Guild Wars 2

Look at any of the score monitor threads and you’ll see a lot of people talking about 2v1ing. There are legitimate times where a server will notice the two opponents locked in combat and then swoop in and attack the flank. The point of this post is to discuss 2v1ing and try to change the perspective of those who believe that is what happens.

Countless times SBI has been accused of allying with another server, just as it has claimed others allied against them. I think this is all perspective. Lets use EB as an example. Jade Quarry defends against SoS at DG while JQ and SoS forces attack SBI SM.

SBI will see two servers attacking SM. The reality is JQ or SoS is piggybacking on the other server and trying to steal glory for themselves. What SBI does not see is that SoS and JQ are locked in battle at DG. This gives life to the concept that SoS and JQ made an alliance. 2v1ing.

This happens often and I really think that destroys WvW for people. So I wanted to discuss this civilly and see if explaining how it can be perceived as unfair when it isn’t will relieve from of the hostilities forming.

Best thing to do is ignore the players accusing of 2v1. Three factions sometimes do have games where 2 ally vs 1, Sometimes one server indiscriminately capitalises on opportunities that present themselves. It doesn’t matter really, all are the enemy even those you have treaties with.

In a 1v1v1 situation its almost impossible for 2v1’s not to happen. Im on Tc and some Fort aspenwood are constantly saying that we 2v1 with Yaks bend. What they dont see and what i think is quite obvious is that the 2 stronger servers will almost always gang up on the weaker server. when they see a chance to capitalize on a servers weakness for their own gain, you bet your kitten that they will take it, its just the nature of the game. I guess some people just cant grasp this simple fact.

I feel though that treaties aren’t that wrong to have. Tactically you know two opposing servers can only hold the peace for so long and it is only logical that you bring more men to break the back of the strongest server.

Constantly 24/7 treaties won’t ever happen.

There are 2 reasons why there would be the appearance of 2v1, one tactical and the other mathematical.

Tactical
If server A is beating up server B, server C can reasonably expect that server B’s defenders will be too busy to respond while they ninja some camps or towers. Also, server C can reasonably fear that server A will have enough defenders to spare for an attack on them if they call attention to themselves by flipping anything.
Server A knows this and allows server C to go about relatively unmolested.
To server B this looks like an alliance but it is really each server just doing what is in it’s best interest.

Mathematically
If servers A and B are tied in points and server C is far behind and server A takes a camp from server C, then server A takes the lead by 5 points.
But if server A takes a camp from server B instead then server A moves into the lead by 10 points.
The assests of you nearest rival are worth twice what the assests of the lowest server are.

@Occam your first reason is exactly what I thought. It made sense that a 2nd server would be after the 1st while the 3rd kinda weaseled into the 1st land.

And for the mathmatical part does make sense.

This is what happens in a game when it becomes more about ‘points’ and less about ‘fun’. These kind of win at any cost ‘tactics’ are often what kill pvp games. I talk to a lot of new people in WvW and they ask me about this kind of stuff from time to time and most say it is ‘stupid’ or ‘unfair’ and makes them not want to play. Anything that makes people not want to play a game should not be in a game. I have noticed that PvP players have a high tendency to kill their own fun in the long run.

There are simple things Anet could do to discourage this, but they have done nothing with WvW at this point so it is unlikely it will happen.

Honestly, I think people like fighting more than not fighting. Even if there was an alliance, I don’t see it working for long. pvp minded people just can’t help themselves when they see red.

Exactly, Xtorma, but because of the way perception works it is easy to see the offensives launched against you than those against your enemies. So often it feels that a realm is grouping with another but in reality they share a similar mind and once given a chance they would rip each other apart.

I emphasis that my own comments may not reflect the truth, but I am in Tier 1 and I do see a lot of comments implying guild truces. As I previously said even if a truce has been made human nature shall ensure it is shortly lived.

We’ve all seen the accusations. Myself, I try to believe people are misguided than wilfully ignorant. Is amuses me so when I see accusations of SBI and in fact any other. It is difficult to believe that offenselves elsewhere are occuring when you’re focused by two servers.

