Guild Wars 2

This is happening to other servers not just mine.

Jax: “Ok guild the new Swiss style tournament starts today in WvW, any questions before we join in?”
First time tournament player: “Jax what happens if the other two servers team up and play together against us?”
Jax:" That has happened in other tournaments but Anet know about it so I don’t think that will happen this time, and anyway who wants to win by cheating, that wouldn’t be fair."

Swiss style tournament week 1
Server A: “Lets team up with server B to beat server C.”
Server B: “Lets team up with server A to beat server C.”
Server C: “Lets hope this time there is no cheating.”

First time tournament player: “Jax you said that the two servers wouldn’t join up to beat us!”
Jax: “That was just bad luck on our part to be against two servers who could only win by cheating.”

Swiss style tournament week 2
Server A: “Lets team up with server B to beat server C.”
Server B: “Lets team up with server A to beat server C.”
Server C: “Going to be more fun this week as the severs won’t team up against us this time.”

First time tournament player: “Jax you said!”
Jax: “I know I just didn’t think it would happen twice.”

Swiss style tournament week 3
Server A: “Lets team up with server B to beat server C.”
Server B: “Lets team up with server A to beat server C.”
Server C: “I think the servers will play fair this week.”

First time tournament player: “Jaaax!”
Jax: " I know, but maybe in week four we will get servers who don;t want to cheat to win."

What? It’s rather unlikely you’re getting 2v1’d and more likely you’re just outnumbered

Jax Eaglesight.4203:

Jax:" That has happened in other tournaments but Anet know about it so I don’t think that will happen this time, and anyway who wants to win by cheating, that wouldn’t be fair."

you were wrong to say that.

it’s not cheating, Anet is fine with it and it’s perfectly fair.

that’s just how every 3 player/team game works out.

Well yes it is cheating because it takes the ‘friendly competition’ aspect out of the window.

How is 2v1 fair when it means one server basically will never stand a hope in hells chance of achieving anything

Isn’t this part of why Anet made WvW a 3-way fight, instead of 1v1? So that it would be possible for 2 servers to team up to fight a more populated or more coordinated one and give more of a variety of fights.

Really? Cheating? Sound like a little kid.

‘’Mommy they’re not playing fair!"

So you expect Server A to attack Server B and Server B to attack Server C and Server C to attack Server A? And that’s it? That’s not how the real world works.

This is war, if you find yourself in a fair fight, something’s gone wrong.

Reverence.6915:

What? It’s rather unlikely you’re getting 2v1’d and more likely you’re just outnumbered

there is outnumbered part and then there is well coordinated hit from two servers from both sides while those 2 servers zergs never attack each other

Fair:
noun
1. A place where fairs, horse races, etc., are held; in the U.S. usually an area set aside by a city, county, or state for an annual fair and often containing exhibition buildings.

verb
2. (Of the weather) become fine.“looks like it’s fairing off some”

adjective
3. (Of hair or complexion) light; blond.

Why do you think there are three sides instead of two? It’s not random.

Working as intended, nothing to see here. Move on, move on.

It’s sure as kitten not cheating, some Anet devs have even said they’re surprised it doesn’t happen more often. One of the mechanics was that two servers could work together to put some pressure on a third server with greater numbers and/or coverage. It gives the two servers a better chance and the third server some competition. Win, win.

Not sure what server you’re on, but if you’re being consistently pressured by two bigger servers, then that’s horrible sportsmanship. Although, some servers deserve it anyway by having a poor/obnoxious attitude or QQing about it too much on the forums. Tear-chasing is a real thing, unfortunately.

I can see how the OP feels like this is cheating, however it is not. Yes the 3-way system was intended so that 2 lesser populated servers could face a larger populated server in theory, but in practice what actually happens is the 2 higher populated servers will attack the lesser populated for easy points/karma/bags, and avoid the other higher pop server because it will only slow them down.

I just really doubt it’s a coordinated 2v1. 2v1 out of convenience and easy champ bags, sure, but fully coordinated, 3 weeks in a row from different servers?

Hmm, without knowing what server you’re on, I can’t comment if it’s happening or not. But in my server’s case (TC), I haven’t seen any evidence of 2v1 going on.

Week 1: BG vs JQ vs TC. BG came out all guns blazing and absolutely stomped the two of us. Last tournament JQ and TC double-teamed BG with great success, but it seems we opted to play open season this time around. At the end of the week, JQ and TC were fighting tooth and nail to come in 2nd, but JQ eventually pushed hard at the 11th hour to retain their lead.

