Guild Wars 2

Buffy.9246:

Funny how it took tc and Sor combined to beat bg.
Shows how stacked that server really is and they trying for more people…

First of all it is TC and JQ.

And you are right they need 2 twice the number of player to win BG. Join BG if you like 80 vs 160.

Traejan.1729:

Nice video and great work as usual Deemer and Reyana

+1

I like the idea of showing server player hours. It will also show how WvW as the whole is doing. The point per player hour may be misleading and does not show true player contribution. Not sure how hard will it be for Anet to add this to the current wvw.

Aomine.5012:

blur.7905:

I don’t see how 2v1 or trading win can solve stacking server problem. Yes, sure it can make sure one server unable to win. It will just promote servers to go into alliance. Then you will just change from stacking server problem into stacking + alliance problem.

There is one different in stacking and alliance. A stack server at most can only have the cap amount of player on map even if it had 100s of queue. The alliance server can have up to 2x the amount of player the other server could have. Alliance will only work if 2 much smaller server vs one bigger server.

Wait, how come DB and Mag are like, umm, 80k points behind?
It only works when the odds are close, not far apart.
Showing how big of a gap between NA T1 and T2.
Or like someone else mentioned in the above post, their mood had been destroyed long ago that they don’t bother try or work together when they’re facing big monsters.

Furthermore, your so-called “stacking+alliance issue”, guess what, it was there for the longest time being, committed by that so-called “victim server”.
It was there all along, but this time it is not 1st & 2nd bullying third, but 2nd and 3rd challenging 1st.

I don’t understand what you mean by alliance and trading win was there all along? I have not see it before. I have seen may 2v1 but this is the first time is see trading win. Challenging or bullying it does not make any different the objective is to secure their win. You are right to say DB and Mag don’t really care if they win or not. But if they team up they may not lose to any T1 server.

What I really care is that if Anet is to start another season please help to fix the many problem we have right now first. I think we can have many smaller Battle ground during peak hour and lesser during off peak. Fighting with different server on different map. Lower map cap for smaller server. At less have the map battle balance is a good way to start.

I don’t see how 2v1 or trading win can solve stacking server problem. Yes, sure it can make sure one server unable to win. It will just promote servers to go into alliance. Then you will just change from stacking server problem into stacking + alliance problem.

There is one different in stacking and alliance. A stack server at most can only have the cap amount of player on map even if it had 100s of queue. The alliance server can have up to 2x the amount of player the other server could have. Alliance will only work if 2 much smaller server vs one bigger server.

I would agree with what you say. The main problem is the way the tournament work. I can understand that the only way for JQ and TC to keep up their alliance is to trade win or keep their score close. What are your thoughts on trading win? Is it match manipulation? Should it be allow in the current wvw system? Will more server come together to trade win to secure their ranking?

hyman.7526:

blur.7905:

FearedbytheGods.8617:

blur.7905:

lmperdigao.2567:

I have a suggestion: each time that a BG player gives us a suggestion to change the rules of WvW because of the 2v1, he should give a suggestion too for the situation where the coverage and numbers of a server is unbeatable.

It is very hard to fix the coverage problem

~BG player~

Well this is not helping at all, at less I did give some suggestion on how to reduce the number different between server. Do you have any suggestion to fix the coverage problem?

As a matter of fact I do. How about you and all BG posters crying about 2v1 transfer to a T2 server, where (1) you won’t get 2v1 anymore, (2) T1 starts to become balanced again. Take some steps yourself in rebalancing the game, instead of crying when the odds start becoming against you because other servers have figured a strategy against your over-stacking server. Once you balance T1, there would be no incentive for the other two servers to 2v1 you anymore, as long as every server has a fair chance to win.

1) I think I have make my point clear.
2v1 is ok and should be allow. Some small server need to team up to have a wining chance. I believe the problem you are facing is trading wins.

2) There will never be fair in the current WvW system. All server is of different size and coverage. The problem is not only on BG. All the bigger server draw player from smaller server.

