most obvious double team in wvw EVER
Wait until you have that happen every minute of every day for two weeks straight on all 4 maps whilst you continue throwing yourself into inevitable death the entire time. Its happened twice in T1 NA that I can think of and its real rough.
Been on both sides of this; the two stronger sides combining together on our bl map. Another time the two weaker sides trying to capture SM and failed, even with green & blue combined we could not compete with red player numbers. Fortunately its a rarity.
that used to happen to my previous server all the time. Former T1 server had a bit too much of a reputation, so they got zergballed by everyone all the time.
Lv 80 Guard, Ranger, Ele, Thief, warr, engi
Currently @ some T1 server in EU
Currently @ some T1 server in EU
double teaming means that WvW is working as intended.
what did your server do to make the other servers think that you are so strong, they must work together to beat you? whatever it was, keep it up.
-ken
The Purge [PURG] – Ehmry Bay
I am thinking I have seen this in T1 almost every time one server tries to break a T3 keep. The 2 attacking servers usually fight over the new paper keep and karma train a little.
Meh. Just another day in WvW…nothing to see here, move along folks.
“The Leaf on Wind”
JQ Ranger
JQ Ranger
double teaming means that WvW is working as intended.
Eh . . . not so much.
The underlying premise of three-faction PvP is that any time one side gets too strong, the two weaker sides working together (should) always be stronger. So in order to keep from being dominated, the weaker ones always have an incentive to work together and keep the strongest in check.
What’s happening here is the opposite of that; the two strongest contenders are teaming up to farm the weakest one. Which, ok, whatever. I mean, it happens IRL all the time, so it’s not like it’s unexpected.
But it’s a bit of a perversion because the meta is supposed to be that everyone wants to win; or at least everyone wants to not lose. Two weaker allies teaming up to stop the strongest one from facerolling each of them one at a time is a natural result of that meta, since it allows them both to win at least some of the time, where in the absence of cooperation they would each lose in turn, all of the time.
Instead what’s happening here is that both of the stronger opponents want to win as much as they can, and they want to do so with the least effort possible. So instead of fighting each other — which is, after all, an awful lot of work, and will leave them both vulnerable to harassment by the third — they team up to farm the weakest of three for PPT, dividing the entire map equally between them, and then just fighting at the margins to get a little edge over each other once in a while.
Taken to its logical conclusion, what ultimately happens is that the two strongest opponents reach an agreement to divide PPT evenly between them and just take turns on who gets the slight edge needed to get number 1 each week, so that they trade places from match to match, while completely shutting down the number three and preventing any third opponent, no matter how individually strong they may be, from ever making a serious play for the shared 1/2 position.
The problem is that in the meta it is really, really hard to guarantee that you hold the number 1 spot all of the time, without being overpowered by another equally strong challenger. But once the top two enter into this cartel arrangement, it is really, really easy to hold a permanent, shared lock on the number 1 and 2 spots, and through this combination to maintain that lock with almost no real effort.
And since 1 and 2 are both equally good for building massive league pounding and recruiting power (especially when your effective rank is consistently 1.5), this becomes the path of least resistance to maximizing the win for each of the top two opponents, neither of which could do consistently as well on their own.
(edited by Heezdedjim.8902)
if the other two are so evenly matched, why don’t you pick one of them and offer to help them come in first place every single week? then the two of you can gang up on the other one.
-ken
The Purge [PURG] – Ehmry Bay
thats what happens when you roll blackgate, thanks for the bags by the way.
Wait until you have that happen every minute of every day for two weeks straight on all 4 maps whilst you continue throwing yourself into inevitable death the entire time. Its happened twice in T1 NA that I can think of and its real rough.
I know how you’re feeling.
Sanctum of Rall NA Engineer Commander
Guild Wars 2 needs a Public Beta Environment
Guild Wars 2 needs a Public Beta Environment
if the other two are so evenly matched, why don’t you pick one of them and offer to help them come in first place every single week? then the two of you can gang up on the other one.
You (meaning your server, assuming you’re in third place) may stand to gain from this. But there is nothing in it for the party that is going to decide whether it happens or not, which is the stronger opponent.
The only real threat to the number 1 opponent is . . . the number 2 opponent, so they’re not going to gain anything in terms of security of position by teaming up with you. And they already can beat you easily whenever they want, so they’re not saving a whole lot of effort by avoiding a fight with you.
