that OP?

this isn’t a bad idea but would involve more work for anet.

It’d have to be a short tournament, because the outcome of a 1v1 would be obvious within a day.

Make it like a fifa world cup group stage. 1 vs 1 and who ever wins all the matches wins the world cup.

http://www.ole.com.ar/pronostico-mundial/pronostico-1465000278.html

A 1v1 match would result in BG dominating every server. 9/10 times, BG’s zerg can wipe an opposing one of equal or slightly bigger number because a lot of our players are seasoned wvw players who listens to commanders when, where, and what to drop. Might, Veil, Water, Bomb, Banners. Not to mention they’re very good at positioning the group to cut through enemy zergs.

What amuses me is that people keep stating that the 2v1 is justified because BG bought guilds — as if JQ and TC did not. I guess whatever makes them feel better about the desperate 2v1 tactic.

Niko Stark.8932:

A 1v1 match would result in BG dominating every server. 9/10 times, BG’s zerg can wipe an opposing one of equal or slightly bigger number because a lot of our players are seasoned wvw players who listens to commanders when, where, and what to drop. Might, Veil, Water, Bomb, Banners. Not to mention they’re very good at positioning the group to cut through enemy zergs.

What amuses me is that people keep stating that the 2v1 is justified because BG bought guilds — as if JQ and TC did not. I guess whatever makes them feel better about the desperate 2v1 tactic.

1. The 2v1 needs no justification

2. Nothing makes TC and JQ feel better about it more than the tears of people as yourself. 2v1s are boring, people need incentive to do it. The tournament rewards are fairly weak incentives – the real amusement comes from the whiners. I think 90% of BG understands this and are just playing through the 2v1 and letting it end naturally, but people like you undo all their effort.

Niko Stark.8932:

A 1v1 match would result in BG dominating every server. 9/10 times, BG’s zerg can wipe an opposing one of equal or slightly bigger number because a lot of our players are seasoned wvw players who listens to commanders when, where, and what to drop. Might, Veil, Water, Bomb, Banners. Not to mention they’re very good at positioning the group to cut through enemy zergs.

What amuses me is that people keep stating that the 2v1 is justified because BG bought guilds — as if JQ and TC did not. I guess whatever makes them feel better about the desperate 2v1 tactic.

You must have missed the last week Bg and SoS teamed up on JQ.

BillDaButcher.7504:

Niko Stark.8932:

A 1v1 match would result in BG dominating every server. 9/10 times, BG’s zerg can wipe an opposing one of equal or slightly bigger number because a lot of our players are seasoned wvw players who listens to commanders when, where, and what to drop. Might, Veil, Water, Bomb, Banners. Not to mention they’re very good at positioning the group to cut through enemy zergs.

What amuses me is that people keep stating that the 2v1 is justified because BG bought guilds — as if JQ and TC did not. I guess whatever makes them feel better about the desperate 2v1 tactic.

You must have missed the last week Bg and SoS teamed up on JQ.

Team up? Last thing I recalled is SoS constantly trebing our stuff and constantly getting in battles against us. You thought it was a team up because we focused more of our resources at capturing your towers and keeps.

There is a different a big different between how JQ and TC work together. They not only double team BG but also do match manipulation. They allow the sever with the lower score get first. Thus manipulating the match on who will get first second and third that week. They are allow to do this because anet do not care or enforce the rule that they set.

Hm…what about 1v1 fights but with few servers joining on one side as an alliance? It would be like 2v2 or something like that. That would partially solve “coverage” problem, and would encourage ally teams to split up and have more tactic play. But still we would need new maps for system like that…

It’s just an idea…I don’t mind having this current system…

Sfr and Baruch are teaming up against Deso for the second time…….

Sigh*