3) To me T1 top 3 server is the most balance. I would not say they are of the same size and coverage. But the gap between them is smaller compare to other servers. Week 1 result show clearly that any server have a chance to win. It is clearly much more balance than the current trading win we are having now. If you dislike unbalance and hate coverage problem you will not create or take part in this trading win which create a bigger unbalance in T1.

One way we can help smaller group to have fighting chance against bigger group is to control the number of AC you can use at any one time. More player on map = lesser AC. Lesser player = more AC and lesser supply to build. I have seen how smaller group of player can hold off bigger group using AC. I don’t see any reason why a bigger Zergs still need AC. The ratio of player and AC need to set correctly to prevent any unbalance.

Well I really hope anet will give an official reply. I would agree trading win is a type of match manipulation. The question is does the rule apply to WvW which have no equal sides.

FearedbytheGods.8617:

blur.7905:

lmperdigao.2567:

I have a suggestion: each time that a BG player gives us a suggestion to change the rules of WvW because of the 2v1, he should give a suggestion too for the situation where the coverage and numbers of a server is unbeatable.

It is very hard to fix the coverage problem

~BG player~

Well this is not helping at all, at less I did give some suggestion on how to reduce the number different between server. Do you have any suggestion to fix the coverage problem?

Jeknar.6184:

And what would the other 70 active players from server A and the other 30 from server B do? Play EotM? I know its frustrating to be outnumbered all the time, but your idea really is an unfair solution to the community as whole.

I would agree if the cap is base on the lowest active server what should the other active player do wait in queue?

We should base on the highest active server. If Server A have 100 active players, B has 60, and C has 30. Server A should match with Server B+C combine and another server about the same size. I think this system is more fair than the current system we have. Server should be rate at it’s latest weekly man hour.

lmperdigao.2567:

I have a suggestion: each time that a BG player gives us a suggestion to change the rules of WvW because of the 2v1, he should give a suggestion too for the situation where the coverage and numbers of a server is unbeatable.

It is very hard to fix the coverage problem as some time zone have lesser player. Some player can play longer hours. As for the numbers problem i would suggest a fix number of free transfer depending on the server wvw size. Big wvw server have their problem too Queue and guild not able to get in and play together in the same map. The current system of every server have 4 battle ground just make the problem worst. Server should be able to fight in the number of battle ground they are comfortable in. Bigger server can have more battle ground as they have more player. This would will at less keep the map battle more balance.

2v1 is ok and should be allow. Some small server need to team up to have a wining chance. I believe the problem you are facing is trading wins. Which is very much abuse in the current system.

Drakh.3128:

blur.7905:

Guys respect Anet decision on this. It is no use trying to bring up this topic again. If you don’t like it maybe it is time to do something you enjoy doing.

ANET condoned match fixing and objective trading? I must have missed that post, care to link it for me?

What i mean is that Anet should know about this by now and they chose to do nothing. From the Guild War 2 utube they also say they like the new system and seem to know the alliance.

Guys respect Anet decision on this. It is no use trying to bring up this topic again. If you don’t like it maybe it is time to do something you enjoy doing.

BAITness.1083:

I think 2v1 is an intended part of the game, there are tons of counter measures in place for it, especially during a tournament like this where one of the 2v1 servers will keep getting dropped out of the matchup.

Win trading to make sure that doesn’t happen is certainly against the defined rule. It gets even worse when it is possible to trade wins to first and second place with no legit wins.

If anet finds this was the case they should take action.

I don’t think any action will be taken. It is not possible that they do not know about this. They would most likely change the system in the future to reduce this type of exchanging win. This is the first time i see game tournament to allow exchanging win.

You can farm for transmutation in pvp i hope it help your problem.
I sure welcome the lesser transmutation charge which can be converted from normal charge at a 1-3 ratio.

I agree that the system should make it harder to attack and easier to defend when outside your one third map. This help close up point different and encourage losing sever to play the game.

