I think that focusing on the ID itself is not so much the issue as the impact of the draw upon the mAT. Both teams advanced. However, this had an impact on the other teams who had similar results. By not playing to a conclusion, both [rawr] and [zero] guaranteed their place in the single elimination round.

I agree that it’s frustrating for both teams to be in a position where they believe that they are unable to fight effectively. However, the tournament is not an appropriate place for such a protest since the result does matter to the other guilds competing and who might have been able to advance. This kind of scenario is the kind of thing that used to be reported by the PvP community on the alpha forums, where the dev team could address the situation in a timely fashion. Nowadays, the top PvP players have access to the balance forums, and I’d be quite surprised if no one in [rawr] were present on those forums. That forum would be the better place to raise the issue of what to do in similar circumstances.

My own opinion is that an ID in an mAT could be worked into the tournament rules in a fair manner. Additionally, I believe that the controversy over the [rawr] v [zero] match as distinct from the tacit acceptance of IDs in HBs is a holdover from when GvG tournaments meant real money. When real money is on the line, results manipulation is significantly more important than fancy trim on the cape. As it is, we’ll likely see both teams get a slap on the wrist and a change to the Tournament Rules.

That said, if a policy disallowing IDs was in place (an error, IMHO) then ANet should follow it.

I’ve been personally surprised by the network of guests and friends made by the guild. Here’s hopin’ ta even more in the coming year!

Also, I think that there is a critical mass required for PvP games, and that companies are aware of this. What is at odds though is their ability to handle everyone on one or few servers (Battle.net’s USWest and USEast for example). I mean - how can you build an endgame in AoC and WAR that requires so many players to be in the same server/instance at once, yet not have servers designed to handle that at a playable level?

Does this mean that ANet flat out did it wrong with skill and item unlocks? I had heard they’re abandoning the need for unlocks in Guild Wars 2’s PvP, so perhaps…

One question that springs to mind, then: is there a critical mass for successful PvP games? As you wrote, companies will often separate servers to reduce large-scale lag. However, even if they were convinced that unified servers and the networks they facilitate were superior, the point is moot if they can’t afford the infrastructure (i.e. large enough servers) to support the load. If we think that, like AoC and WAR, games that violate this network concern are doomed to failure… does this mean that only companies able to support large enough, lag-free, unified servers should consider designing games using PvP as a significant selling point?