Karagee.6830
-
Posts
693 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Karagee.6830
-
-
12 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
Outnumbered on a world where everyone gave up from reset doesnt really mean that much. It barely mean anything on any full world because they are frequently outnumbered too. I've even seen EB complain about it in chat despite holding the entirety of it, lol.
Gandara doesnt have any people. We know.
Ah the strawman. I did not plan to do this while tanking, which seems to be over anyway.
What kind of people you are on FSP is none of my concern, nobody does that on Gandara. We normally are outnumbered and taking a beating in PPT. Most of the times we are second only because one of the other teams is outnunbering us and the other team so much, that they can decided who to put in second and third place in a skirmish. This is what's happening currently with BB romping through the night and AG owning the morning.
Gandara does not have nearly enough people and if we are full 15-20 servers should be full.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:
Enough for what?
That you are unhappy with the situation of your server? I already understand that and can relate. I probably would be unhappy too if my server would have been "full" for a year without a link and would be in T5.
That the current server linking system is not very good and that there are too big population imbalances? I think we all know that. Even Anet knows it, that's the reason they started working on the Alliance system to replace the current system.
That Gandara is treated unfairly and differently from other servers by Anet? A few screenshots with outnumbered buff can not prove that. For this we would need internal system data that we as players do not have.
That the system doesn't count the population the way Anet said it did? A few screenshots with outnumbered buff can not prove that. For this we would need internal system data that we as players do not have.
Enough to prove to you that we are Full according to Anet and at the same time we are indeed outnumbered every day of the week except 2 nights. Which is circumstantil evidence that Anet is helpless abount calculating participation.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
Chaba.5410
there is a problem with how teams are matched and built.Absolutely. Anet acknowledged this years ago in that "New Worlds" post I linked above. Having smaller "servers" would have allowed them to build teams that are closer in population to each other and possibly avoid situations where a server is Full and unlinked for so long because they need to create teams divisible by 3 even if the result is teams with larger populations beyond the Full threshold.
My personal concern with World Restructuring is whether they are going to allow transfers or not after teams are formed for a season because mass transfers ultimately defeat the goals of the new team-building method.while we were talking about something else this answer stimulated me to make this post, with a couple of questions. the first question I would like to ask anet. while you have the work in progress on alliances, in your great work project there is still the sweep for some modification ? that maybe we could build together with anet and its community in a serene and affectionate way?now, let's imagine that we have alliances. all players select their alliance and trusted friends to play with, other guilds choose to run alone and other players choose to run without even a guild. perfect everything is ready.I use uropa only as an example. now the system distributes all players, guilds and alliances in 36 different teams. because I imagine in EU 4 3-way tier and each team consists of 3 servers, 1 up and one down week after week. every 2 months redo the matches (not to balance the number of players, you do not need we already have alliances that have built similar teams) with the aim of matching the teams in reference to how many war points they are able to generate. so you can always maintain / guarantee a good competition between the teams that face each other.ranking and season of 12 months and we will know which are the 3 best teams of Eu of NA of ASIA that will have access to a special event of 1 week.in that same week the players, the guilds the alliances reorganize select and choose again with which trusted friends I want to play the new season.the system resets everything, creates new 36 teams and everything starts all over again.practically every New Year's Eve you will have a completely new wvw built in a balanced way (alliances + guilds + players) and completely random.and from here comes the second question that I ask all the friends of the forum , to understand if it is something that you might like? is it a compromise that somehow preserves the concept of team / server that in your opinion can be an added value ? you will still have a team for which you will be motivated and extremely competitive.( for the concern of chaba I propose transfers allowed to everyone but only by reservation, skip if someone takes your place )I think Chaba did not understand how the system is supposed to work. Alliances are locked for a period, you can't get more people in once the season starts. Different alliances and people without an alliance are assigned to one team based on some algorythm (insert Toby-Michael Scott meme here) and will be bound until the new season begins. At that time they can play with the alliance of their choosing, provided it has fewer than 500 members.
