What's the Status on JQ conspiracy — Guild Wars 2 Forums

What's the Status on JQ conspiracy

jul.7602jul.7602 Member ✭✭✭

Looks like the play dead and open up approach taken by JQ has failed. Since they were deemed too big to get a link, we can assume that they aren't losing their full status either. What's on the JQ agenda for the next 2 month?

<13

Comments

  • My condolences to JQ on the failure of their tank and open strategy. While I'm not sure where they'll go from here, I offer them a humble suggestion: Double down. Tank so hard that JQ gets linked- to a host server. You've already done the unimaginable once, you got CD out of T4, I see no reason why you couldn't do it again. Go, JQ, tank! Tank like nobody has ever tanked before!

  • Agenda? Prob already quit the game.

    Power > Condition

  • Jeknar.6184Jeknar.6184 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The agenda is empty, because they are not playing.

    Ferguson's Crossing Mithril Squire (Rank 5001) - PvP Phoenix (Rank 72) - 30k Achievement Points
    Exalted Kawagima, Calamis Fatima, Hanna Flintlocke, Suzuhara Suzuka, Sally Furious Ant, Sabetha Deadeye, Bjarl of Souls, Lilian Mistwalker, Kelvena Riverstream, Zallha Wildhunt

  • Evolute.6239Evolute.6239 Member ✭✭✭

    If it's the same as tonight, the agenda is to have zero map queues and still be locked without a link :-)

  • jul.7602jul.7602 Member ✭✭✭

    Has the JQ community considered emigrating to a low population server, lets say a link and then simply take it over. Not only will they have the most "room" to stack the server, but even if they do achieve full status they can temporarily stack its linked server.

  • Jeknar.6184Jeknar.6184 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @jul.7602 said:
    Has the JQ community considered emigrating to a low population server, lets say a link and then simply take it over. Not only will they have the most "room" to stack the server, but even if they do achieve full status they can temporarily stack its linked server.

    If they wanted to do that, they would already done... They don't want to be on another server. They want THEIR server to be open.

    Ferguson's Crossing Mithril Squire (Rank 5001) - PvP Phoenix (Rank 72) - 30k Achievement Points
    Exalted Kawagima, Calamis Fatima, Hanna Flintlocke, Suzuhara Suzuka, Sally Furious Ant, Sabetha Deadeye, Bjarl of Souls, Lilian Mistwalker, Kelvena Riverstream, Zallha Wildhunt

  • ThunderPanda.1872ThunderPanda.1872 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    @jul.7602 said:
    Has the JQ community considered emigrating to a low population server, lets say a link and then simply take it over. Not only will they have the most "room" to stack the server, but even if they do achieve full status they can temporarily stack its linked server.

    Because pugs exists, and JQ has one of the largest and well coverage pug population. Many on JQ also still has some remenants of server loyalty

    Power > Condition

  • A lot of the JQ community are people who have been on the server since beta and would never, ever leave. But honestly, I think jul has a point... JQ has a large pve community still that goes in a couple times a week and does their missions, has a bunch of pugs that just dont give a kitten what JQ is trying to do, and frankly some guilds that do the same. This is enough to keep the doors closed to JQ opening. Its a problem its had for as long as I can remember. The community should vote and just leave tbh if they want a more diverse server and better fights.

  • Parak.9165Parak.9165 Member
    edited December 23, 2017

    JQ had been hurting on population (at least for NA and OCX) for a very long time due to being closed for approximately forever. Commanders were running on fumes constantly having to jump maps to rescue objectives, and getting consistently outnumbered in every tier. The only way the server was surviving for a few months around T3/T2 was essentially via SEA PPT and slightly better KDR during most times. Having the server closed for such a long time without a link hurts morale significantly when people have been waiting for months to transfer, especially when during this time servers such as Maguuma get both a link and open multiple times. And now today when other servers have map queues and JQ has none in T4 on reset, something might be just a little bit off.

    As most people know, servers tanking and opening or getting a link is hardly new and has been done by multiple servers before. The point is that JQ has been running low population for months now, tanking or not. While I predicted that JQ wouldn't open nor get a link, it's still very disappointing and I think most everyone suspects exact reason why this is so, trolling aside. This kind of treatment ruins entire servers, communities on it, disillusions people from playing, and destroys the game in the long term.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    well anet knows jq will play once it opens because they announced it. so anet may be keeping tabs manually by deciding not to link or open jq.

    its a loss for both sides since customers not playing and since those customers may have found another game.

    in the end. anet has to follow the system and open jq. else, if the expectations of the players are not met, we'll have another mas exodus like post desert bl.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    well anet knows jq will play once it opens because they announced it. so anet may be keeping tabs manually by deciding not to link or open jq.

    its a loss for both sides since customers not playing and since those customers may have found another game.

    in the end. anet has to follow the system and open jq. else, if the expectations of the players are not met, we'll have another mas exodus like post desert bl.

    they really look that far ahead?

    I think it’s more likely that this thread will be deleted, OP gets a warning, and pretend like there is nothing wrong in the first place.

    What anet has done is literally destroying one of the last united server community, and consolidated BG domination and t1-2 tank wars

    Please prove me wrong

    you have to prove yourself right though. =) only then can it be proved wrong.

    on that note though, unless a server plays ppt and has coverage. bg will remain top dog until players get bored.

    thats just how it is.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • jul.7602jul.7602 Member ✭✭✭

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    well anet knows jq will play once it opens because they announced it. so anet may be keeping tabs manually by deciding not to link or open jq.

    its a loss for both sides since customers not playing and since those customers may have found another game.

    in the end. anet has to follow the system and open jq. else, if the expectations of the players are not met, we'll have another mas exodus like post desert bl.

    they really look that far ahead?

    I think it’s more likely that this thread will be deleted, OP gets a warning, and pretend like there is nothing wrong in the first place.

    What anet has done is literally destroying one of the last united server community, and consolidated BG domination and t1-2 tank wars

    Please prove me wrong

    Your assessment is most likely true; further neglect of the server crisis will ensure the destruction of WvW. There are three universal problems with WvW. Population balance, skill balance, and Blackgate.

  • JQ Server KD hight than other server.
    They still strong and win lots of fight , but i dont know why they keep xxx... :/

  • Anet is doing well, Why should Anet open the server which is stable and has high population?

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    @Corrupt.6749 said:
    Anet is doing well, Why should Anet open the server which is stable and has high population?

    is anet really doing well? basis? :)

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Anet got this one right for once as JQ is way too big for linking or opening and their current sad state is self inflicted and not a true indication of server population.. Who ever posted the JQ discord screenshot with the tank plan has done everyone a favor by alerting anet to the ruse. I left JQ before hand and having server hopped a bunch recently I can honestly say JQ just doesn't realize how stacked it is. GG Anet GG.

    [AMG]its carpal

  • @keelhaul.8039 said:

    Anet got this one right for once as JQ is way too big for linking or opening and their current sad state is self inflicted and not a true indication of server population.. Who ever posted the JQ discord screenshot with the tank plan has done everyone a favor by alerting anet to the ruse. I left JQ before hand and having server hopped a bunch recently I can honestly say JQ just doesn't realize how stacked it is. GG Anet GG.

    [AMG]its carpal

    You from BG? So you prefer sole dominance of BG that is destroying t1 and t2, and even BG themselves? Or is it anets sekrit plan to destroy and reduce wvw communities to balance the population?

    Power > Condition

  • @Corrupt.6749 said:
    Anet is doing well, Why should Anet open the server which is stable and has high population?

    agree option B)

    JQ KD over 2.0 now

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Practically all Full servers without a link (except for BG) have so far dropped to T4 before they opened and got a link since linking has started. I think JQ is the only server to purposely try to fall to T4.

  • @Chaba.5410 said:
    Practically all Full servers without a link (except for BG) have so far dropped to T4 before they opened and got a link since linking has started. I think JQ is the only server to purposely try to fall to T4.

    They're not even purposely anymore, noone just feel like they want to play.

    Power > Condition

  • JQ's goal was to tank for 3 weeks before the holidays and hope that the trend continues since holidays and all to have the server open.

    JQ never wanted a link to begin with just to become open.

  • DeWolfe.2174DeWolfe.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    I was told two years ago that Anet was firm on their "Never JQ" stance. As in JQ will never be allow to be in 1st again. The fact that we're manually locked for what 7-8 months now with no links and yet still closed, should make everyone see and smell smoke. We all see this is a bit off now, right? And yes, they'll be a few who'll defend this out of JQ hate but, seriously, we all see this right?

    So the question is not about JQ, it's how does Anet expect us to play this anymore as a competitive game mode, when they're manipulating the outcomes? That's what I don't understand. They pretty much shot themselves in the foot here.

  • jul.7602jul.7602 Member ✭✭✭

    @Vermillion.4061 said:
    JQ's goal was to tank for 3 weeks before the holidays and hope that the trend continues since holidays and all to have the server open.

    JQ never wanted a link to begin with just to become open.

    If JQ is too big to not even have a link, then I doubt that they will open.

  • Roxanne.6140Roxanne.6140 Member ✭✭✭

    Yea I'm so mad. Ah infract me pls. I feel a connection through your infraction.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    the problem here is even if the major guilds stack. they may have a lot of pve farmers. maybe ots tome to play with what you got or move on.

    nsp for example only requires 1k gems for.transfer.

    could have a bit more for ocx to eu

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • DeWolfe.2174DeWolfe.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    @jul.7602 said:

    @Vermillion.4061 said:
    JQ's goal was to tank for 3 weeks before the holidays and hope that the trend continues since holidays and all to have the server open.

    JQ never wanted a link to begin with just to become open.

    If JQ is too big to not even have a link, then I doubt that they will open.

    by what metric are we "too big"? We're done with the blackout and even before it all we could muster was consolidating down to two full maps and another about half full during reset. Here's tonight for some examples.

  • jul.7602jul.7602 Member ✭✭✭

    So will JQ continue to suppress their activity in the hopes that they will open up, or are the server leaders evaluating alternative options?

  • DeWolfe.2174DeWolfe.2174 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @DeWolfe.2174 said:
    I was told two years ago that Anet was firm on their "Never JQ" stance. As in JQ will never be allow to be in 1st again.

    Not sure where you get this conspiracy theory from, but keep it coming cuz that's some good reading. LOL.

    I can tell you exactly but, they aren't here any more :(
    editing to add, I figured you would be one of those "few" I mentioned in that post.

  • DeWolfe.2174DeWolfe.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    @jul.7602 said:
    So will JQ continue to suppress their activity in the hopes that they will open up, or are the server leaders evaluating alternative options?

    umm... the blackout ended on the 18th. It was quite clear on the discord message that someone posted here on the forums.

  • jul.7602jul.7602 Member ✭✭✭

    @DeWolfe.2174 said:

    @jul.7602 said:

    @Vermillion.4061 said:
    JQ's goal was to tank for 3 weeks before the holidays and hope that the trend continues since holidays and all to have the server open.

    JQ never wanted a link to begin with just to become open.

    If JQ is too big to not even have a link, then I doubt that they will open.

    by what metric are we "too big"? We're done with the blackout and even before it all we could muster was consolidating down to two full maps and another about half full during reset. Here's tonight for some examples.

    My metric is the population algorithm. Servers that cross a population threshold are no longer eligible to have a link. Servers that cross another threshold are designated as full. From experience we know servers designated as full are less likely to have links. I'm guessing that if the server isn't eligible for a link, it probably isn't opening up anytime soon.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    @jul.7602 said:

    @DeWolfe.2174 said:

    @jul.7602 said:

    @Vermillion.4061 said:
    JQ's goal was to tank for 3 weeks before the holidays and hope that the trend continues since holidays and all to have the server open.

    JQ never wanted a link to begin with just to become open.

    If JQ is too big to not even have a link, then I doubt that they will open.

    by what metric are we "too big"? We're done with the blackout and even before it all we could muster was consolidating down to two full maps and another about half full during reset. Here's tonight for some examples.

    My metric is the population algorithm. Servers that cross a population threshold are no longer eligible to have a link. Servers that cross another threshold are designated as full. From experience we know servers designated as full are less likely to have links. I'm guessing that if the server isn't eligible for a link, it probably isn't opening up anytime soon.

    We don't know what the threshold is outside of a previously stated "within 10% of BG" playhours and no one knows if JQ was within 1% or 9% of that. The current algorithm keeps a server Full if they have players performing overtime to try to not lose. JQ had done rather well before their self-imposed blackout which means they were probably closer to BG on that 10%, but who knows, it may be another week or two before their playhour average drops below 10% of BG's.

  • keelhaul.8039keelhaul.8039 Member ✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    @DeWolfe.2174 said:
    I was told two years ago that Anet was firm on their "Never JQ" stance. As in JQ will never be allow to be in 1st again. The fact that we're manually locked for what 7-8 months now with no links and yet still closed, should make everyone see and smell smoke. We all see this is a bit off now, right? And yes, they'll be a few who'll defend this out of JQ hate but, seriously, we all see this right?

    So the question is not about JQ, it's how does Anet expect us to play this anymore as a competitive game mode, when they're manipulating the outcomes? That's what I don't understand. They pretty much shot themselves in the foot here.

    There is NO WAY there is a NEVER JQ policy. JQ is locked because Anet's metrics currently measure you as an overpopulated server, that is the ONLY reason. Hilarious attempt at playing the victim tho.

    The only manipulation is coming from your server. The only foot that needs a bandage is yours.

  • DeWolfe.2174DeWolfe.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    @keelhaul.8039 said:

    @DeWolfe.2174 said:
    I was told two years ago that Anet was firm on their "Never JQ" stance. As in JQ will never be allow to be in 1st again. The fact that we're manually locked for what 7-8 months now with no links and yet still closed, should make everyone see and smell smoke. We all see this is a bit off now, right? And yes, they'll be a few who'll defend this out of JQ hate but, seriously, we all see this right?

    So the question is not about JQ, it's how does Anet expect us to play this anymore as a competitive game mode, when they're manipulating the outcomes? That's what I don't understand. They pretty much shot themselves in the foot here.

    There is NO WAY there is a NEVER JQ policy. JQ is locked because Anet's metrics currently measure you as an overpopulated server, that is the ONLY reason. Hilarious attempt at playing the victim tho.

    The only manipulation is coming from your server. The only foot that needs a bandage is yours.

    What are you using to say we're "overpopulated"? When I'm showing you we're no where near T1-2 numbers on reset.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DeWolfe.2174 said:

    @keelhaul.8039 said:

    @DeWolfe.2174 said:
    I was told two years ago that Anet was firm on their "Never JQ" stance. As in JQ will never be allow to be in 1st again. The fact that we're manually locked for what 7-8 months now with no links and yet still closed, should make everyone see and smell smoke. We all see this is a bit off now, right? And yes, they'll be a few who'll defend this out of JQ hate but, seriously, we all see this right?

    So the question is not about JQ, it's how does Anet expect us to play this anymore as a competitive game mode, when they're manipulating the outcomes? That's what I don't understand. They pretty much shot themselves in the foot here.

    There is NO WAY there is a NEVER JQ policy. JQ is locked because Anet's metrics currently measure you as an overpopulated server, that is the ONLY reason. Hilarious attempt at playing the victim tho.

    The only manipulation is coming from your server. The only foot that needs a bandage is yours.

    What are you using to say we're "overpopulated"? When I'm showing you we're no where near T1-2 numbers on reset.

    He's saying that the 24/7 population algorithm isn't reflective of reset night numbers. FA doesn't get reset night numbers during NA either unless we have a link. JQ has a larger number of non-NA players and play hours than a lot of other servers. FA is sort of similar just with less non-NA.

