Jump to content
  • Sign Up

How often does Blackgate open these days?

sostronk.8167

By sostronk.8167
in World vs. World

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sovereign.1093

Sovereign.1093

Posted
Posted

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 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

@Gop.8713 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Gop.8713

Gop.8713

Posted
Posted

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 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

@Gop.8713 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 . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sovereign.1093

Sovereign.1093

Posted
Posted

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 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

@Gop.8713 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gop.8713

Gop.8713

Posted
Posted

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 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

@Gop.8713 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 . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sovereign.1093

Sovereign.1093

Posted
Posted

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 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

@Gop.8713 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gop.8713

Gop.8713

Posted
Posted

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 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

@Gop.8713 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 . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sovereign.1093

Sovereign.1093

Posted
Posted

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 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

@Gop.8713 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KeyOrion.9506

KeyOrion.9506

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hexalot.8194

Hexalot.8194

Posted
Posted

@"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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyShroud.2865

SkyShroud.2865

Posted
Posted

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EremiteAngel.9765

EremiteAngel.9765

Posted
Posted

@SkyShroud.2865 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyShroud.2865

SkyShroud.2865

Posted
Posted

@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 :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sovereign.1093

Sovereign.1093

Posted
Posted

@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 scoutsThey use comms consistentlyThey respond to call-outs consistentlyThey don't overstretch things they intend to hold

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Knighthonor.4061

Knighthonor.4061

Posted
Posted

@Sovereign.1093 said:

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

They have full-time dedicated scoutsThey use comms consistentlyThey respond to call-outs consistentlyThey 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
GuildWars2.com
ArenaNet

©2020 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

ESRB - Teen
×
×
  • Create New...