Kanikani is right to an extent. At least on SBI we will over extend last minute to claim points and rob other servers of them when the tick becomes 5 minutes or so. Which really is no more a less valid tactic than anything else but as I’ve seen on these forums there are point hunting servers who avoid engagement at any cost.

That was the Warhammer style of things. How many servers do Warhammer have?
Not many.

Ultimately I think it comes down to players and our frames of mind. We can make these forums miserable and we could focus on PvDoor as someone said.

2v1s do happen but I doubt they are as coordinated as one thinks. And if you do doubt this about SBI, transfer over and witness our attempts at getting people to stack. Hah.

kanikani.2430:

This is what happens in a game when it becomes more about ‘points’ and less about ‘fun’. These kind of win at any cost ‘tactics’ are often what kill pvp games. I talk to a lot of new people in WvW and they ask me about this kind of stuff from time to time and most say it is ‘stupid’ or ‘unfair’ and makes them not want to play. Anything that makes people not want to play a game should not be in a game. I have noticed that PvP players have a high tendency to kill their own fun in the long run.

There are simple things Anet could do to discourage this, but they have done nothing with WvW at this point so it is unlikely it will happen.

What simple things could the devs do to keep PvPers from kicking a downed opponent? I personally can’t think of anything other than a straight 1v1 matchup, and that isn’t as much fun. As others have said I think this just comes with the territory in a 3 sided PvP match up.

The way borderlands are structured necessitates there is 2 attackers vs 1 defender.

West spawn attackers:

You have easy access to south west tower and supply camp and a safe treb from the supply camp that hits both inner and outer walls/doors of west keep. West keep is a very bad keep to hold because it can be safe trebbed from garrison. Very hard to push to a northern tower from west spawn unless you have overwhelming numbers or there is a second attacker creating enough distraction and diverting enough defenders away from the northern towers.

Golem rush on garrison is possible but garrison is easily defended imo despite the number of entry points. The amount of unreachable siege locations means stealth or massively superior numbers are the only real way of breaking an ungraded garrison without holding a northern tower. Garrison watergate is a killzone if your rush is discovered. There are many places to put unreachable arrowcarts and ballistas to kill a force of any size on both inner and outer gate and the lord room is a killzone too if its pre sieged.

East spawn attackers:

You have easy access to south east tower and south east supply camp but your journey north ends here. South east tower can be safe trebbed from east keep. East keep is the most easily defended keep in the game and its very bad if the defending team holds it and upgrades it. The only way to take it is with massively superior numbers after starving it and even then, the inner lord room is a killzone where 15 defenders can reasonably hold against 50 or 60 attackers.

If you have east keep, it is likewise easily defended but of the two northern towers, north east is by far the harder one to assault. The cliffs at north east tower has unreachable ballista/arrow cart spots that make an assault on gate a death trap. You can cat down a wall but must do so between north east tower and garrison leaving you extremely vulnerable to pincer. Generally not possible to take when upgraded unless defending team is divided or seriously lacks numbers/coordination.

Borderland maps are designed to give a favourable advantage to defending teams. This why the most common recommendation is to secure your own borderland first before assaulting anyone else’s borderland. If you can’t secure your own borderland with the forces you have, its highly unlikely you will make much progress as an attacking team unless you have another attacking team to help you divide and conquer the defender.

So all borderland maps should really be played 1 defender vs 2 attackers and the defender’s job is to create conditions that make both attackers go at each other and thus kill themselves. The only legitimate complaints on 2 vs 1 is if both attacking teams have inferior numbers to the defender and attack each other. The only result of that is that you wipe out a weak attacker and have to 1 vs 1 a much bigger defender on a map that gives them a natural advantage.

kanikani.2430:

This is what happens in a game when it becomes more about ‘points’ and less about ‘fun’.

It’s a competition. That’s what happens. There is strategy involved. I play games for the thrill of competition, the sweet taste of victory and the sting of defeat. This goes hand in hand with my fun. I assume my opponent is playing to win, and if I find out that he wasn’t I feel cheated and the entire game becomes hollow. That doesn’t mean you don’t act with a sense of sportsmanship and being friendly, however playing to win and fun are synonymous to me. If I lose I say GG and congratulate my opponent while thinking on how I can improve my game, if I win I say GG and congratulate my opponent on how I can improve my game.

The point: I’m pretty sure that most gamers drawn to WvW, and the nature of PvP in general probably feel pretty much the same way. At least the more hardcore PvP inclined guys and not the casual dabblers (but we love you too!)

@sbr.8170
You could institute all number of buffs depending on different situations. You could have NPC’s help during low populations times. Here’s an idea, lets say two teams are attacking a keep at the same time and out number the defenders in EB. Have those statues in the keep come to life and defend like a champion mob (think giant grub). All kinds of things. To prevent another server escorting yaks for another, just have the yak attack them on site. And so on and so forth, there’s a lot of ideas out there check the suggestions forum.

@Braxxus.2904
Sportsmanship is really flexible with most pvper’s many justify spawn camping as a ‘tactic’ and it does help you win so if you are winning at any cost that does include glitching, hacking, stealing, cheating, metagaming. The issue is if you totally crush your opponents every time, especially by dishonorable means, they will no longer want to play. Then your left playing by yourself which is not fun. Say your playing tennis and its two vs one. How long until the other player says hey this is stupid Im going to play another game, especially if it is that players first time. If that happens your game is dead. Relying on only the most hardcore pvp people will lead to a very empty world.

Also for all my WvW time the best most enjoyable moments, had very little to do with points. Great defenses or attacks etc. even when no points were earned or lost.

Braxxus.2904:

kanikani.2430:

This is what happens in a game when it becomes more about ‘points’ and less about ‘fun’.

It’s a competition. That’s what happens. There is strategy involved. I play games for the thrill of competition, the sweet taste of victory and the sting of defeat. This goes hand in hand with my fun. I assume my opponent is playing to win, and if I find out that he wasn’t I feel cheated and the entire game becomes hollow. That doesn’t mean you don’t act with a sense of sportsmanship and being friendly, however playing to win and fun are synonymous to me. If I lose I say GG and congratulate my opponent while thinking on how I can improve my game, if I win I say GG and congratulate my opponent on how I can improve my game.

The point: I’m pretty sure that most gamers drawn to WvW, and the nature of PvP in general probably feel pretty much the same way. At least the more hardcore PvP inclined guys and not the casual dabblers (but we love you too!)

You do realize that if the point system wasn’t there and the mechanic for winning worked differently you still would have a competitive game?
It’s the fact that current system is broken and pushes people into playing W3 like it wasn’t supposed to be.

Examples of issues being caused by the way the current ranking system works.
PvDooring, where you run from tower to tower with a zerg and only stay to take the tower if it has less than 3 defenders in it.
Ganking up on an opponent that is already downed, because that can earn you easy points. (often the cause of an already outnumbered server being hit hard by 2v1 until they are wiped off the map)
People not coming into W3 anymore after they are too far behind in points leading into even less people coming next time.

You really have to realize that the fact the current system works the way it does doesn’t mean that it is the right way.
And the way you describe, game-play does not matter to you at all, only the outcome.

They should change the rankings system so only first is rewarded, with second and third punished equally.

In theory it should encourage the two weaker servers to attack the stronger server.

Given the sheer size and diversity of a servers’ playerbase, I consider it ludicrous to assume someone can exert enough control over all these people 24/7 to uphold agreements to maintain a teamup against another server.

It’s more Serveer A taking advantage of server B and C fighting somewhere. It’s the nature of the beast and there by design. Sadly, the QQ is there, too. Just ignore it.

Yes, some servers might play obviously for 2nd place at times, but that again is their tactical choice and a valid one. It’ll add fuel to the 2v1 discussion, but so far I haven’t seen any teamups in T1.

The only time was a JQ/SBI/HOD matchup after HOD’s implosion where HOD was virtually absent and began their move downwards, which ended up in 1v1+handicap match.