  • DeWolfe.2174DeWolfe.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    idk, was just in that SMC fight with Mag and you both seemed to have as many as Cloud Fly has on him. Considering last year half our Sea went to BG and our OCX guild went to Mag, I don't see how our off hours is skewing that like it used to.

  • ThunderPanda.1872ThunderPanda.1872 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    JQ SEA is like 1 active guild that runs daily with around 15 people, but leads a 30+ pugs. Larger than many lower tier server, but by no means it is 'overstacked' like many believes

    The reason why JQ has such high play hours and godly ppt is probably because there are many people on JQ with too many time who can somehow play almost 24 hours a day. JQ really do not have the numbers to compete t1 t2 servers in peak times.

    Power > Condition

  • It's actually really sad that the group that knows the least about what's going on are the JQ pugs themselves, even second to ANet.

    [Tragîc] Acri

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Loosmaster.8263 said:

    @Xslare.8735 said:
    It's actually really sad that the group that knows the least about what's going on are the JQ pugs themselves, even second to ANet.

    What's even more sad is Anet using BG as a unit of measure for the rest of the servers. Something is amiss here, lol.

    But if BG is as overstacked as everyone states (and I am not disputing it is) why would they NOT be the measurement for full status?

  • Loosmaster.8263Loosmaster.8263 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Loosmaster.8263 said:

    @Xslare.8735 said:
    It's actually really sad that the group that knows the least about what's going on are the JQ pugs themselves, even second to ANet.

    What's even more sad is Anet using BG as a unit of measure for the rest of the servers. Something is amiss here, lol.

    But if BG is as overstacked as everyone states (and I am not disputing it is) why would they NOT be the measurement for full status?

    Kind of my point I guess. Why manipulate the population of entire servers to match ONE instead of manipulating the ONE that is the source of the problem.

    Back to the same request of busting up all the worlds and start over. I know the problem with that but it is what it is...

    Fàther - Create a mount then kill it until it's more useless than PvE. "Smart"
    Tactical Killers
    Server(DR)

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Loosmaster.8263 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Loosmaster.8263 said:

    @Xslare.8735 said:
    It's actually really sad that the group that knows the least about what's going on are the JQ pugs themselves, even second to ANet.

    What's even more sad is Anet using BG as a unit of measure for the rest of the servers. Something is amiss here, lol.

    But if BG is as overstacked as everyone states (and I am not disputing it is) why would they NOT be the measurement for full status?

    Kind of my point I guess. Why manipulate the population of entire servers to match ONE instead of manipulating the ONE that is the source of the problem.

    But if they are close to the same play hours as BG, why would we open them?
    If the hours are the same, then isn't JQ a problem now as well?

    Back to the same request of busting up all the worlds and start over. I know the problem with that but it is what it is...

    So.., the only way I would be in favor of this, is random placement of EVERYONE. No guild priorities. No server priorities. Blank slate completely. And that would only cause further exodus.

    Most of the proposals people have made are centered around guilds. And while I like my guild, and wouldn't want to be separated from them, it destroys communities of militia who like to play with those guilds.

  • Jerry CCH.9816Jerry CCH.9816 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    JQ SEA is like 1 active guild that runs daily with around 15 people, but leads a 30+ pugs. Larger than many lower tier server, but by no means it is 'overstacked' like many believes

    The reason why JQ has such high play hours and godly ppt is probably because there are many people on JQ with too many time who can somehow play almost 24 hours a day. JQ really do not have the numbers to compete t1 t2 servers in peak times.

    dont give us fake info plz :/
    JQ SEA TZ EBG Q 22 now and theres 40 ppl at TPA channel
    https://imgur.com/a/9DFbr

  • @Loosmaster.8263 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Loosmaster.8263 said:

    @Xslare.8735 said:
    It's actually really sad that the group that knows the least about what's going on are the JQ pugs themselves, even second to ANet.