Week 2: TC vs FA vs Mag. No contest here; TC absolutely crushed FA and Mag with our superior numbers. I ended up spending most of my WvW time in EotM since I didn’t want to demoralise the other two guys anymore.

Week 3: BG vs TC vs SoS. BG is winning, obviously, but SoS is making a good showing even though it’s pretty obvious they’ll come in third. No evidence of any double-teaming going on as far as I can see. It seems like this week all three servers are focusing on defending their Borderlands and EBG patches, making only smaller pushes into each other’s territories.

Zaxares.5419:

Hmm, without knowing what server you’re on, I can’t comment if it’s happening or not. But in my server’s case (TC), I haven’t seen any evidence of 2v1 going on.

Week 1: BG vs JQ vs TC. BG came out all guns blazing and absolutely stomped the two of us. Last tournament JQ and TC double-teamed BG with great success, but it seems we opted to play open season this time around. At the end of the week, JQ and TC were fighting tooth and nail to come in 2nd, but JQ eventually pushed hard at the 11th hour to retain their lead.

Week 2: TC vs FA vs Mag. No contest here; TC absolutely crushed FA and Mag with our superior numbers. I ended up spending most of my WvW time in EotM since I didn’t want to demoralise the other two guys anymore.

Week 3: BG vs TC vs SoS. BG is winning, obviously, but SoS is making a good showing even though it’s pretty obvious they’ll come in third. No evidence of any double-teaming going on as far as I can see. It seems like this week all three servers are focusing on defending their Borderlands and EBG patches, making only smaller pushes into each other’s territories.

I feel like this post would be better explained if we knew which server OP was on.

I forsee three possibilities:

1: There is a legitimate 2v1 going on in some other league we don’t know about.

2: OP’s server is bottom of its league (like Maguuma in ours), got screwed by how the league lines were drawn, and is just outnumbered by both opponents each week.

3: OP is on BG and is still kittening about last season’s big 2v1 (done in response to a guild-shopping-spree on BG’s part, as well as being a vengeful act of thoseof the SOR exodus in JQ and TC)

Cheating implies that 2v1 is breaking the rules. It is not therefore it is not cheating.

Checking OP’s post history, it appears he’s from Gandara so he’s talking about EU.

Kigera.9584:

Checking OP’s post history, it appears he’s from Gandara so he’s talking about EU.

Fair enough. Gandara was EU’s S2 destination for easy reward bandwagoning so it’s not surprising when things get tough, fairweather flee to EoTM while other servers take their revenge. Just look at NA’s Henge of Denravi. Gandara’s done well to rise so high after season 2. Just outlast this season and build up the server’s tenacity

The problem with the three sided matches usually is: it is naturally that 1st (to win) and last (to not loose) focus on 2nd, cementing the advantage of the leading.

If that could be somehow improved (I.e. Current 2nd and 3rd have a malus fighting each other and a bonus fighting the leading) it would be nice to have three way matches, but as it is it’s quite annoying and 2 sided matches would be better especially during seasons.

Honestly, 2v1’ing the stronger server is a better outcome than what usually happens: both stronger servers farm the weakest server for easy points.

2v1’s have happened numerous times in the past, and it’s not “cheating” in any way.

3x server was implemented, so two weakest would strike the first one more. It worked for some time. Especially against vizunah square. Then sfr came, and campaigned with other servers. Lead server + still need extra server to beat third server. Is it cheating? no. It’s it moraly correct? absolutely not. Is it good for future of wvw? kitten right it’s not xD All sfr people complaining about not enough wvw content, yet they are digging their own grave. Keep up the 2 vs 1 sfr. And don’t come with posts denying it

Jax Eaglesight.4203:

This is happening to other servers not just mine.

Jax: “Ok guild the new Swiss style tournament starts today in WvW, any questions before we join in?”
First time tournament player: “Jax what happens if the other two servers team up and play together against us?”
Jax:" That has happened in other tournaments but Anet know about it so I don’t think that will happen this time, and anyway who wants to win by cheating, that wouldn’t be fair."

Swiss style tournament week 1
Server A: “Lets team up with server B to beat server C.”
Server B: “Lets team up with server A to beat server C.”
Server C: “Lets hope this time there is no cheating.”

First time tournament player: “Jax you said that the two servers wouldn’t join up to beat us!”
Jax: “That was just bad luck on our part to be against two servers who could only win by cheating.”

Swiss style tournament week 2
Server A: “Lets team up with server B to beat server C.”
Server B: “Lets team up with server A to beat server C.”
Server C: “Going to be more fun this week as the severs won’t team up against us this time.”

First time tournament player: “Jax you said!”
Jax: “I know I just didn’t think it would happen twice.”

