Guild Wars 2

considered bad?
It seems everyone is badly matched, So why not doubleteam a server?

Heck even if one tiny server is vs two big ones, just trow in your cards with the middle one and see if you can make playing on a high pop server as unbearable as paying vs one.

that’s why they need to implement an incentive

It is a valid tactic best done by heads of servers who coordinate things properly, or those who has the say in the community.

It worked well for us in the past (not tarnished coast my new server). It is one way to ensure you and your friend server is top 1 and top 2.

But this is not easy because you have to know how to be sociable and you have to keep secrets from your player base or those whom you command. ;3

Zackie.8923:

that’s why they need to implement an incentive

Yep. They need to offer double WXP for killing the leading server’s players and taking their objectives. And more things of that ilk.

As in?
Green server has to finish first to get a chest?
Blue has to finish second to get a chest, bonus chest if finishes 1st place
Red get a chest, but bonus if 2nd and another if fist?

Merlin Dyfed Avalon.5046:

As in?
Green server has to finish first to get a chest?
Blue has to finish second to get a chest, bonus chest if finishes 1st place
Red get a chest, but bonus if 2nd and another if fist?

See my post above yours, but yes, your ideas are great, too!

Merlin Dyfed Avalon.5046:

As in?
Green server has to finish first to get a chest?
Blue has to finish second to get a chest, bonus chest if finishes 1st place
Red get a chest, but bonus if 2nd and another if fist?

Pretty much this. The incentive is there, but lets face it most of the players can barely follow and stack, thinking about the bigger picture… uphill battle.

Been trying for more than a year to convince people of the merits of doubleteaming the strongest server. Always some excuse why it won’t work. People would rather come to the fourms and complain about unbalanced matches than actually do something about it.

So like the above posters have said, yeah, the only way to get people to do it is for Anet to incentivize it.

Why double team when you will lose and they have upgraded towers and Power creep buffs? Just farm the other side that has paper gates, and is getting ROFLSTOMPED. Get your loot bags and wxp like good farmers do.

Honestly there’s a lot of really cool things they could do here that would add real depth and go some way to making unbalanced matches more fun. Double WXP for taking 1st place’s stuff would be great. Even better would be some kind of voting mechanism, so if enough players from two servers tell some NPC at spawn they want an alliance then the see each other’s names as yellow or orange instead of red. They can still attack each other and take each other’s structures.

So mechanically not much would be different, but it would solve the three biggest obstacles to a 2v1 right now: planning/communication difficulties, most players on all sides being ignorant of the plan and casual players’ insatiable desire to kill anything with a red name. An option to disable friendly fire against your allies from another server would be awesome too, but it’d have to be on a per player basis. It’d also be good if the voting NPC could give you info on how many team kills or structure steals have occurred since the alliance has been active so people could make informed votes.

WvW lacks tools for organisation. Yes, some topservers organise stuff on their forums/ts but I think WvW would benefit greatly if there were more tools available.

How to you keep everyone informed on the the two lower ranked servers they are joining forces? Taking in account you can have a lot of individual players, small guilds or a few players from guilds and players playing in different time zones. Anet would need to introduce an option to allow two servers to cooperate so all players on those servers knew what is happening when they enter W v W?
With our current match up (ros) against vabbi & wsr it could be the perfect scenario for the latter two sides to join forces considering how lop sided the match is.

The thing is, you don’t need to keep everyone informed. You do it on a map by map, time by time basis. Its up to the commanders. If a few people go and cap something they shouldn’t who cares?

The commanders in this game do not think strategically. They think tactically.

As I understand it, the intention behind 1 vs 1 vs 1 is to have strategic double teams.

However, the way scoring is done, it’s actually better for the top two servers to take as much property as possible from the bottom one.

I think a system where ranking are determined differently would better encourage double teaming whoever has highest score. Something like this:

Winner gets 10 points.
2nd place gets 5.
3rd place gets 4.

and ranks would be determined by these points, not PPT scores.

The small difference between 2nd and 3rd place and the large number of points for first encourages both losing servers to go for first, with only a small penalty for failure (getting 3rd).

Changing the final rewards won’t do it, you need a dynamic system which incentivises the two losing sides to attack whoever is leading at any given time.

Orbs used to be the incentive to double team. That incentive mechanic is currently missing from the BL’s.

Also the problem with pop imbalance and off hour PvD making any effort from non-T1 servers mostly moot. A double team even during NA prime won’t help. Look up the SoR/SoS/SBI match.

