How often does Blackgate open these days? - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

How often does Blackgate open these days?

2>

Comments

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Nothing to do with the topic of the thread, you are correct . . .

    But once we went off topic with post four it became relevant . . .

    how is it relevant?

    We started to develop hypothetical new solutions to problems that have existing solutions that haven't been implemented yet . . .

    what existing solutions?

    Anet's proposed restructuring referenced in my initial post . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Nothing to do with the topic of the thread, you are correct . . .

    But once we went off topic with post four it became relevant . . .

    how is it relevant?

    We started to develop hypothetical new solutions to problems that have existing solutions that haven't been implemented yet . . .

    what existing solutions?

    Anet's proposed restructuring referenced in my initial post . . .

    that is a proposal, which does not exist yet.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Nothing to do with the topic of the thread, you are correct . . .

    But once we went off topic with post four it became relevant . . .

    how is it relevant?

    We started to develop hypothetical new solutions to problems that have existing solutions that haven't been implemented yet . . .

    what existing solutions?

    Anet's proposed restructuring referenced in my initial post . . .

    that is a proposal, which does not exist yet.

    It exists insomuch as any idea exists, including those others referenced in this thread. More so really, as it is the idea of the game's developer given credence through documentation and claimed development . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Nothing to do with the topic of the thread, you are correct . . .

    But once we went off topic with post four it became relevant . . .

    how is it relevant?

    We started to develop hypothetical new solutions to problems that have existing solutions that haven't been implemented yet . . .

    what existing solutions?

    Anet's proposed restructuring referenced in my initial post . . .

    that is a proposal, which does not exist yet.

    It exists insomuch as any idea exists, including those others referenced in this thread. More so really, as it is the idea of the game's developer given credence through documentation and claimed development . . .

    it does not exist until it becomes live.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Nothing to do with the topic of the thread, you are correct . . .

    But once we went off topic with post four it became relevant . . .

    how is it relevant?

    We started to develop hypothetical new solutions to problems that have existing solutions that haven't been implemented yet . . .

    what existing solutions?

    Anet's proposed restructuring referenced in my initial post . . .

    that is a proposal, which does not exist yet.

    It exists insomuch as any idea exists, including those others referenced in this thread. More so really, as it is the idea of the game's developer given credence through documentation and claimed development . . .

    it does not exist until it becomes live.

    Then this doesn't exist . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    not really. =) how? well, its not yet out. cant judge if it works. for now its a speculation

    1st problem was periodically resetting all servers and evening out pop balance. Alliances are described as periodically resetting world comp and are specifically motivated by anet's desire for smaller population shards than servers provide, as that would allow them to balance out populations more evenly . . .

    2nd problem was the fear of being kicked from your server while you were on a break from the game. Alliances don't have servers just guilds, so you only need to worry about being kicked by your guild leadership :p

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @knite.1542 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    imo. we really need a periodic kick from all servers so ppl can rejoin. and evenly stack x y or z servers.

    Imagine taking a short break from the game and coming back to find that you've been 'kicked' from your server, you can't rejoin it because it is full, and now you can't play with your guild. Sounds pretty bad to me.

    Alliances would solve both of your problems . . .

    I think people have too much faith in alliances at this point. Granted, it is the 'only' solution we have been offered. It has taken too long to implement now, though, that a new solution will be needed by the time it launches.

    I don't see restructuring as a solution at all, but I see it as both a step forward and a building block that would allow anet more flexibility in creating solutions moving forward after (if?) it gets implemented . . .

    mmm, i have a 1 month rule. to kick players unless they tell me they will come back later.

    anyway, we dont really know.what alliances is until it goes live.

    Exactly, so if you're going to take a break you just tell guild leadership . . .

    It probably won't be that easy since we don't really know how it will work yet because there is no alliance in place to test.