Swiss style tournament week 3
Server A: “Lets team up with server B to beat server C.”
Server B: “Lets team up with server A to beat server C.”
Server C: “I think the servers will play fair this week.”

First time tournament player: “Jaaax!”
Jax: " I know, but maybe in week four we will get servers who don;t want to cheat to win."

There is nothing wrong with that. A.Net has been surprised more of this doesn’t happen.

Hence why are doing Alliances in the near future….

I think its strongly against the spirit of the game if two teams are coordinating to fix the outcome of the game. This is a competition to see who the best players of the game and or tactical game moves. We have seen a fantastic level of evolution of strategies and game mechanics and yet people who are just in the game for the loot and not to enjoy the game as it is intended are ruining it by fixing the outcome.

I completely understand A + B beats C week 1, maybe even on week 2 too. But then A pulls ahead and suddenly B+C beats A (week 3) and then anything can happen. But if A+B beats C for weeks in a row, even after A has grown a massive lead is just ridiculous. What’s the point of playing on server C? What about the players who enjoy playing WvW on server C?

Silver Myst.2860:

I think its strongly against the spirit of the game if two teams are coordinating to fix the outcome of the game. This is a competition to see who the best players of the game and or tactical game moves. We have seen a fantastic level of evolution of strategies and game mechanics and yet people who are just in the game for the loot and not to enjoy the game as it is intended are ruining it by fixing the outcome.

I completely understand A + B beats C week 1, maybe even on week 2 too. But then A pulls ahead and suddenly B+C beats A (week 3) and then anything can happen. But if A+B beats C for weeks in a row, even after A has grown a massive lead is just ridiculous. What’s the point of playing on server C? What about the players who enjoy playing WvW on server C?

But making an alliance with an enemy to defeat another enemy is a legitimate, and historical, tactic. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” sound familiar? Russia and US toward the end of WWII? If server A feels threatened by, or unable to take server B, why shouldn’t they make a truce with server C? So instead of trying to fight on 2 fronts, they sided with one side to take on the one they feel is a greater threat. I am sure there is much negotiation that goes on for such alliances. What is in it for server C? Why should they side with server A, and not B? If they side with A, does A let them take first? or should they settle for second?

I don’t see it as “fixing the outcome”. More like “taking a safety net so they don’t get totally beaten out.”

I’d rather see the 2v1 thing exercised more, honestly.
Last season, there were a couple obvious 2v1’s and a few smaller ones, and although the people on the receiving end weren’t to happy, “the obviously predictable results of the season” didn’t come off kitten predictable.
Which is pretty much the excitement of a tourney, sure u have the pain of the match, but the game also has to do with those points u gain at the end of the week, and, seeing your team win through unbelievable odds, the upsets, the glory.

Working in a 2v1 is also fun, knowing your time zone could get the coordination together with another server and break the 3rd servers wp’s, honestly, that’s pretty fun, specially when a time zone over, the tables get turned and suddenly your own team cries 2v1 (if they were only there an hour ago).

The obvious and unfortunate thing about 2v1 is point hounding off the weakest server.

What we need is a really good motivation to see the top server loose, instead of, my server needs to win. We need a direct motivation to see the green map split up the middle, blue and red.

There was a really good discussion once upon a time about re-weighing points based upon yours and enemy ranking, I think that could be a good place to start.

2vs1 isn’t cheating.

Devs said during s2 that it is totally legit.

/End

pdavis.8031:

Silver Myst.2860:

I think its strongly against the spirit of the game if two teams are coordinating to fix the outcome of the game. This is a competition to see who the best players of the game and or tactical game moves. We have seen a fantastic level of evolution of strategies and game mechanics and yet people who are just in the game for the loot and not to enjoy the game as it is intended are ruining it by fixing the outcome.

I completely understand A + B beats C week 1, maybe even on week 2 too. But then A pulls ahead and suddenly B+C beats A (week 3) and then anything can happen. But if A+B beats C for weeks in a row, even after A has grown a massive lead is just ridiculous. What’s the point of playing on server C? What about the players who enjoy playing WvW on server C?

But making an alliance with an enemy to defeat another enemy is a legitimate, and historical, tactic. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” sound familiar? Russia and US toward the end of WWII? If server A feels threatened by, or unable to take server B, why shouldn’t they make a truce with server C? So instead of trying to fight on 2 fronts, they sided with one side to take on the one they feel is a greater threat. I am sure there is much negotiation that goes on for such alliances. What is in it for server C? Why should they side with server A, and not B? If they side with A, does A let them take first? or should they settle for second?

I don’t see it as “fixing the outcome”. More like “taking a safety net so they don’t get totally beaten out.”