Svarty.8019:

Changing the final rewards won’t do it, you need a dynamic system which incentivises the two losing sides to attack whoever is leading at any given time.

^This

Zenguy.6421:

Svarty.8019:

Changing the final rewards won’t do it, you need a dynamic system which incentivises the two losing sides to attack whoever is leading at any given time.

^This

Yea that. It’s not that double teaming is considered “bad” or “good”. And it doesn’t work how the OP (and everyone else) wishes it would. It’s just that the smart thing for the two stronger servers to do is grab the weakest server’s objectives because they are usually the most weakly defended. The system is flawed and encourages double team/karma training the weakest server while ignoring the strongest server’s heavily fortified objectives. Makes for bad fights all around.

When everything gives the same rewards, the smart priority will always be the easy pickings = karma trains, little or no defense, and double teaming.

They can <<force>> (with PvE elements) each lesser server to attack the side objectives of each map .
For example , the second team could attack the east keep+Bay+ 2 east deposits .
If they succed , on each <<goal>> they get x5 rewards , more than the normal .
On their Map , there will be red circles or the Dynamic Events marks to where they should attack .
More population = more marks-goals

A few months ago when the server match ups were rank based with no randomness, BP/AR/Ebay had been in a fairly protracted fight. EBay at the time was considerably stronger than BP. Eventually the major BP and AR guilds agreed to not take each other’s keeps and focus on EBay. It didn’t have a tremendous effect of the scoring but it was certainly more fun that week than previous ones.

Straegen.2938:

A few months ago when the server match ups were rank based with no randomness, BP/AR/Ebay had been in a fairly protracted fight. EBay at the time was considerably stronger than BP. Eventually the major BP and AR guilds agreed to not take each other’s keeps and focus on EBay. It didn’t have a tremendous effect of the scoring but it was certainly more fun that week than previous ones.

That’s definitely the exception, not the rule. It would be good if the PPT system actually promoted this play style rather than the opposite like it currently does.

Sovereign.1093:

It is a valid tactic best done by heads of servers who coordinate things properly, or those who has the say in the community.

It worked well for us in the past (not tarnished coast my new server). It is one way to ensure you and your friend server is top 1 and top 2.

But this is not easy because you have to know how to be sociable and you have to keep secrets from your player base or those whom you command. ;3

Oooohhh so there are heads of servers.. dang I musta missed the vote.

No no no… double teaming is pure lame, how does a server look to improve tactically across its players and guilds if you resort to relying on another server to help you out in a matchup.. pure lame imo.

UW has been dropped off the edge of a cliff these past 3 weeks due to this crappy league implementation and even more ridiculous transfer fiasco but I would still prefer to play and loose than ask one of our current matched servers to double team against the other.. only ANET could dream up worse ideas.

So..

~~
Green: 0 BbloodLust on other borderlands
Blue: 50 Bl on all borders
Red: 100 Bl. on own border/ 50 on others.

Green must cap The Ruins to negate the bloodlust on the other servers and will get MF if all BL Ruis are capped?
Blue, Must hold BL Ruins to keep bloodlust.
Red, 50 BL permanent, must cap Ruins to negate blue BL.

~~~
Chests per server
~~

G/R/B point increase highest to lowest upon cap next to ppt.
Green smallest amount, red largest amount.

~~

Cost/time of upgrdes for outnumbered is cut in half?

anything else?

Sovereign.1093:

It is a valid tactic best done by heads of servers who coordinate things properly, or those who has the say in the community.

It worked well for us in the past (not tarnished coast my new server). It is one way to ensure you and your friend server is top 1 and top 2.

But this is not easy because you have to know how to be sociable and you have to keep secrets from your player base or those whom you command. ;3

I’m sorry but totally unrelated to your post, The Art of WvW in your comment: Terrible. Just terrible.

It might be “considered bad” because it usually doesn’t work. Mostly because of erratic variables/players that are not part of the “official server community.”

If you group up with another server chances are they will back-stab you, intentionally or not. E.g. Sunday night AG Garri was being tag-teamed for a few hours. We did ultimately lose it, but during that time AM’s BL became ER territory – they capped the lot.

Too risky to be viable, even if you add incentives – I’m not sure how you would eliminate that risk either.

Svarty.8019:

Zackie.8923:

that’s why they need to implement an incentive

Yep. They need to offer double WXP for killing the leading server’s players and taking their objectives. And more things of that ilk.

the double wxp thing is ridicolous. :P btw POEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGAAAAAAAAAAAA