Guild Wars 2

In light of the announcement of the World vs. World Fall Tournament coming up in September i have a couple questions. We all know there have been known servers to gang up 2v1 in the past, and usually that is fine, it really does not effect anybody. But in a tournament ganging up 2v1 would basically be rigging the outcome of it. The 2 teams ensure that the 1 team is in last place all tournament, and then the 2 teams can take turns for first place. And that has to be against the rules right?. Are there even rules for these tournaments? Are there any reasons for these servers play fairly? I hope so.

Edit: Changed the name and rephrased. Some people are getting upset because I used the word cheating, I did not mean to ruffle feathers I rephrased I hope that helps get my point across more clearly and peacefully.

In this tournament you can’t share the pot. Every week the #1 gets the most tickets and thats it. So the 2v1 guys have to eventually consentrate on each others to ensure the win for themselves.

And what comes to the 2v1 its a fair strategy. It’s usually the two weaker servers ganging up against big mean server, because the two weaker ones are just trying to ensure the victory to themselves.

And in the end, no matter how you put it, it’s 1v1v1. The two gangers will fight each other as well, it might not be as visible to the ganged one because they are busy with two sides hitting them already.

Honestly thought this was going to be about Invisible/teleporting/fly hacking/noclipping/hacking thread. But no, 2v1 is a strategy not a cheat, sorry.

Paavotar.3971:

In this tournament you can’t share the pot. Every week the #1 gets the most tickets and thats it. So the 2v1 guys have to eventually consentrate on each others to ensure the win for themselves.

And what comes to the 2v1 its a fair strategy. It’s usually the two weaker servers ganging up against big mean server, because the two weaker ones are just trying to ensure the victory to themselves.

And in the end, no matter how you put it, it’s 1v1v1. The two gangers will fight each other as well, it might not be as visible to the ganged one because they are busy with two sides hitting them already.

I do understand they may end up fighting each other, that is if they not decided to take turns winning which could easily happen mind you. But either way i feel like that “strategy” would be unfair in tournament play.

Otaur.9268:

Honestly thought this was going to be about Invisible/teleporting/fly hacking/noclipping/hacking thread. But no, 2v1 is a strategy not a cheat, sorry.

Well if you notice, I asked if that would be considered cheating. But again I would think for a tournament, that strategy may be considered against the rules. It is ensuring a specific server is in last place no matter what, they have no chance to win. Say all you want but it is dang near impossible to win against 2 servers fighting you if not actually impossible. So I feel as if that “strategy” should be frowned upon in tournament play.

Is not cheating and never will be, whining on the forum will make other servers gang you even more.

You should change the title in “Tactics in the WvW tournament”.

sminkiottone.6972:

Is not cheating and never will be, whining on the forum will make other servers gang you even more.

You should change the title in “Tactics in the WvW tournament”.

Clearly it is not an actual cheat so therefor cheating was not the right word to use, but I could not think of another word / title. It is just a title man lol. And again I was simply asking some questions.

The thing at issue in OP is not a bannable offense (even if it were due to ToS, it wouldn’t be enforceable), and that makes this a dead issue.

Virtute.8251:

The thing at issue in OP is not a bannable offense (even if it were due to ToS, it wouldn’t be enforceable), and that makes this a dead issue.

Well of course it is not a bannable offense. But it is so unfair for rewards in the tournament. But if arena net was against it, if they came out and said something like, “This is a tournament where 3 servers battle each other, no 2 servers are meant to ally in order to ensure top tier rewards. Any servers caught doing so will be receive 3rd tier rewards no matter what rank they place.” or anything like that people would not do it, they would have better luck trying to win on their own.

It doesn’t go against any rules, wvw is not a serious competitive mode – in a 3 way war you can’t expect thing to be fair.

Omphaloskepsis.3465:

Virtute.8251:

The thing at issue in OP is not a bannable offense (even if it were due to ToS, it wouldn’t be enforceable), and that makes this a dead issue.

Well of course it is not a bannable offense. But it is so unfair for rewards in the tournament. But if arena net was against it, if they came out and said something like, “This is a tournament where 3 servers battle each other, no 2 servers are meant to ally in order to ensure top tier rewards. Any servers caught doing so will be receive 3rd tier rewards no matter what rank they place.” or anything like that people would not do it, they would have better luck trying to win on their own.

I cannot find the dev posts because the search is broken, but more than once a dev said that the 2vs1 is ment to be, if anet didn’t want that they would have made a 2 way battle instead of 3.