I’m no history buff but I thought there was more than 3 countries in the 1940’s…

2 v 1 might be an allowed tactic and I’m not all against it when its used in the spirit of the game. Organising before the tournament who will get 1st, 2nd and 3rd places and using overwhelming numbers to achieve that.

What if two of the teams in division 1 decide that this season A will get Gold and next season B will get gold. C wont ever get a chance.

But I like the points based on armies idea. If C always loses and gets more points for the small victories, then maybe a 2v1 powerhouse could be disrupted.

Jax Eaglesight.4203:

This is happening to other servers not just mine.

Blackgate, is that you? :P

A way to solve this might be to implement some sort of “underdog” buff where if your server is trailing the lead server by a certain % (or #) of points you gain extra wxp or karma or something for attacking them. It could encourage the two lower servers into attack the leader instead of each other, which would make things more exciting all around.

Silver Myst.2860:

…This is a competition to see who the best players of the game and or tactical game moves.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I’m not sure if the tourny shows the “best players”. There are some great players, sure, but I’ve come to realise the tourny is usually won by the biggest stack, greatest coverage, cheesiest builds and tactics, and most guilds bought/bandwagonned. You could say they’re the “best” because they won, but I certainly don’t think the title fits. Apart from the cheesy builds, a 2v1 combats the automatic win-by-numbers.

I was proud that even a server like SFR stepped down to double-team us (Deso, well known pve server in EU, but thought of as cheap blobbing server in wvw last tournament). That was an honour because that meant we were taken seriously (and rightly so, we ended as 2nd in gold league). But now I don’t think much double teaming is going on, at least not in EU gold. The reward scheme may contribute for this, because if they are important for you, you want to win every match.

Claudius.5381:

I was proud that even a server like SFR stepped down to double-team us (Deso, well known pve server in EU, but thought of as cheap blobbing server in wvw last tournament). That was an honour because that meant we were taken seriously (and rightly so, we ended as 2nd in gold league). But now I don’t think much double teaming is going on, at least not in EU gold. The reward scheme may contribute for this, because if they are important for you, you want to win every match.

Double teaming is still happening. This past week a certain server in Bronze league got 2v1’d and ended up in 3rd place. The reason: being disrespectful and obnoxious.

Double teaming happens all the time even if there is no communication between any of the servers. People prefer to attack the weaker server since it’s easier to capture objectives, and ignore the stronger one.

The most hilarious example I’ve seen recently is groups from two servers holding the third server’s keep and killing the lord every 5 minutes to keep refreshing the walls and doors.

Silver Myst.2860:

pdavis.8031:

Silver Myst.2860:

I think its strongly against the spirit of the game if two teams are coordinating to fix the outcome of the game. This is a competition to see who the best players of the game and or tactical game moves. We have seen a fantastic level of evolution of strategies and game mechanics and yet people who are just in the game for the loot and not to enjoy the game as it is intended are ruining it by fixing the outcome.

I completely understand A + B beats C week 1, maybe even on week 2 too. But then A pulls ahead and suddenly B+C beats A (week 3) and then anything can happen. But if A+B beats C for weeks in a row, even after A has grown a massive lead is just ridiculous. What’s the point of playing on server C? What about the players who enjoy playing WvW on server C?

But making an alliance with an enemy to defeat another enemy is a legitimate, and historical, tactic. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” sound familiar? Russia and US toward the end of WWII? If server A feels threatened by, or unable to take server B, why shouldn’t they make a truce with server C? So instead of trying to fight on 2 fronts, they sided with one side to take on the one they feel is a greater threat. I am sure there is much negotiation that goes on for such alliances. What is in it for server C? Why should they side with server A, and not B? If they side with A, does A let them take first? or should they settle for second?

I don’t see it as “fixing the outcome”. More like “taking a safety net so they don’t get totally beaten out.”

I’m no history buff but I thought there was more than 3 countries in the 1940’s…

Of course there were more then 3 countries. My point though, was the historical significance of two countries “teaming up” to take on a third. And the major players that took out Germany at the end of the war, were the US and Russia. They agreed to work together to achieve that end, however after that, Russia claimed 1/2 of Berlin, and the US ceded the rest back to Germany. Thus the Berlin wall, and the beginning of the “Cold War”.

Zaxares.5419:

BG vs JQ vs TC.* BG came out all guns blazing and absolutely stomped the two of us. Last tournament JQ and TC double-teamed BG with great success, but it seems we opted to play open season this time around.

Considering a few high level dev’s play on BG, even having that BG pin on the twitch stream, this pretty much sums it up…..

http://youtu.be/ElZfE1AVDPQ?t=19s