CuRtoKy.8576:

blur.7905:

First i must apologise for going off topic.
It is really funny that many player claim how much they hate the unbalance in the current wvwvw system. Where they themselves create a greater unbalance by forming alliance and it is ok just because they win.

Find it funny that it is ok to transfer which creates unbalance for free wins.

I am not saying transfer is not creating unbalance. But forming alliance just make it worst.

First i must apologise for going off topic.
It is really funny that many player claim how much they hate the unbalance in the current wvwvw system. Where they themselves create a greater unbalance by forming alliance and it is ok just because they win.

Jeknar.6184:

ykyk.2740:

This is not a problem because usually the third server will attack the camping server at some point and they cannot hold both their home third and the extra home keep.

Tell that to servers that are severely outnumbered for many hours (sometimes for the whole day) down in the low tiers…

Should I remind you that I had to face 14 weeks of Sorrow’s Furnace having the ENTIRE ETERNAL BATTLEGROUNDS fortified AND wp’ed, because ET and FC couldn’t opose it?

The main problem is when there is no third server.

Building siege & waypoints in an enemy’s home keep is not helping in creating a more balance wvwvw. How do you expect a weaker sever to take the keep back which is full of siege weapon? Things get worst when they have fewer player. The strong side is getting point for every 15min they hold the keep. What more they want the whole map?

SFShinigami.2015:

If you really think that JQ and TC have the same coverage as BG then I’ve got some nice ocean front property to sell you in Orr.

I also think JQ and TC have the same coverage as BG. I play in BG and most of the time I see same for some time greater amount of player from JQ. Please provide prove to your claim. At sometime BG only have one full size team.

sukilih.6913:

Read what anet said about 2v1. They think it’s fair if some one has better coverage…

Can you provide the link?

I think there is many discussion regarding this. This will not help in the current problem we have. I am sure every server want to have chance to win. Sadly but understandable TC and JQ decide to team up and trade win.

Deadcell.9052
Anet will use this as its excuse to implement the Red vs Blue vs Green system it had mentioned to “combat” match manipulation.

Where did you get this new Red vs Blue vs Green system from?

I think you are right. Maybe anet should rename it to make it clear “W&WvW”

Fayt.3802:

BG: ANet pls send more guilds to BG, we 2v1, we pay, we pay for spy too
So much BG tears just for a low PPT, but their kitten is still sticking out and high.

TC & JQ: Anet pls send us more server, we need 2v1 to win, we pay, pay we pay to BG too. We got wipe out 3 times for that camp. We sure pay our way through.

Shonie.5297:

Distaste.4801:

CuRtoKy.8576:

Niko Stark.8932:

It’s a 2v1 because it is the only way for JQ and TC to beat BG. Not the soft 2v1 where you have a mutual understanding of when and who to focus on, as with BG + TC and BG + SoS, but a real 2v1 where 2 servers are free to stand next to each other or back up each other’s zerg groups. Despite all the cries of “we only want BG tears” or “BG = stackgate”, it all boils down to the fact that this is the ONLY viable option for JQ or TC to have a chance at 1st place. Also because it’s sweet revenge for being stomped in Season 1.

One thing you’ll never see is a commander from neither TC or JQ claiming that their server can match BG in manpower, coverage, tactics, or discipline/cooperation of individual players.

Eitherway, I’m getting my weapon skin.

Explain to me how anyone got stomped S1 when W1 someone got 2v1 with BG being in the 2 and the only time the 3 T1 servers matched up in one week was W1 and the last week when SoR already fell apart. Never knew stomping T2 servers was an accomplishment to BG. clapclap #bglogic

Because the 3 T1 servers didn’t have to all be in the same match for one server to win over another. W1 BG pulled ahead during the 2v1, a 2v1 that was absolutely necessary for SoR or BG to even have a chance at winning due to the terrible schedule. W2 BG beat SoR and queue implosion. W5 Blackgate beat Jade Quarry and again in W7 alongside the imploded SoR. Blackgate beat both servers fair and square and that is an accomplishment.

