Anet please start punishing double team server!!! and fake accounts to spy.

.......................

you a HOD commander? This is True? Yuo make me smile !! Because for me you post looks like from player who first or second day on wvw.I am ALWAYS try push lead wiht opposite server. This is main part of wvw game.Or you suggest make war and let lead grow up ?? This is "tactic and strategy". Not always wvw is "war build/trait", sometimes people think and use head.

@Sinester.3572 said:This match up we are facing XXX and YYY, and they keep helping each other because we are close to reaching 1st, place.

WvW is a three way fight. Sometimes the 2nd and 3rd fight against the 1st because they see a chance to reach 1st themselves. Sometimes 2nd and 3rd fight each other and ignore the 1st because no one wants to be the 3rd. Sometimes the 1st only fights the 2nd to make sure they stay 1st. Sometimes 1st and 2nd fight only 3rd because they want an easy k-train with the enemy keep of the 3rd that switches between 1st and 2nd. etc. etc.

Nobody wants to loose. But sometimes you loose, and sometimes the others win. :)

Aliances would fix this ;)

@Aeolus.3615 said:Aliances would fix this ;)

not the double team aspect D

@Lord of the Fire.6870 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:Aliances would fix this ;)

i ment the spying stuff tho, i really hate when we are outnumbered, while having 30+ on squad(it really happens alot and this is t4 NA), and when the omni blob fails to take keep , secondary accounts infliux the server map and start using tactivators, using dragon banner so it cant be used by us, burning supply on repairs and building siege on palces that doesnt have LoS do the places zerg is atacking.

Luckelly this match hasnt been that much agressive in terms of these effects, but we still get the tactivaters deployed when outmaned and we had a banner used so the zerg just came a few mins later and we had our delay stuff burned...

Isn't this just good tactics tho? I mean, if you were 1st place you'd hammer the 2nd place server to strengthen your lead, so by doing that you force a 2v1 regardless of who the 3rd place server decided to fight. It's not a 1v1 fight, it's a 1v1v1 fight, and that uncertainty is part of what makes it fun imo.

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:Isn't this just good tactics tho? I mean, if you were 1st place you'd hammer the 2nd place server to strengthen your lead, so by doing that you force a 2v1 regardless of who the 3rd place server decided to fight. It's not a 1v1 fight, it's a 1v1v1 fight, and that uncertainty is part of what makes it fun imo.

in reality the 3rd server smash the 2nd one to get more easy points as they usually have no chance at defeating the 1rst place. and if they help the 2nd for him to get 1st then it will never be first.so the 3rd tries to be 2nd and the first just focus everyone.

a change in the point system (only the 1rst team in terms of territory control would get points. so that the 2nd and 3rd will have to get 1st to get points. no more ganking up on the 2nd place anymore and the 1rst server will have to actually try and keep the first place.) and a territory control system like the one in planetside 2 could fix alot of things. people are afraid of changes, but WvW need those changes.

@ledernierrempart.6871 said:

@Jugglemonkey.8741 said:Isn't this just good tactics tho? I mean, if you were 1st place you'd hammer the 2nd place server to strengthen your lead, so by doing that you force a 2v1 regardless of who the 3rd place server decided to fight. It's not a 1v1 fight, it's a 1v1v1 fight, and that uncertainty is part of what makes it fun imo.

Interesting idea. If that were done at the same time as alliances, I'd be all for it (if alliances will ever happen). Problem is that with the current system, you'd end up with one server being the bandwagon and just winning by a landslide as the other servers are unable to get points, but also unable to take things due to one server having a disproportionate number of people. I'm all for changes, but something like that would require a rework of the whole matchup system, not just a scoring change.

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@Lord of the Fire.6870 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:Aliances would fix this ;)

It will help the spying part, and the pulling of tactics and such. It will greatly help the double teaming though.. To the point that the double teamed server would probably just log off.

@"Jugglemonkey.8741" said:Interesting idea. If that were done at the same time as alliances, I'd be all for it (if alliances will ever happen). Problem is that with the current system, you'd end up with one server being the bandwagon and just winning by a landslide as the other servers are unable to get points, but also unable to take things due to one server having a disproportionate number of people. I'm all for changes, but something like that would require a rework of the whole matchup system, not just a scoring change.

and that is why the planetside 2 system come in. all territory are linked . (like in TESO too in fact). to capture a territory it need to be linked to your starting base.see here:https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1250370

but if even both 2nd and 3rd server united can't even take out the 1rst one then the problem isn't the new point system.the 3rd may not always stay 3rd as it can night cap or cap when other servers are not that dominant to make points and maybe beat the current 1rst one even if temporary.the current point system need to be changed anyway.