    I doubt very seriously that anet would use alliances to involve themselves in internal guild politics, given how reluctant they have been to involve themselves in the past . . .

    mmm i think i mentioned nothing about guild politics though but highlighting the point where there's no alliance to compare with at the moment :)

    I can see how you might have lost track. I can recap for you. You suggested a periodic kick from all servers, second poster countered that they wouldn't want to find themselves on a different server than their guild after being kicked during a break. I pointed out that anet's proposed restructuring plan would address that since your server would be determined by your wvw guild. You countered that you would kick someone after a month unless they let you know they were coming back. I said yes exactly, they'd just have to let you know in that case. You countered that it wouldn't be that simple. I pointed out that in order for it not to be that simple, anet would have to get involved in guild politics, which they have heretofore been disinclined to do. It is in this way that the proposed restructuring would address the issue originally presented . . .

    no, my idea is server reset every linking. so players will need to choose new servers.
    to displaced members, i'll address that now, either they choose the world of the guild or they can go to a new one, or they have to wait until the guild's server is open.
    anet does not enter it in anyway. even now some members of guilds are in different servers than their own and that's fine. they can do stuff in pve but if it's wvw, then they'll have to think about it properly.
    supposing it's the alliance thing, of which it hasn't happened yet, we don't know how it will happen if a guild member decides to leave the guild. because it can't simply be that easy to leave the alliance area. imo, hypothetically they'll simply be floating in the alliance of their guild until they decide to transfer. again, this is speculation because it hasn't happened yet, there is no alliance in gw2 at this moment.

    Yes, that was your issue, addressed by the actually existing restructuring plan which does in fact reset world composition with every match while retaining guild linkings, allowing players to continue to play with their guildies through every world reset, which addressed the other player's issue. This is what was meant by 'Alliances would solve both your problems'. Note that if the actually existing restructuring plan had already been implemented, that would have been phrased 'Alliances have solved both of your problems . . '

    actually no. alliances don't exist yet. until it goes live, we won't know. whereas the idea i pointed out i can defend because i came up with it.

    So to be clear your idea -- which hasn't been implemented -- is defensible but anet's idea isn't bc it hasn't been implemented . . ?

    yes, because i'm here to tell you how it will unfold. it's like asking creator or a believer. :P you ask creator, if that creator will tell you things clearly on how things will unfold, you may understand and can ask questions and even make suggestions, but if you ask a believer, he can only tell you how he thinks his creator has a plan for you etc. but not the god itself.

    tldr, i can tell you how it will unfold. whereas, there's no developer talking to us here to explain how it will unfold until it actually goes live.

    Then no one can ever agree with you, since it's your idea and not theirs . . .

    actually people can agree with me. but what will happen is still based on anet. and as for now, alliances are not yet - online. so, it does not exist until tested.

    Which is too bad, bc they would solve those two problems mentioned earlier . . .

    solves no problem yet. :/

    That's very true. Speaking of a future state with 'would' . . .

    nothing to do with the issue :/

    Nothing to do with the topic of the thread, you are correct . . .

    But once we went off topic with post four it became relevant . . .

    how is it relevant?

    We started to develop hypothetical new solutions to problems that have existing solutions that haven't been implemented yet . . .

    what existing solutions?

    Anet's proposed restructuring referenced in my initial post . . .

    that is a proposal, which does not exist yet.

    It exists insomuch as any idea exists, including those others referenced in this thread. More so really, as it is the idea of the game's developer given credence through documentation and claimed development . . .

    it does not exist until it becomes live.

    Then this doesn't exist . . .

    how is what doesnt exist?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Mil.3562Mil.3562 Member ✭✭✭

    Stop it you two :P

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

    Something tree, something something woods something something alliance’s...

    Holy young cats and puppies...

    Thank You for the {MEME}

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

    mmm new patch today?

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭

    Every time is one to often ;)

  • BG should lock until it collapses. It is ridiculous that BG opens or gets links when every other server experiences falls to the bottom routinely.

  • Word was Cookie quit, and they fell apart. I don't know what's going on with Blackgate. But considering they have both EUROPEAN and NORTH AMERICAN PLAYERS, equally distributed across multiple timezones…..i'd say kick Blackgate off the NA server, and shove them over to EU servers. Since EU has more timezone coverage, more so than North America.

  • Hexalot.8194Hexalot.8194 Member ✭✭
    edited September 11, 2019

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:
    Word was Cookie quit, and they fell apart. I don't know what's going on with Blackgate. But considering they have both EUROPEAN and NORTH AMERICAN PLAYERS, equally distributed across multiple timezones…..i'd say kick Blackgate off the NA server, and shove them over to EU servers. Since EU has more timezone coverage, more so than North America.

    Fell apart ?
    Hmm... you haven't looked at the WvW NA leader board lately.

    http://gw2stats.com/na/matchups/

  • Their pvp gank and roaming groups merged. They still have an effective rolling pin system.

  • discussing basically same situation match manipulation, population manipulation Let the lunatics run the funny farm

  • BG only opens when Anet wants to do tests related to lag issue.

  • @KeyOrion.9506 said:
    Their pvp gank and roaming groups merged. They still have an effective rolling pin system.

    😳 Are you the key from SoS/JQ?
    Your name sounds really familiar! I think I saw you in chat yesterday during SEA prime.
    Were you on when Rose+Dent+Pugs rolled HoB+Pugs over with equal numbers on both sides?

    Visit 🏴‍☠️ Eremite's WvW Necromancy Graveyard 🏴‍☠️

    CD -> TC -> Mag -> GOM -> AR -> JQ

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:
    Their pvp gank and roaming groups merged. They still have an effective rolling pin system.

    😳 Are you the key from SoS/JQ?
    Your name sounds really familiar! I think I saw you in chat yesterday during SEA prime.
    Were you on when Rose+Dent+Pugs rolled HoB+Pugs over with equal numbers on both sides?

    I am not sure having outman buff on my status bar is considered equal numbers.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • EremiteAngel.9765EremiteAngel.9765 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 16, 2019

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:
    Their pvp gank and roaming groups merged. They still have an effective rolling pin system.

    😳 Are you the key from SoS/JQ?
    Your name sounds really familiar! I think I saw you in chat yesterday during SEA prime.
    Were you on when Rose+Dent+Pugs rolled HoB+Pugs over with equal numbers on both sides?

    I am not sure having outman buff on my status bar is considered equal numbers.

    Uh...I meant equal numbers between SoS and BG.
    HoB as in House of Bookah.

    Visit 🏴‍☠️ Eremite's WvW Necromancy Graveyard 🏴‍☠️

    CD -> TC -> Mag -> GOM -> AR -> JQ

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:

    @KeyOrion.9506 said:
    Their pvp gank and roaming groups merged. They still have an effective rolling pin system.

    😳 Are you the key from SoS/JQ?
    Your name sounds really familiar! I think I saw you in chat yesterday during SEA prime.
    Were you on when Rose+Dent+Pugs rolled HoB+Pugs over with equal numbers on both sides?

    I am not sure having outman buff on my status bar is considered equal numbers.

    Uh...I meant equal numbers between SoS and BG.
    HoB as in House of Bookah.

    Ah, I read wrong :(

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

  • Acheron.4731Acheron.4731 Member ✭✭✭

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have full-time dedicated scouts
    They use comms consistently
    They respond to call-outs consistently
    They don't overstretch things they intend to hold

    Dilly Dilly

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

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have full-time dedicated scouts
    They use comms consistently
    They respond to call-outs consistently
    They don't overstretch things they intend to hold

    because they play the mode as intended. siege, scouts, communication, numbers, and quality.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have full-time dedicated scouts
    They use comms consistently
    They respond to call-outs consistently
    They don't overstretch things they intend to hold

    because they play the mode as intended. siege, scouts, communication, numbers, and quality.

    do their 3 Borderland maps stay full?

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

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have full-time dedicated scouts
    They use comms consistently
    They respond to call-outs consistently
    They don't overstretch things they intend to hold

    because they play the mode as intended. siege, scouts, communication, numbers, and quality.

    do their 3 Borderland maps stay full?

    i dont know. :/ someone from bg can answer this.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Acheron.4731Acheron.4731 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 17, 2019

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have full-time dedicated scouts
    They use comms consistently
    They respond to call-outs consistently
    They don't overstretch things they intend to hold

    because they play the mode as intended. siege, scouts, communication, numbers, and quality.

    do their 3 Borderland maps stay full?

    lol, no
    barely even on reset anymore
    Maybe 2 decent size ques on reset night
    decent que on sat and sun in ebg or floating. Pretty typical numbers.

    Dilly Dilly

  • Zephyra.4709Zephyra.4709 Member ✭✭✭

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have full-time dedicated scouts
    They use comms consistently
    They respond to call-outs consistently
    They don't overstretch things they intend to hold

    because they play the mode as intended. siege, scouts, communication, numbers, and quality.

    do their 3 Borderland maps stay full?

    Reset was 41 tops EBG for ~2 hrs + dwindled fast, other maps no queues. I rarely play NA only reset days.. you'll see 1-2 maps queued that's bout it.

    Hope that helps answer your question.

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

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have full-time dedicated scouts
    They use comms consistently
    They respond to call-outs consistently
    They don't overstretch things they intend to hold

    because they play the mode as intended. siege, scouts, communication, numbers, and quality.

    do their 3 Borderland maps stay full?

    The biggest advantage BG has is coverage in ‘off’ timezones.

    On NA last night, had two maps (at least) that were outnumbered for a good portion of the evening.

    That being said, numbers favor BG, along with

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have full-time dedicated scouts
    They use comms consistently
    They respond to call-outs consistently
    They don't overstretch things they intend to hold

    And

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Acheron.4731 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have full-time dedicated scouts
    They use comms consistently
    They respond to call-outs consistently
    They don't overstretch things they intend to hold

    because they play the mode as intended. siege, scouts, communication, numbers, and quality.

    Numbers plus the above is hard to ‘beat’

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    This is pretty much entirely unrelated to the topic at hand but ppl talking about queues made me wonder. I don't play at reset so I haven't seen any map queue at all in literally months. How many servers queue maps at reset . . ?

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

    @Gop.8713 said:
    This is pretty much entirely unrelated to the topic at hand but ppl talking about queues made me wonder. I don't play at reset so I haven't seen any map queue at all in literally months. How many servers queue maps at reset . . ?

    I can’t say.. but even EU population based on pop levels have dropped. Currently, at least three ‘hosts’ are medium. There were only 12 servers yesterday that were not medium pop level..

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    Because they are the one server many willing to bandwagon to.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Hexalot.8194Hexalot.8194 Member ✭✭
    edited September 17, 2019

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    Because they are the one server many willing to bandwagon to.

    When it was locked for nearly a whole year, BG was still consistently winning it's match ups, so bandwagoning can't be the reason.

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

    @Hexalot.8194 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    Because they are the one server many willing to bandwagon to.

    When it was locked for nearly a whole year, BG was still consistently winning it's match ups, so bandwagoning can't be the reason.

    I wouldn’t bother. Most players believe it’s that BG has map queues on every map around the clock.

    Most will also say that the stacking occurred long ago which is why they continue to be successful. And there is truth in that.

    They don’t talk about the multiple guilds that have transferred off over the past three years.

    All that said, it is the only server that is ‘full’ so that says it has a greater population than any one server.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

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

    Also, the server that shall not be named likely has a larger percentage population of veterans as being closed for as long as they have had prevented new accounts from being on the server.

    It also likely has one of the largest ‘hibernating’ populations in NA as many transferred there before megaservers because their organization was able to solve some of the early metas. Of course most of those players don’t like WvW...

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hexalot.8194 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    Because they are the one server many willing to bandwagon to.

    When it was locked for nearly a whole year, BG was still consistently winning it's match ups, so bandwagoning can't be the reason.