The only real incentive is for the two strongest ones to team up, assuming that they want the most win with the least work, which is, unfortunately, what the motives of the top ranked competitors (as a group) often reduce to.
if both of the other servers want “the most win with the least work” surely you can think of something your server can do to help make that happen — either help them get more win, or help them do less work.
pick the opponent who thinks they might be able to beat the other without your help, then offer to ensure that they can beat the other. do I have to spell it out for you?
-ken
The Purge [PURG] – Ehmry Bay
This week, we need the new kids on the block the defeat the arch nemesis. Also we have mad respect for TC. For them to work their way into T1 after almost 6 months in limbo state, they are remarkable.
Snip
TLDR: It’s known as the Prisoner’s Dilema.
A warrior, a guardian, and an elementalist walk into an open field…
The Warrior turns to the guardian and says, “Did you hear something?”
Guardian replies, “No, but how’d the elementalist die?”
The Warrior turns to the guardian and says, “Did you hear something?”
Guardian replies, “No, but how’d the elementalist die?”
Another 2v1 thread? Some of you must be new to WvW.
A warrior, a guardian, and an elementalist walk into an open field…
The Warrior turns to the guardian and says, “Did you hear something?”
Guardian replies, “No, but how’d the elementalist die?”
The Warrior turns to the guardian and says, “Did you hear something?”
Guardian replies, “No, but how’d the elementalist die?”
What’s happening here is the opposite of that; the two strongest contenders are teaming up to farm the weakest one.
In the OP’s case, he’s on BG this week. I hope you aren’t referring to that matchup, because BG’s sandbagging is already laughable but they need to uninstall if they really are going to cry uncle at TC’s coverage (pre-SoR invasion).
2v1 against a stronger server is always a good idea if you are the weaker member in the matchup.
The time to start complaining is when you have one overpowered server at the top of the matchup, and the two servers are pretty close to even in skill; and one of the weaker servers focuses the other to “create” the 2v1.
I also think it’s a good idea to look over gw2score and statistics before crying 2v1; but with a grain of honesty as well.
double teaming means that WvW is working as intended.
Eh . . . not so much.
The underlying premise of three-faction PvP is that any time one side gets too strong, the two weaker sides working together (should) always be stronger. So in order to keep from being dominated, the weaker ones always have an incentive to work together and keep the strongest in check.
What’s happening here is the opposite of that; the two strongest contenders are teaming up to farm the weakest one. Which, ok, whatever. I mean, it happens IRL all the time, so it’s not like it’s unexpected.
But it’s a bit of a perversion because the meta is supposed to be that everyone wants to win; or at least everyone wants to not lose. Two weaker allies teaming up to stop the strongest one from facerolling each of them one at a time is a natural result of that meta, since it allows them both to win at least some of the time, where in the absence of cooperation they would each lose in turn, all of the time.
Instead what’s happening here is that both of the stronger opponents want to win as much as they can, and they want to do so with the least effort possible. So instead of fighting each other — which is, after all, an awful lot of work, and will leave them both vulnerable to harassment by the third — they team up to farm the weakest of three for PPT, dividing the entire map equally between them, and then just fighting at the margins to get a little edge over each other once in a while.
Taken to its logical conclusion, what ultimately happens is that the two strongest opponents reach an agreement to divide PPT evenly between them and just take turns on who gets the slight edge needed to get number 1 each week, so that they trade places from match to match, while completely shutting down the number three and preventing any third opponent, no matter how individually strong they may be, from ever making a serious play for the shared 1/2 position.
The problem is that in the meta it is really, really hard to guarantee that you hold the number 1 spot all of the time, without being overpowered by another equally strong challenger. But once the top two enter into this cartel arrangement, it is really, really easy to hold a permanent, shared lock on the number 1 and 2 spots, and through this combination to maintain that lock with almost no real effort.
And since 1 and 2 are both equally good for building massive league pounding and recruiting power (especially when your effective rank is consistently 1.5), this becomes the path of least resistance to maximizing the win for each of the top two opponents, neither of which could do consistently as well on their own.
That is an assumption your making there at the start of the first paragraph, just because you think that is the way it should work and you believe that is what they intended does not make it true. Three way battle means ANY two teams can team up regardless of what place they are in.
Do I think its fun or fair when this happens … not really, but the fact of the matter is a three sided battle does not mean the two losing teams always hit the winning team.