Despite having the best coverage in Gold league… BG will finish the season either tied for third with SoS or alone in 4th… that is an accomplishment.

He is talking about season 1. Double team sure show some accomplishment.

jojojoon.8607:

blur.7905:

Zhrek.9781:

blur.7905:

Zhrek.9781:

BG, easy mode players are so cute. Ah, the new generation of MMO players that think they should get everything for free. It is so sweet when things do not go their way. Anet brought 3-way fights back, Tyvm Anet, not since daoc has Open world fights been so fun. TY anet, for allowing the smaller servers tame the loose lipped ignorant kids, once again.

Smaller servers? It is funny that JQ and TC consider themselves as smaller server. All 3 server are of about the same size. It is the amount of skilled player and teamwork that is unbalance.

If that was the case BG would always be in last, and would of never beat SOR, Sor ran them over non stop. Coverage beat SOR

Well i dont know about SOR but it sure seem that BG TC and JQ have same coverage base on week one.

Are you new to T1?

I have played in bg for both season 1 and 2. Every server including BG have time slot that have lesser player. Sometime we have lesser player on map compare to JQ or TC. I don’t think coverage is a big problem for season 2. Maybe for season 1.

Zhrek.9781:

blur.7905:

Zhrek.9781:

BG, easy mode players are so cute. Ah, the new generation of MMO players that think they should get everything for free. It is so sweet when things do not go their way. Anet brought 3-way fights back, Tyvm Anet, not since daoc has Open world fights been so fun. TY anet, for allowing the smaller servers tame the loose lipped ignorant kids, once again.

Smaller servers? It is funny that JQ and TC consider themselves as smaller server. All 3 server are of about the same size. It is the amount of skilled player and teamwork that is unbalance.

If that was the case BG would always be in last, and would of never beat SOR, Sor ran them over non stop. Coverage beat SOR

Well i dont know about SOR but it sure seem that BG TC and JQ have same coverage base on week one.

Zhrek.9781:

BG, easy mode players are so cute. Ah, the new generation of MMO players that think they should get everything for free. It is so sweet when things do not go their way. Anet brought 3-way fights back, Tyvm Anet, not since daoc has Open world fights been so fun. TY anet, for allowing the smaller servers tame the loose lipped ignorant kids, once again.

Smaller servers? It is funny that JQ and TC consider themselves as smaller server. All 3 server are of about the same size. It is the amount of skilled player and teamwork that is unbalance.

mango.9267:

Reverence.6915:

blur.7905:

Well it seem like server unofficial alliances and match manipulation is the way forward. Well done anet now not only you can buy guild you can buy server as well. As if the unbalance is not bad enough. I will wait and see how people will react when unofficial alliances and match manipulation happen on their server. Only by then people will see the problem it create.

It won’t happen outside of T1 in NA. It has to have the agreement and cooperation of all major and minor guilds on 2 servers. I think in any other instance, such a meta may have never been created at all.

Actually, alliances and match manipulation happen all the time. Not all of them are as consistent or long-lasting as the JQ/TC alliance. But servers in the past have definitely made alliances and manipulated points. The most notable example in recent memory was the YB/EBay alliance last season.

To address blur’s point, it won’t be a problem. Anet has already given the passive okay on this. And it’s unlikely to be maintained offseason, when there’s no motivation to manipulate matches.

Well good to know that manipulate matches only happen during season. I don’t really care about season reward.

Well it seem like server unofficial alliances and match manipulation is the way forward. Well done anet now not only you can buy guild you can buy server as well. As if the unbalance is not bad enough. I will wait and see how people will react when unofficial alliances and match manipulation happen on their server. Only by then people will see the problem it create.

Condition damage should goes through Vitality it help to increase its usefulness. With that cap on condition can be remove. This also help increase the type of build we currently have.

There is a different a big different between how JQ and TC work together. They not only double team BG but also do match manipulation. They allow the sever with the lower score get first. Thus manipulating the match on who will get first second and third that week. They are allow to do this because anet do not care or enforce the rule that they set.