I'm pretty sure the idea is to mix and match alliances as well based on participation patterns. If a team is made of alliances A+B+C and another D+E+F, the following season you may have A+E+G and B+C+D. based on participation patterns both in terms of overall participation and time slots covered. This is what they claimed they were trying to accomplish, so we take it for what it is. Now, if a miracle occurs and the participation stays exactly the same over time, maybe the algorythm will match the same alliances, but my impression is that's not how it's going to work in reality. And of course single players will end up in random teams all the time.
In essence you would be limited to groups of 500 friends (and I think community groups on EU servers won't reach that level, that's my impression).
-
5 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
with this I am sure that you are very far from reality. let's take stock here. if you are a close-knit team with a healthy team spirit always and in any case even when you can only lose, you are punished (first big mistake) if you see your team in difficulty and try to do something more as far as possible, you are punished (second big mistake) if you do not get a link, you are punished for 60 days (third big mistake)
when you are lucky enough to suffer these '' mistakes '' for free , gandara for 1 year us for 6 months others for a little less, I can assure you that you can only wish that no one, of any other team suffer the same music.
my wish is that all 27 teams can have fun, to do this you would have to have games with 3 similar teams (with a similar k + d) and I'm sure many players want this.
with this awareness, what can we gather from this post, what is the point that can unite us?
in the short term : we can chedere all together that any server does not remain without a link for more than 60 days ( bb included, we also put to them a limit of players and treat them like everyone else, this is my thought )
in the long term: I imagine that now we are almost there, you will have alliances, you have asked for it, you have voted for it and arenanet rightly imagined it and thought about it and with effort and passion has almost realized it. I don't, i don't wax, I have no responsibility my conscience is as light as air. Ironically, for you gandara guys it will just be that at that point you will no longer have a gandara to get busy.
Well, a lot of people will stick together then. Maybe not me, but a lot of people on Gandara planned exactly that and devised ways to form a community alliance. And I'm sure they will stick together, like large groups from other servers that are planning the same thing, even though Alliances will come with their dose of stacking of a different kind (stacking based on skill/hours played etc): it will be like playing a 3v3 basketball competition and instead of limiting and putting boundaries to how the teams are made up to keep things interesting, you allow an NBA superstar to participate while the rest are good amateurs. It will still be better than a 3v1 competition to be sure. We'll see how this pans out, but today is the day of the summer solstice, spring is officially over and nothing has been said or done about Anet's Alliances spring declarations, so it's a fair to assume they are not coming anytime soon and at the very least they are significantly behind Anet's expected development. But you know what? I'm sure some blind believers, these forums seem so full of, will still expect something to be done or said in spring 2022 come August and September
-
9 minutes ago, Zok.4956 said:
Sure, every software has bugs. But, actually, the devs can look into the system and should know best how it's working internally. And if devs communicate about it openly we can assume they don't lie about it, even if they don't tell us all details about the system. Because: Why would they lie about it?
On the other hand, if you say that the developers are not telling the truth, you should back it up with facts. Please note: Your opinion does not replace facts as evidence.
So it's up to you to show proof.
Not really, no. People have said this is how they do it. I say that's just what they claim they do and nobody has proof whether they intentionally or unintentionally do something completely different or slightly different. Lying would imply that they willingly come here after being 100% sure and...intentionally deceive us. I never claimed they did that, I dared them to do that or to tell us something that is the complete opposite of what we can see with our own eyes.
I'm gonna take screenshots of home border and EBG with 'outnumbered'. Would that be enough for you? As I said before the 'outnumbered' buff could be applied incorrectly also, but I don't think you'll find any person that would argue that, since everyone has experienced it to be working properly.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Leaa.2943 said:
It does not matter what link you get, it is the fact that guilds and friends and new players are able to move to a link so that they can play together with guilds, friends and others.
Imagine you are in a raiding guild. Now imagine your servers is a host that is closed for 370 days and before that 270 days, and only 2-3 times a year you get a link. How is your raiding guild gonna recruit and get your new players and friends to play with your guild?
It is not easy to keep a raiding guild going if your guild can not grow with new members.
Also around when EoD came out Gandara was still close. All that time all those new players filled up every other server, but Gandara did not, we where again misstreated compared to other servers who got new blood. We could only hope for old players to come back. It just is a different game for us compared to the servers who always get a link.
Also all of this ^ yes
Gandara was open for a week when they meddled with the thresholds and every server was open.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
Oh just imagine... as if most worlds havent been there at one time or another. But no, its special when it comes to Gandara.
If Gandara gets adjusted to medium and becomes a link to the top T1 world I'm pretty sure you wouldnt shed a single tear for the next bottom tier punching bag.
Wow here we go with another that fails to see the whole picture and decided to focus only on one aspect (no link) or another (Full) or another (time scale of the previous 2 issues) when it's the combination of all 3 that makes the situation unbearable and unfair. Can you please give us an example of a server Full and unlinked for 10-12 months? You see, we'd have no problem being on our own, the punching bag as you call it, and locked every other relink, but here we are in this situation every relink, one after another after another, endlessly.
You should really talk to people from Gandara. As a matter of fact you will find that we have overwhelming sympathy for any server that has to go through this even for 2 months every year rather than 10-12, because we are always in their situation. Personally, I usually roam in a small party on enemy borderlands and I always try to help the unlinked server in my match, even Desolation and SFR, for this very reason, unless we are fighting for 1st place, in which case we'll do what it's more likely to win us the week. And by that I don't mean just trying to double team the third server with my small group, I mean even contesting their garrison when the other unlinked server is attacking them, to make it harder for defenders. That actually damages my wxp and participation, because I could be flipping camps, towers or keeps in the time I spend to keep the garrison contested. It only gives me personal satisfaction. Sometimes I even build guild siege by myself, so the garrison keeps getting contested when the guards respawn for the benefit of the other unlinked server. That of course means that I have to actually make a run for supplies, for no benefit whatsoever other than sticking two fingers to Anet and their linking lunacy, imagine that, it's how far that goes. So I suggest you check yourself and your assumptions.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:
This isn't you? When I wrote that "Well that's what Anet told us is how population is counted for years now." you responded that it's an impossibility to be true. Sure looks like you're accusing them of lying to me.
My only point ever has been that you should double-check your usage of what external-facing data is available to us and realize that the Full status is based on internal metrics we have no access to. Not use anecdotes. Not make a direct link between total PvP activity and a rolling average of playhours smoothed out over some unknown number of weeks. Now I could tell you why the in-game K+D and the number from the API is different, but it's probably better if you figure that one out and think about it yourself.
Once again comprehension. I said neither you nor them proved in any way that what they said is what they currently do. Stop moving the goalposts and making strawmen.
The quote is fine. I believe it should be impossible with the way they claim they select links for Gandara to be full and without link for stints of 10 months. I think this is not even debatable. I went further and explained how we are outnumbered all the time except 2 nights a week and I have explained how there are links with more than double our 'flow' for 2 months (which is pretty accurate since nobody keeps parricipation by repairing walls ever few minutes anymore). This andcdotal evidence is the exact opposite of what you would expect if things were working as Anet said they should
Even without checking I assume the discrepancies in the deaths are due to the omnipresent outnumbered buff for some servers. This is irrelevant for the problem at hand anyway, as both thr Api numbers and in-game numbers paint exactly the same picture, no more and no less. Stop looking at miniscule details and start looking at the bigger picture.
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, Grebcol.5984 said:
yeah we had that situation for more than 1 year. Getting roflstomped during night & morning . I can remember how we defended our maps with 10 peoples against full zone blobs. But no one cared about it. Many rather still made fun of it.
The only solution would be when Anet would delete the last bracket and merge some servers. So that every Server have a Link. There are to many German & French Servers. Or the rls of the Alliance system.
(And pls get the rid with that transfer after relink)
Both Elona and DL were on T3 last relink (Elona yo-yoing from T2 and DL more T3/T4) and you both had K+D similar or higher than your opponents. Looking at your numbers to turn into Gandara you'd have needed to get rid of over a third of your team's players (you were comfortably at 65k-70k when Gandara was cruising on 40k-45k K+D).
