Guild Wars 2

At many of matchs of this season WvW we see 2 vs 1 because servers want make some politics and other doubleteam reason. Only way make match 1 vs 1 and it will be pure and thru challenge.
Now we depents of kittenty reasons and it dont reflect real servers power.
Please make next season matchs 1 vs 1, dont 3 team in match .
And statistics say us most popolar map is EB, pls make it 2 times EB1 and EB2, BG – kittenty , boring map and many peoples dont want play here.

I like the 3 world set up since I reminisce of dark age of camelot. But I see your point and with revolving worlds its not like you’re stuck fighting a more powerful foe forever which is the real reason for this set up.

1v1 is seen already when one server cannot compete and the other two just duke it out while stomping on the underdog. Having the server that cannot compete to become mercenary is actually a real world tactic (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) and if Anet formalise it with extra benefits to those servers willing to sell themselves, it could make things interesting.

Anet please make 3 alliances cross server.

1v1 ? Is that serious ? How about no ?
It will be less balanced than now.

why ? if you server strong you win , if weak you lose, no kittenty randome, politics, doubleteaming and other ? its pure sport.
And no one hide behinde strong server. All resolve in pure one match.
Only bandwagoners and gloryhunters want 1 vs 1 vs 1 because they can trade you kitten for better situations. 1 vs 1 denied this. only pure fight and only real stats

I’d rather they went the other way and made it 5 ways – would need totally different maps etc but would be really good fun- imagine all the servers ganking on whoever gets ahead on the score:-)

1v1 would be terrible- imagine being stuck in a match up with Viz for a week with no one else to fight but their 80 blob and 20 AC masters….

Dmitry.9845:

why ? if you server strong you win , if weak you lose, no kittenty randome, politics, doubleteaming and other ? its pure sport.
And no one hide behinde strong server. All resolve in pure one match.
Only bandwagoners and gloryhunters want 1 vs 1 vs 1 because they can trade you kitten for better situations. 1 vs 1 denied this. only pure fight and only real stats

Bandwagoners want easy wins. A 50% win chance is higher then the current ~33% win chance. 1v1 would only make it easier to pick the winning side, thus bandwagoning.

Gloryhunters…You are requesting “pure” matches to test your might against 1 server…maybe for a glorious victory?

Honestly I disagree with this, I would be open for discussion on the matter if you made any solid points but sadly all I’m seeing is your server got 2v1 and your crying about it.

The current population issues would be even more exasperated in a 1v1 situation. At least with 3 servers the two weaker servers CAN team up, in a 1v1 the stronger server wins and there is nothing that can be done. This would only lead to more exodus of servers and people flocking to active WvW servers. Sorry to come off as rude but your idea is bad and would hurt WvW more than 2v1s.

Also to note in your OP, not every one likes EBG, the boarder lands are awesome and are a lot of fun.

EDIT: Also 2 ebgs??? EBG is a 3 server map…how would that work for a 1v1 match?

If Vizu can beat SFR in one vs one – its good and mean this time Vizu better then SFR
If Piken beat SFR 1 vs 1 – its good and mean this time Piken better then SFR thats problem ?
No “we was doubleteameang blah blah blah….”
1 vs 1 easely balanced then 1 vs 1 vs 1 any gamedisigner told you….
Maps not problem you can disable some spawn points. EBG not problem and all T1 servers full 2 – 3 EBG maps easealy

And btw if you complain to real war, its wery rare situation if in real war we have 3 side, obvious 2 side, if you can remember real sit then 3 army fight each other pls remember me im forgot.

Dmitry.9845:

why ? if you server strong you win , if weak you lose, no kittenty randome, politics, doubleteaming and other ? its pure sport.
And no one hide behinde strong server. All resolve in pure one match.
Only bandwagoners and gloryhunters want 1 vs 1 vs 1 because they can trade you kitten for better situations. 1 vs 1 denied this. only pure fight and only real stats

1v1 is like only two factions, it’s the same system as in WoW, AION or RIFT, it does not provide good open field wild pvp, in my opinion.
1v1v1 is full of surprises, I find it way more interesting. You don’t just have to be strong, you also need to be smart to win.

Normally you can’t have a static alliance in 1v1v1 as you could find in 2v2 or 1v1v1v1. This is the advantage of a match between 3 challengers.

Real war is by far more complicated, you never have only 2 or 3 sides ‘^^
It’s much more than 10 – 15 sides, in modern wars… Not all of these sides fight on the ground, but there are many different interests, allies, enemies.

Anet pzl make match 1 vs none! Fighting promotes negativity!

WhiteAndMilky.2514:

Anet pzl make match 1 vs none! Fighting promotes negativity!

/thread

Omg, another 2v1 thread. ITS A THREE WAY FREE FOR ALL double teaming is inevitable, stop crying and get over it.

Id be interested in seeing a 1v1 map added to the 1v1v1 rotation. So, for example, if you had the 3 Tier 1 servers there would be 7 maps:

EB
BGBL
JQBL
SORBL
SORvsBG
SORvsJQ
BGvsJQ

WIth the 3 other maps simply being balanced maps unlike the borderlands. It would help spread out some of the blobbing that goes on and a reason you could reduce the map cap on the BLs.

No, having a 3rd realm/server/faction/whatever is what helps to create balance. Granted GW2 has some serious balance issues as far as populations ect but, having the tri battle aspect is at least imo a much better system and has always trumped the dual system in every game I’ve played.

Pretty please stop crying about 2v1. Its part of the game. Deal with it.

When you have a 1v1 match the side with a lower population gets focused the same way that the servers who have been 2v1’d recently. It’s tough enough now for lower population servers in a 1v1v1 situation. Imagine if there wasn’t another team for the dominant server to go after and give the losing team some breathing room. The second you faced a stronger server you would be pushed into your spawn and camped endlessly. In a 3 way match the third team eventually comes in and makes the the campers have to change focus thus allowing the weaker team to get a foothold and gain some breathing room. Two faction fights tend to stagnate significantly quicker than 3 way fights.

Dmitry.9845:

why ? if you server strong you win , if weak you lose, no kittenty randome, politics, doubleteaming and other ? its pure sport.
And no one hide behinde strong server. All resolve in pure one match.
Only bandwagoners and gloryhunters want 1 vs 1 vs 1 because they can trade you kitten for better situations. 1 vs 1 denied this. only pure fight and only real stats

hmmm you forget, it can also works the other way around it’s just that not many servers try it that way. the 2 weak servers take on the 1 strong server and in so doing even the odds and beat the stronger server.

Another whine thread from someone from SBI. This is getting pretty funny now. You guys really cant take losing after facerolling over other small servers all season can you?

Hell no! 3 way for the win. And EBG??? The borderlands are where all the really good skill groups and guilds roam. EBG is dominated by disorder on the majority of servers… The borderlands hold the real battles. You would have to be crazy to replace that with another EBG. Either that or you are only interested in the almighty KTrain and don’t like the resistance the borderlands offer.

As usual I am for variation
future leagues should be 1 vs 1
normal matches (in between leagues) should be 1vs1vs1

Modifications for 1vs1 should be kept simple:
2 homemaps where attacker has both attacker-spawns
1 EB where overlook has no doors and no lord and therefore cannot be conquered.
As there is no third-side the player capacity per side and map can be 50% higher, than now. (which result in 450% total-capacity per side on 2-sided matches on 3 maps instead of the 400% in 3-sided matches on 4 maps.)

PS: If you do not like the increased total-capacity 133% per map would result in equal 400%, which should reduce the change of skill-laags instead.

Dayra.7405:

As there is no third-side the player capacity per side and map can be 50% higher, than now. (which result in 450% total-capacity per side on 2-sided matches on 3 maps instead of the 400% in 3-sided matches on 4 maps.)

That would be great for servers with large populations, but that would further punish servers with smaller populations. We already have matches in silver league where servers with long queues and large presences on multiple maps are facing servers with no queues are only able to field a presence on a single map… so now that server that already outmans its opponent would be allowed to further outman the opponent. That just further rewards bandwagoning, server stacking and ktraining for the easy way out instead of promoting dispersing and loyalty.

Team up can create issue but 1vs1 would be even worst. There would be entire weeks of karma train or being stomped, plus tactics will be far too simple. No, there’s sPvP for pure balance.

Dmitry.9845:

And btw if you complain to real war, its wery rare situation if in real war we have 3 side, obvious 2 side, if you can remember real sit then 3 army fight each other pls remember me im forgot.

nope. It was actually pretty commonplace back then for smaller countries to get tangled up in the struggles of the “big players”.
About that whole 1v1 thing: it simply won’t work. A setup of two teams is fine as long as there is a way to guarantee, both teams are about equal in numbers and the matches are short enough for things to not get stale. Just look at wvw, typically, the only thing, which keeps maps from being exactly one color, is the presence of a third server. If it was a duel, one server would slowly advance, fortifying all objectives with arrowcarts and t3 and then proceed to spawn camp from the third day on till the very end. It would become a slow paced, stale siege wars 2.

This thread has been repeated a lot. And for me I came to the conclusion that the best solution for double teaming is to make the top player punctuate only.

In this way, the two teams that doesn’t punctuate want to get in the first position, so will battle against the top player, until he’s not top. And then the roles will switch.

The only way that this can be breaked it’s then having a zerg assist another server to take the towers / keeps, but once everything is cleared, then let the assisted server take the tower/keep. But this is too hard, as there’s allways that random that will get into the capture circle and it’s kind of hard to distinguish players of different servers.

But then how would Ehmry Bay and Yaks Bend make an alliance in a 1v1 situations?

If this game went to 1 vs 1 for server I would quit, might as well play WoW or Rift or one of the other 100 1 team vs 1 team games out there. Even ESO has the common sense to see why the three team system works better. Look at DAoC, its a dinosaur but people are still paying to play it, let me assure you its not for the PvE.

No I don’t plan on playing ESO, I was just using it as an example.

lol @ 1v1 this thread made me giggle!

Please learn diplomacy and cunning are components of warfare.

So when BG rofl stomps everyone by 200k every week then what?

“That” would be the topic for the next WvW CDI. And this time I’m coming armed for that chat…

Hexin.5603:

Anet please make 3 alliances cross server.

I think this would solve all the coverage issues.

Planetside did this.
Planetside 2 does this.
Teso will do this.