Omphaloskepsis.3465:

Virtute.8251:

The thing at issue in OP is not a bannable offense (even if it were due to ToS, it wouldn’t be enforceable), and that makes this a dead issue.

Well of course it is not a bannable offense. But it is so unfair for rewards in the tournament. But if arena net was against it, if they came out and said something like, “This is a tournament where 3 servers battle each other, no 2 servers are meant to ally in order to ensure top tier rewards. Any servers caught doing so will be receive 3rd tier rewards no matter what rank they place.” or anything like that people would not do it, they would have better luck trying to win on their own.

Fine. It’s also not a punishable offense, nor is it an offense against any rule. Again: even if it were these things, that wouldn’t be enforceable. ANet would be in a position of punishing thousands of innocent people.

What you’re suggesting can never happen.

Yep, I doubt they would go and punish a lot of people for the actions of a few.

And bare in mind that 2v1 is common strategy. You don’t even need to have any form of communication between the two to be honest for the match up to change into 2v1.

For example:
You see orange sword somewhere. You know two servers are engaged with each other there for a while. What you do?

A) Hit the weaker server and make couple towers or keeps paper and in return the most probable outcome is that the stronger will come and take those paper fortifications to themselves sooner than later. In the end you made the stronger even stronger while helping yourself a tiny bit. This could be valid tactic to ensure 2nd place.

B) You hit the stronger one and make something of their paper. They get hindered by the push, maybe your actions pull some of the people to you and the other weaker server will win their fight and in process you made something of the stronger server owns into paper. You made the stronger weaker by your action and you upped your chance to win the match up more than in solution A.

Also, I would like to add. Servers own reputation is also big deal in WvW. If the server is seen as annoying to play against or has made a bad image out of itself it is more likely to be attacked from two sides because both of the other servers wants to “hit the idiot in the face”.

2v1 is a legit “in the moment of battle” strategy. It is a necessary function in a 3-way battle to ensure no particular server dominates. ANet has repeatedly said that WvW was not designed to be fair.

Match manipulation/win trading however, is another topic.

All I will say about that subject is this:

There is specific language regarding match manipulation for SPvP.

It has been shown that the specific language does not apply to WvW.

Precedent was set during Tournament. (see NA T1 “win trading” that occurred throughout the entire second season of WvW.)

Motivation was irrelevant. Observable behavior clearly established occurrence. Precedent formed.

-Just the facts

Maybe if you were more friendly you’d be on the “2” side of the 2v1 instead of the “1” side

Swamurabi.7890:

Maybe if you were more friendly you’d be on the “2” side of the 2v1 instead of the “1” side

I have not been unfriendly to anybody. I cannot control what my server says.

Alrighty well seems like everybody has the same general answer here, kinda sucks but i guess it is what it is. Im not sure why they would have a tournament on something that is designed to be unfair but again it is what it is. Thanks you guys for the info!

CrimsonNeonite.1048:

It doesn’t go against any rules, wvw is not a serious competitive mode – in a 3 way war you can’t expect thing to be fair.

This^^ close thread.

Looking back, you have to realize that what happened in NA Gold in season 2 was a direct result of what happened in season 1.

Just be greatful that the 2v1 didn’t continue after the season and push you down to T2, because that could have happened. I wonder how many players would have jumped off the new T2 server to stay in T1, breaking up your “great community”?

vincecontix.1264:

CrimsonNeonite.1048:

It doesn’t go against any rules, wvw is not a serious competitive mode – in a 3 way war you can’t expect thing to be fair.

This^^ close thread.

Again why host a tournament for a unfair, not serious mode. Just seems like it would cause problems such as this.

Omphaloskepsis.3465:

vincecontix.1264:

CrimsonNeonite.1048:

It doesn’t go against any rules, wvw is not a serious competitive mode – in a 3 way war you can’t expect thing to be fair.

This^^ close thread.

Again why host a tournament for a unfair, not serious mode. Just seems like it would cause problems such as this.

People are asking why since the first league was announced, wvw is a competitive mode but it’s also ment to be unbalanced and unfair, it’s how anet want things to be.

I think anet wants to push pvers to play in WvW giving them shiny rewards and make them pay to transfer to overstacked server in order to alieanate the WvW population, driving them to quit or go sPvP.