    What's even more sad is Anet using BG as a unit of measure for the rest of the servers. Something is amiss here, lol.

    Back to the same request of busting up all the worlds and start over. I know the problem with that but it is what it is...

    That problem is huge player exodus from the game, no guarantee of established players and guilds won't just stack a server, no core issues will be solved including population balance itself, bad PR that dissuades new players

    Overall it is just not worth it

    Power > Condition

  • ThunderPanda.1872ThunderPanda.1872 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    @Jerry CCH.9816 said:

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    JQ SEA is like 1 active guild that runs daily with around 15 people, but leads a 30+ pugs. Larger than many lower tier server, but by no means it is 'overstacked' like many believes

    The reason why JQ has such high play hours and godly ppt is probably because there are many people on JQ with too many time who can somehow play almost 24 hours a day. JQ really do not have the numbers to compete t1 t2 servers in peak times.

    dont give us fake info plz :/
    JQ SEA TZ EBG Q 22 now and theres 40 ppl at TPA channel
    https://imgur.com/a/9DFbr

    Stop misdirecting people. It's 1st day of reset. I'm talking about weekly average, and if you expand that screenshot, you only see around 15 TPA and rest pugs.

    Oh JQ is also in t4, if they cannot compete in t4, then JQ might as well be dead

    Power > Condition

  • Jerry CCH.9816Jerry CCH.9816 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

    @Jerry CCH.9816 said:

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    JQ SEA is like 1 active guild that runs daily with around 15 people, but leads a 30+ pugs. Larger than many lower tier server, but by no means it is 'overstacked' like many believes

    The reason why JQ has such high play hours and godly ppt is probably because there are many people on JQ with too many time who can somehow play almost 24 hours a day. JQ really do not have the numbers to compete t1 t2 servers in peak times.

    dont give us fake info plz :/
    JQ SEA TZ EBG Q 22 now and theres 40 ppl at TPA channel
    https://imgur.com/a/9DFbr

    Stop misdirecting people. It's 1st day of reset. I'm talking about weekly average, and if you expand that screenshot, you only see around 15 TPA and rest pugs.

    Oh JQ is also in t4, if they cannot compete in t4, then JQ might as well be dead

    nvm i will take a pic about EBG Queue every SEA TZ "
    So you think "15 TPA / 50 man full squad / EBG Q 22" still no enough people for JQ during SEA TZ ?? B)

    Happiness consists in contentment. :3

    Day 1 : https://imgur.com/a/9DFbr

  • ThunderPanda.1872ThunderPanda.1872 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 23, 2017

    @Jerry CCH.9816 said:

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

    @Jerry CCH.9816 said:

    @ThunderPanda.1872 said:
    JQ SEA is like 1 active guild that runs daily with around 15 people, but leads a 30+ pugs. Larger than many lower tier server, but by no means it is 'overstacked' like many believes

    The reason why JQ has such high play hours and godly ppt is probably because there are many people on JQ with too many time who can somehow play almost 24 hours a day. JQ really do not have the numbers to compete t1 t2 servers in peak times.

    dont give us fake info plz :/
    JQ SEA TZ EBG Q 22 now and theres 40 ppl at TPA channel
    https://imgur.com/a/9DFbr

    Stop misdirecting people. It's 1st day of reset. I'm talking about weekly average, and if you expand that screenshot, you only see around 15 TPA and rest pugs.

    Oh JQ is also in t4, if they cannot compete in t4, then JQ might as well be dead

    nvm i will take a pic about EBG Queue every SEA TZ "
    So you think "15 TPA / 50 man full squad / EBG Q 22" still no enough people for JQ during SEA TZ ?? B)

    Happiness consists in contentment. :3

    In case you haven’t been reading. The problem was never JQ SEA. It’s JQ NA and Oceanic. I never said JQ sea is outnumberred, just not as overstacked as people believe, especially considering the largest SEA guild in jQ runs 10 to 15 people.

    Power > Condition

<13
This discussion has been closed.
©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.