Guild Wars 2

Let’s say a group of commanders coming from every server would get together and form a cross server commander guild with the obvious goal of forming alliances and facilitating communication for strategies.

Would it be a problem?

There would be only 1 rule :

Attack the server which has currently the highest score in the match up.

Biggest problem is a lot of pugs won’t play a long.

Second problem is these alliances never work. They always go down in drama flames.

Gudradain.3892:

Attack the server which has currently the highest score in the match up.

This is how Anet no doubt intended WvW to be. But the way they decided to rank servers makes it more optimal to have both stronger servers beat up on the weakest one.

I just started a guild [FBM] (For Balanced Matchup)

[FBM] is a cross server commander guild for forming alliance in bad match up.

1 rule : Focus the server with the highest score.

The guild is community managed, everyone got invite right. The guild primary function is to facilitate the communication between the different servers and make the formation of alliance easier.

Every commander playing in WvW is welcome!

N.B. Just say you want an invite and you will get one.

Yeah… no.

Organised 2v1s are just in bad form.

I get that servers get stomped on and that’s not fun, but this really isn’t the answer.

Reverence.6915:

Yeah… no.

Organised 2v1s are just in bad form.

I get that servers get stomped on and that’s not fun, but this really isn’t the answer.

From what I’ve always understood the whole point of a three way match is specifically to make it so the most populated team can’t simply steamroll, that when one of the sides gets too strong the other two do a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” sort of deal. This makes it so people don’t simply stack the winning side to collect rewards, as the stacking only compounds the problem of lopsided matches. Unfortunately the second place team often will often see the third place team as an easier target for running a karma/wxp train on as well as the easiest way to up their ppt to try and compete with the first place team. While this is happening however, the first place team is rightfully taking the second place teams objectives, negating the gains of the second place team, while completely putting the third place team out of contention. This then starts to hurt morale of the less hard core players and drives their population in WvW down, now the second place team has no one to fight but the first place team and must do it on their own, often times a hopeless endeavour.

While we can never eliminate all players on the second and third place teams from fighting each other if we can the commanders on similar pages we might be able to have some more even, or at the very least less grossly lopsided matches. I think what the OP is suggesting would be good for 2/3’s of servers in most matches. Of course this will make the top server a little overwhelmed, but I’m sure you’ll be OK. You do deserve to be top after all, right? Time to prove it.

Reverence.6915:

Yeah… no.

Organised 2v1s are just in bad form.

I get that servers get stomped on and that’s not fun, but this really isn’t the answer.

How so? It’s war. Alliances are formed all the time in war when against overwhelming odds. Just look at history. I see nothing wrong with it. I think it’s a great idea. I’d like it even better if anet put in some sort of official thing that lets both servers that are getting stomped team up and become friendly to eachother and be able to share supplies, wps, etc. to try and stomp the dominating server.

Reverence.6915:

Yeah… no.

Organised 2v1s are just in bad form.

I get that servers get stomped on and that’s not fun, but this really isn’t the answer.

It’s funny that someone from the server at the top of the leaderboard feels this way.

2v1’s are a great idea, but the only 4 servers that I’ve seen that have the discipline to do this are SoR, BG (oh the irony), Mag, and SoS.

This could actually be very fun
perhaps it could even be included as a mechanic in wvw. If one server got ahead of the other 2 by some specific (50.000?/100.000?) amount of points, the other 2 servers would be put on the same team against the dominating server.
I can’t see it working outside of a few guilds though without a game mechanic to support it. It would too easily turn into a ‘’but-you-broke-the-deal-when-you …’’ kind of ‘alliance’.

Also true wins from an otherwise outmatched server would likely be undermined by this, as everyone would assume the only way the server could win would be using an alliance, even if there was no alliance in that match-up. So a marker of when the alliance was up would also be a good thing.

Thank you for the support

The whole point of the guild [FBM] and this idea is to make match up more balanced and make WvW a better place.

I encourage all commanders that like the idea to join the guild. Being in the guild does not mean that you have to form an alliance in any way. The guild is simply there to make communication easier between commanders of different servers in the case they want to make an alliance for a short time because they have a common objective. For example, flipping a fully fortified SM.

As I said before there is one rule to the guild : focus the server which has the highest score in the match up.

This mean that if one of the allied server is pulling ahead in the score, the alliance end.

There is too much animosity between guilds for this to work.

Razamatazz.9628:

From what I’ve always understood the whole point of a three way match is specifically to make it so the most populated team can’t simply steamroll, that when one of the sides gets too strong the other two do a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” sort of deal.

The point to the 3 way system is so you can’t concentrate on one enemy to the exclusion of another. While the enemy of my enemy is my best friend is a position that can be utilized and must also be overcome, it isn’t necessarily the intent of the current system.

2v1’s are pretty common across all maps in tier 1. Your zerg isn’t going to take a waypointed keep with an equal sized zerg inside without help.

Guess I should clarify my earlier post. organised 2v1s, I feel, tend to turn out sourly for 2 of the 3 parties. Since everyone is trying to win, the organised 2v1 starts to break down towards the latter half of the week as people start pushing for first place. The stronger server however, at this stage, can make a pretty dramatic comeback. Just take blackgate as an example. We made a 30k points deficit in less than 24 hours over the lower gold tier servers. At this point, say it’s a Thursday and getting close to reset, if both the weaker servers are actually trying to win, they can no longer 2v1 the stronger server and must turn on each other, whereby the stronger server should then be able to simply do what they do and win anyway.

If two larger servers are similar in strength and coverage, then a 2v1 throws that balance off and the third server has no chance in winning anyway.

Unorganised 2v1s happen all the time and are great fun to fight