    Their bandwagon happened years ago on multiple occasions, a lot of their players refuse to leave because they constantly win since like 2013, only guilds have eventually leaked out to other servers, yet their population is so much higher than other servers they have to remain lock for most of the year. They've never needed a link for most of the time links have been around. Have a few dedicated scouts and defenders, hold a keep from each of the enemies, ride the win out these days.

    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon."
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WoAH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Doug.4930Doug.4930 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 17, 2019

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    I wouldn’t bother. Most players believe it’s that BG has map queues on every map around the clock.

    I don't think most seasoned WvW players think that. Even bg can't field 24/7 map queues on every map anymore. The killer is the coverage. Blackgate consitantly has more players on average across all time zones.

    But in the end all that matters is that a server is stacked more than any other server. Which bg is.

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hexalot.8194 said:

    @SkyShroud.2865 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    Because they are the one server many willing to bandwagon to.

    When it was locked for nearly a whole year, BG was still consistently winning it's match ups, so bandwagoning can't be the reason.

    Bg was formed very early on during the launch. It became the defacto server for pve before the server thingy, I already forgot what is called. Anyway, lots and lots people went bg not just for wvw. Exactly because of that, bg limit was raised several times throughout. Bg base population is enormous. Also, whenever it open, people went and stack there ontop of that enormous base population. So everytime there are return players, bg again become gigantic big.

    Furthermore, POF's current balance dictate that as long enemy has more than 10, with all meta classes, you have high chance of losing. You can't zerg bust anymore in POF. It is a number game.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    This is pretty much entirely unrelated to the topic at hand but ppl talking about queues made me wonder. I don't play at reset so I haven't seen any map queue at all in literally months. How many servers queue maps at reset . . ?

    I can’t say.. but even EU population based on pop levels have dropped. Currently, at least three ‘hosts’ are medium. There were only 12 servers yesterday that were not medium pop level..

    But that's meaningless in terms of actual numbers. Server status is only a measure of how full a server is relative to other servers, it doesn't represent a specific number or range of numbers. But the number of players it takes to make a map queue is static, or at least 'more' static . . .

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

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    This is pretty much entirely unrelated to the topic at hand but ppl talking about queues made me wonder. I don't play at reset so I haven't seen any map queue at all in literally months. How many servers queue maps at reset . . ?

    I can’t say.. but even EU population based on pop levels have dropped. Currently, at least three ‘hosts’ are medium. There were only 12 servers yesterday that were not medium pop level..

    But that's meaningless in terms of actual numbers. Server status is only a measure of how full a server is relative to other servers, it doesn't represent a specific number or range of numbers. But the number of players it takes to make a map queue is static, or at least 'more' static . . .

    Call it what you will: bite the first time that we have seen both EU and NA not be able to field at least a non medium server for each host on all tiers.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have some of the most dedicated players during off hours. Most other servers Attack and take a structure and leave to take other stuff. They don’t try to defend what they’ve taken. Not these BG players though. BG players won’t just take a structure and leave. They will walk dolyaks and defend camps for as many structures that they can make into T3. And their skills are above the average players so it takes a huge effort to dislodge them from whatever they’re guarding.

    Visit 🏴‍☠️ Eremite's WvW Necromancy Graveyard 🏴‍☠️

    CD -> TC -> Mag -> GOM -> AR -> JQ

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have some of the most dedicated players during off hours. Most other servers Attack and take a structure and leave to take other stuff. They don’t try to defend what they’ve taken. Not these BG players though. BG players won’t just take a structure and leave. They will walk dolyaks and defend camps for as many structures that they can make into T3. And their skills are above the average players so it takes a huge effort to dislodge them from whatever they’re guarding.

    but why isnt that same talent and mindset spread out. Why specifically they all there rather than all over the other servers?