If you want a balanced casual tournament then it makes more sense to have it in EotM. At least there you can have balanced numbers on some instances.

sminkiottone.6972:

People are asking why since the first league was announced, wvw is a competitive mode but it’s also ment to be unbalanced and unfair, it’s how anet want things to be.

Not exactly. You’re taking personal offense at the potential unfairness, as if ANet has done something terribly wrong to its players by creating WvWvW as a 3-way battle. That’s not true.

If you don’t enjoy some measure of chaos, then WvW is not for you.

sminkiottone.6972:

I think anet wants to push pvers to play in WvW giving them shiny rewards and make them pay to transfer to overstacked server in order to alieanate the WvW population, driving them to quit or go sPvP.

No. ANet should not want WvW players to quit the game. That’s a silly assertion. Any player loss is lost potential revenue.

Encouraging PvE players into WvW is the opposite of that. That is a strategy of giving the players an on-going goal, to keep them involved longer.

The people that leave GW2 from the WvW population are in two categories:

1) WvW focused players, for which that game has grown stale because everything has a limited shelf-life
2) GvG focused players that fit into #1 and are also upset that their favorite play-style does not get validation from ANet

Neither of those qualify for claiming that ANet pushes them away.

2v1 is a legit way to play until the tournament… then it just becomes rigging for the win. 2v1 as in defeating the strongest server and then fighting the other server for the win is legit, but aiming for one server regardless of winning for the first place is in shady place.
Regardless let’s all have fun and enjoy the tickets!

2v1 is legit… every time. No matter how you do it.

1st server might push the 3rd server for “easy” points, ensuring that it stays on the highest PPT all the time therefor winning the week. OR he might pressure the 2nd to make it’s life hard and hoping the 3rd wants to pressure it as well to get to 2nd place.

2nd server might push the 1st server to make it life harder and hope the 3rd does it so well because the 1st is too consentrated on the 2nd and so 1st loses a lot of points and the 2nd becomes 1st. OR 2nd server pushes 3rd to ensure 2nd place, not giving crap about 1st place and doesn’t want to anger the big threat.

3rd server might push the 1st assuming the 2nd does so as well to push the 1st all the way to 3rd and coming 2nd or even 1st, depending how it goes. OR it might pressure the 2nd more to make it’s life hard and get to 2nd place.

OR the classic:

One of the server is hated for it’s past actions / rumors / attitude / whatever and gets 1v2’d all day all night.

Even if the last classic one sounds harsh, it’s still legit and it’s really hard to prove it’s not some of the above ones and not hate war.

WvW is casually competitive, in the sense that you’re meant to log in and be competitive, but without expectations of enforced fairness for any side. That WvW players often don’t grasp that fact is unfortunate for them personally, as they’re damaging their own ability to have fun with it.

PvP has a rule against match rigging because it is built as a competition on a leveled playing field, so that its tournaments can potentially be regarded as a sport. If you really need to be told why WvW is not like this, then you’ve some very deep misunderstandings about WvW. If you think that WvW should be like this and can be made like this, then you’re doubly mistaken.

Swamurabi.7890:

Looking back, you have to realize that what happened in NA Gold in season 2 was a direct result of what happened in season 1.

It was more of a result of the first match, one server beat the others by 50k when in the previous weeks they were losing by 50k. Can understand slowing down in prep for the season but not dominating during the first match of the season. That was a t1 match-up, it was the beginning of the season, all t1 servers have coverage and they are in full status for a majority of the day. Then an idea popped in someone head and they got the other guilds to organize it. A few said no but majority wins and the alliance was formed.

At least in this tournament each matchup will happen only once. So you can’t have a tournament long 2v1.

They need to change the ticket structure though. Make it:

First Place: 200 tickets
2nd Place: 100 tickets
3rd Place: 100 Tickets

That way to encourage people to fight for 1st. And not be lame and fight for 2nd.

Johje Holan.4607:

At least in this tournament each matchup will happen only once. So you can’t have a tournament long 2v1.

They need to change the ticket structure though. Make it:

First Place: 200 tickets
2nd Place: 100 tickets
3rd Place: 100 Tickets

That way to encourage people to fight for 1st. And not be lame and fight for 2nd.

yes, agreed, fight for first

Virtute.8251:

sminkiottone.6972:

People are asking why since the first league was announced, wvw is a competitive mode but it’s also ment to be unbalanced and unfair, it’s how anet want things to be.

Not exactly. You’re taking personal offense at the potential unfairness, as if ANet has done something terribly wrong to its players by creating WvWvW as a 3-way battle. That’s not true.

If you don’t enjoy some measure of chaos, then WvW is not for you.

Some Devs already stated that WvW is not ment to be fair or balanced.

Virtute.8251:

sminkiottone.6972:

I think anet wants to push pvers to play in WvW giving them shiny rewards and make them pay to transfer to overstacked server in order to alieanate the WvW population, driving them to quit or go sPvP.

No. ANet should not want WvW players to quit the game. That’s a silly assertion. Any player loss is lost potential revenue.

Encouraging PvE players into WvW is the opposite of that. That is a strategy of giving the players an on-going goal, to keep them involved longer.

The people that leave GW2 from the WvW population are in two categories:

1) WvW focused players, for which that game has grown stale because everything has a limited shelf-life
2) GvG focused players that fit into #1 and are also upset that their favorite play-style does not get validation from ANet

Neither of those qualify for claiming that ANet pushes them away.

Nah man, don’t take it too seriously

I will enjoy every single QQ thread of people whining about 2vs1 and not beeing able to complete theyr jumping puzzle.

sminkiottone.6972:

Virtute.8251:

sminkiottone.6972:

People are asking why since the first league was announced, wvw is a competitive mode but it’s also ment to be unbalanced and unfair, it’s how anet want things to be.

Not exactly. You’re taking personal offense at the potential unfairness, as if ANet has done something terribly wrong to its players by creating WvWvW as a 3-way battle. That’s not true.

If you don’t enjoy some measure of chaos, then WvW is not for you.

Some Devs already stated that WvW is not ment to be fair or balanced.

Semantics.

sminkiottone.6972:

Nah man, don’t take it too seriously

I will enjoy every single QQ thread of people whining about 2vs1 and not beeing able to complete theyr jumping puzzle.

Exactly.

Zackie.8923:

Johje Holan.4607:

At least in this tournament each matchup will happen only once. So you can’t have a tournament long 2v1.

They need to change the ticket structure though. Make it:

First Place: 200 tickets
2nd Place: 100 tickets
3rd Place: 100 Tickets

That way to encourage people to fight for 1st. And not be lame and fight for 2nd.

yes, agreed, fight for first

Right, reward stacking for first. How about we all just get on one server and we can all be winners?

Regardless of the motivation, if the two lower servers in a match team up against the top server in a match, it’s a good tactical decision.

Playing for first and second beats playing for second and third, any day.

Back in season 2, TC & JQ ganged up on BG (tc being my actual server at the time) to make sure BG would finish at the most 3rd.
As a very WvW focused player, i pulled a 180 and found myself doing nothing but PvE, quitting the game for short times and playing something else. Yes, those doing it get to “win”. What happened after, a pretty big exodus from TC, and JQ NA seems to have taken a hit from this too.
That constant 2v1 and spawn camping takes all the fun out of the mode (for the 2 side) and is toxic for their community.

Now with all that said, I’m 100% behind the fun and how its ok to cause a 2v1 using map politics.

Either way, this new way of doing tournaments & rewards will make rigging [the tournament] a lot more complicated.

PS: If you can prove the commanders from 2 opposing servers are rigging the match and talking, they would probably get a temp ban.

Rimmy.9217:

Regardless of the motivation, if the two lower servers in a match team up against the top server in a match, it’s a good tactical decision.

Playing for first and second beats playing for second and third, any day.

The main problem with WvW tournaments is that in many matches:

only one team plays for first
only one team plays for second
only one team left that gets third

Swamurabi.7890:

Rimmy.9217:

Regardless of the motivation, if the two lower servers in a match team up against the top server in a match, it’s a good tactical decision.

Playing for first and second beats playing for second and third, any day.

The main problem with WvW tournaments is that in many matches:

only one team plays for first
only one team plays for second
only one team left that gets third

Yup, and the first two both tend to hit the third for easy points. Stupid and unimaginative way to play, really.

LostBalloon.6423:

Back in season 2, TC & JQ ganged up on BG (tc being my actual server at the time) to make sure BG would finish at the most 3rd.
As a very WvW focused player, i pulled a 180 and found myself doing nothing but PvE, quitting the game for short times and playing something else. Yes, those doing it get to “win”. What happened after, a pretty big exodus from TC, and JQ NA seems to have taken a hit from this too.
That constant 2v1 and spawn camping takes all the fun out of the mode (for the 2 side) and is toxic for their community.

Now with all that said, I’m 100% behind the fun and how its ok to cause a 2v1 using map politics.

Either way, this new way of doing tournaments & rewards will make rigging [the tournament] a lot more complicated.

PS: If you can prove the commanders from 2 opposing servers are rigging the match and talking, they would probably get a temp ban.

Rimmy.9217:

Swamurabi.7890:

Rimmy.9217:

Regardless of the motivation, if the two lower servers in a match team up against the top server in a match, it’s a good tactical decision.

Playing for first and second beats playing for second and third, any day.

The main problem with WvW tournaments is that in many matches:

only one team plays for first
only one team plays for second
only one team left that gets third

Yup, and the first two both tend to hit the third for easy points. Stupid and unimaginative way to play, really.

Both of these reasons is why it needs to be winner take all. Or in this case the winner gets the most tickets and 2nd and 3rd both get the same amount of tickets.

That way if a 2v1 happens, as soon as one of the two takes the lead, the 2v1 will have to change or else the “other” of the two will lose and do no better than the 3rd.

Winner take all is just asking for a quicker WvW death as players stack on fewer and fewer servers where one side ticks over 600 PPT and the other two servers are in EotM.

There are many three tier matchups where even if you combine the two losing servers into an alliance they still won’t have the population/coverage to beat the one server.

The results can still be manipulated. They didn’t really fix anything unless I’m missing something.

You have three servers. If two of them team up and make the other get third for that week, that server will never place higher than the other two. This going under the assumption that they won’t face each other again and they all get first the next three weeks.

We could see the same as last season but the results of the tournament determined at the end of the first week.

There could be a little volatility if the three servers face each other separately with another server each of the other weeks. However, so long as that server that got teamed up on loses to one of those servers, the best they could hope for is to tie with second.

Third scenario is if the server that scored 1st the first week let’s the team they teamed up with take 1st when they play them. This forces the server that got teamed up on to still get third.

Johje Holan.4607:

Both of these reasons is why it needs to be winner take all. Or in this case the winner gets the most tickets and 2nd and 3rd both get the same amount of tickets.

That way if a 2v1 happens, as soon as one of the two takes the lead, the 2v1 will have to change or else the “other” of the two will lose and do no better than the 3rd.

There is also the (more likely, I’d wager) outcome in most matches of the 2nd and 3rd servers just giving up completely after 1st pulls out ahead. Since the reward for 2nd and 3rd are the same, and in most cases pulling for 1st would mean a week of limited sleep and days off work for the server with less off-hours population.

A system which encourages all sides to fight for first sounds like a good idea. I just don’t think that would be the way to go about it, given timezone population disparity is generally the deciding factor in points.

Ayrilana.1396:

The results can still be manipulated. They didn’t really fix anything unless I’m missing something.

You have three servers. If two of them team up and make the other get third for that week, that server will never place higher than the other two. This going under the assumption that they won’t face each other again and they all get first the next three weeks.

We could see the same as last season but the results of the tournament determined at the end of the first week.

There could be a little volatility if the three servers face each other separately with another server each of the other weeks. However, so long as that server that got teamed up on loses to one of those servers, the best they could hope for is to tie with second.

Third scenario is if the server that scored 1st the first week let’s the team they teamed up with take 1st when they play them. This forces the server that got teamed up on to still get third.

Assuming that the top tier servers go all out during the season and don’t phone it in every other week (screwing everyone else over) there will be a 6 place tie for 3rd and two-way ties for 2nd and 4th.

I hope that happens because I really want to see the tournament idea flop.

Zackie.8923:

Johje Holan.4607:

At least in this tournament each matchup will happen only once. So you can’t have a tournament long 2v1.

They need to change the ticket structure though. Make it:

First Place: 200 tickets
2nd Place: 100 tickets
3rd Place: 100 Tickets

That way to encourage people to fight for 1st. And not be lame and fight for 2nd.

yes, agreed, fight for first

Oh i kinda like that, very nice idea!

Omphaloskepsis.3465:

Zackie.8923:

Johje Holan.4607:

At least in this tournament each matchup will happen only once. So you can’t have a tournament long 2v1.

They need to change the ticket structure though. Make it:

First Place: 200 tickets
2nd Place: 100 tickets
3rd Place: 100 Tickets

That way to encourage people to fight for 1st. And not be lame and fight for 2nd.

yes, agreed, fight for first

Oh i kinda like that, very nice idea!

The problem I see with the current system (and proposed one) is that the 3rd server has generally no chance to win.