TL;DR: 2v1 happens by design, no teaming-up agreements are in place.

@hoschi or other naysayers. Its actually quite easy to promote a 2v1. Here’s what you do. Find one random person with a commander title. Transfer to the enemy server. Put on your commander badge and say zerg to me we are going to do x because of some tactical bs. Done. 2v1. Welcome to metagaming. Its much less difficult to manipulate a zerg then you guys think.

@Kanikani – assuming your server doesn’t know it’s commanders and has no voice comms. It wouldn’t work like that on SBI

-1 for Theorycrafting.

hoschi.8693:

@Kanikani – assuming your server doesn’t know it’s commanders and has no voice comms. It wouldn’t work like that on SBI

-1 for Theorycrafting.

I don’t think most servers outside of T1 and possibly T2 have server wide voice chat for WvW coordination, we’re T3 (Tarnished Coast) and I’m pretty sure we don’t. It’s a great idea and would likely helps us A LOT, but someone just has to take the initiative I guess :P

Kani’s idea would likely work to some extent in lower tier servers or with some of the casual WvWers (I don’t mean casual in a bad way) on our server who don’t know our commanders, It wouldn’t work forever, but might be somewhat effective in the short term.

mu, check the TC forums for more information on server wide voice chat.

muCephei.9428:

I don’t think most servers outside of T1 and possibly T2 have server wide voice chat for WvW coordination, we’re T3 (Tarnished Coast) and I’m pretty sure we don’t. It’s a great idea and would likely helps us A LOT, but someone just has to take the initiative I guess :P

Kani’s idea would likely work to some extent in lower tier servers or with some of the casual WvWers (I don’t mean casual in a bad way) on our server who don’t know our commanders, It wouldn’t work forever, but might be somewhat effective in the short term.

…

I’m fairly certain you do actually have a community voip service going. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it mentioned by people from your server in the recruitment drive posts that have been made for TC. I’m from Yaks, also in T3 against you, and we have a community voip service anyone is welcome to join. I don’t most nights because I like to listen to my tunes while playing but it’s really not hard to get to know the legit commanders with a clue and pitch in even as a ‘random’ on your server.

@the others:
I know you have a ton of propaganda being fed to you daily (FA posters above) but your analogy is pretty off base. It wouldn’t be a 2v1 game of tennis, it would be a 1v1v1 game of tennis where you can score points off both opponents. If one opponent appears to be weaker and an easy source of points then yes you’re going to get both of the other players trying to take advantage of this. This isn’t some conspiracy or alliance for a 2v1, it’s just coincidental and sound strategy.

Also without the points you’d still have people doing most of what you complain about for the karma/xp/money from those same events: PvDoor gives an event completion, ganking gives event completion in most areas, etc.

The only solution to prevent occasional scenarios where someone might feel like they’re getting 2v1’d is to make it a 1v1 competition. And then deal with the same issues you find in every other game: One side has numerical superiority, more people reroll to that side for the wins, snowballs, WPvP dies. The end.

The system we have is fine really. There are no mass conspiracies to 2v1 against you and the wild conspiracy theory about the people transferring, joining the enemy server with their commander tag just to sabotage the other team is flat out rediculous and I wonder what other ‘woe is us’ fantastic fabrications your worlds commanders are feeding you.

TC actually has two public VOIP servers, but AFAIK they’re not used regularly. The AWC one may not even exist anymore. Most WvW guilds stick to their own VOIP servers.

It doesn’t take coordination for 2v1 situations to occur.

If you have three servers, roughly ranked A > B > C, and the score reflects this, certain strategies will emerge. A will have a greater interest in attacking B over C, since its the closest in points/greatest threat. C will also have an interest in attacking B over A because it will be viewed as an easier target, and by bringing B down gives C a greater chance to move in to 2nd.

I’m not saying those are the only considerations, specific situational circumstances have a strong role as well. But the above tendencies I think tend to show through as a slight, but noticeable, shift in who attacks who. Anet’s theory that the two weaker servers will both try to attack the stronger server rarely, if ever, seems to manifest.