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 18, 2019

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have some of the most dedicated players during off hours. Most other servers Attack and take a structure and leave to take other stuff. They don’t try to defend what they’ve taken. Not these BG players though. BG players won’t just take a structure and leave. They will walk dolyaks and defend camps for as many structures that they can make into T3. And their skills are above the average players so it takes a huge effort to dislodge them from whatever they’re guarding.

    but why isnt that same talent and mindset spread out. Why specifically they all there rather than all over the other servers?

    That would be a better question for some of the long standing accounts in BG. Maybe check with bliss or XT

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have some of the most dedicated players during off hours. Most other servers Attack and take a structure and leave to take other stuff. They don’t try to defend what they’ve taken. Not these BG players though. BG players won’t just take a structure and leave. They will walk dolyaks and defend camps for as many structures that they can make into T3. And their skills are above the average players so it takes a huge effort to dislodge them from whatever they’re guarding.

    but why isnt that same talent and mindset spread out. Why specifically they all there rather than all over the other servers?

    Players as a rule are short sighted and selfish. BG is full of those types.

    It is ANET's job (and game devs in general) to create the rules and enforce them. ANET failed, spectacularly. Then they let the BG players make fools of them and destroy the game mode.

    Now everyone is leaving. Incompetence should never be rewarded.

  • this is actually hilarious ppl think that Bg on prime has massive Ques and ppl all around the maps if you check the wvw stats you will see that bg is the least active server on NA prime time and The Number one active server on SEA and Ocx with ques that's how they keep winning i don't get why ppl wanna go play there unless you are not an NA player

  • @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They have some of the most dedicated players during off hours. Most other servers Attack and take a structure and leave to take other stuff. They don’t try to defend what they’ve taken. Not these BG players though. BG players won’t just take a structure and leave. They will walk dolyaks and defend camps for as many structures that they can make into T3. And their skills are above the average players so it takes a huge effort to dislodge them from whatever they’re guarding.

    but why isnt that same talent and mindset spread out. Why specifically they all there rather than all over the other servers?

    During the first two WvW seasons Choc Pudding spent several thousand dollars to recruit guilds and players to Blackgate, including off-hour guilds. The Russian guild that arrived in the middle of season one on Blackgate(and broke the spirit of SOR and destroyed them as a server within days.) was paid for by Choc. I was in another guild that was bought and brought to Blackgate by Choc. Winning caused a chain reaction of sorts as players who cared about winning inevitable moved to Blackgate.

    After seasons ended the incentive to stack a server for the purpose of winning a season was obviously no longer present, but BG was still stacked with those players they had bought, or who had flocked their because they cared about winning. In the years since seasons many of those players have quit or left the server, but at the same time due to lack of motivation no server has stacked itself to the same degree that Blackgate did. So while some servers have risen to beat BG for a limited span of time(Maguuma when they cared, YB when they were super stacked for example), the interest of the guilds and commanders and more importantly the financial backers who move players around, don't care about building a long-term server to beat Blackgate because there is no reward for doing so without the spectre of a WvW season to give them motivation.

    Caliburn.1845, Monsters Inc(BOO) guildleader.
    DH>DB>BG>MAG>YB>SBI>YB>AR

  • SWI.4127SWI.4127 Member ✭✭✭

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    can somebody answer me this. Why is Blackgate so much better than every other server?

    They are the best at doing what it takes to win. Upgrading structures on enemy BLs is probably the biggest difference I have seen between BG and most servers. BG will upgrade the keep on their side of an enemy BL and try to hold it all week. Hell, they will even T3 the south tower on an enemy BL, scout, and waypoint 30 people in to defend it. No other NA server I've seen will even care about a south tower on an enemy BL. Could be lack of scouts on most servers, or server culture. They don't shame each other for PPT-stress, and generally it's a pretty tryhard PPT server. I think all their success stems from that attitude really. They also have a lot of pugs who actually know what they are doing and can act self-sufficiently without a tag. That means building/using siege, clouding enemies out of their structures, etc. The pugs are probably the biggest reason they still win every week despite not having all that many guilds. Yes they have high KDR but as I said, they play very defensively and their matchups tend to have very low activity numbers because of this.

©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.