And unfortunately no amount of tinkering with the system is going to make time slots imbalances disappear. If they can make more obvious and gigantic imbalances disappear it would already be a success.
I'm honestly curious: do you think like someone from WSR in this thread that you'd be better off without a link (assuming you are on DL and not Elona)? I have to understand this mentality because it's truly, incredibly foreign to me.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:
So with your lack of answers I'm to take it that you haven't really thought about how you're using the data that is externally available, which is to be expected when someone accuses Anet of lying/has to resort to conspiracy to explain something. There's no reason for anyone to take what you claim at face value. Data gets misused all the time.
Not another cop out and more moaning , please. It seems to be the only thing you do.
I was going to look for scores for morning and day during the weekends and throughout the day on weekdays were you see lopsided scores over and over (overall score so ppt from objectives + kills + other things like donkeys, everything). Because I can't use the current match as it would be even more lopsided, I'm struggling to locate data for past matches that is not aggregate.
Also a little comprehension of the English language: I never said that Anet lied. I said that they don't interact with their customers, as I would like them to, so they don't have to brazenly lie through their teeth. And yes, them saying Gandara has the highest participation among 27 (26 excluding BB) servers on EU, which is the topic of this thread, would be an outright lie, as others have explained to you here and elsewhere.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Grebcol.5984 said:
Im playing on a national server since rls so it is nothing new for me beeing heavy outnumbered. Even in 2012 my server got rofl stomped during nighttime because no international player would go on a German or French server. So that kitten gandara faces faced every german/french server years ago and back then no int.Sever cared about it because the national servers where "farming" spots. I'm now online and im the only player on EBG against 20 GH & FSP. Nice ehh`? I can feel you.
Yes imagine that happening to you for a year. Then imagine that you can't recruit people (whether or not they would come is another story, but you do have that option, w don't). Congratulations, you are now Gandara.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:
My questions are how do YOU know, not how do I know. I certainly can go look into it myself if I cared enough about it, yet then that's my own conclusions, not you making your conclusions. I end up reading something totally different from the available data than how you read it and that tells me nothing about how you are reading it.
I guess I will have to explain through drawings. Just wait, I'm gonna grab my computer and show you in pictures so you can understand just how far from the truth you are.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, Grebcol.5984 said:
The matchups are never competitive. After relinks mass Transfers to the next bandwagon only to rofl stomp and outnumbering the enemy 3 to 1. Anet should simply listen and block the transfer for several weeks after the relink.
I proposed that. Lots of people proposed that. Again and again.
Also that isn't going to help the situation Gandara is in, I'm sure you understand that.
Transfers are a problem for T1 balance, with overstacked servers. We have other issues and since we have a community where people don't just bugger off, we have no transfers in and we can't get stacked through a link, because we have none of those options, your observation about transfers is valid, but will have to go in a different thread as it has nothing to do with Gandara allegedly being the second most populated server on EU after BB.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:
Depends on whether those two linked servers have a similar population or not. But why does it even matter?
I already said multiple times that some servers very likely have higher population than gandara at times. Emphasis on "at times". At other times those servers might have much lower population, while gandara appears to be more stable. Take SFR for example - they are likely one of the highest, if not THE highest populated/active server right now. Yet whenever SFR has been unlinked, they have consistently been weaker than gandara without link.
I don't know why BB is treated specially, but it might be because a) there is no alternative for players who want to play on a spanish server and b) maybe also because the server doesn't seem to be very attractive for bandwagoners, so the likelyhood of BB getting mega stacked is lower than for some others. Tho it would be an interesting experiment if all the bandwagoners decide to join BB to see what happens and if that server could be pushed to full status.
Is special treatment for one world fair? No, i don't think so, but still - the correct move would be to lock BB, not to unlock other servers above the "full" threshold. But since BB being open doesn't really cause any balance issues right now (except of the perceived unfairness), is it really neccessary to screw over another server?
Being outnumbered at certain times - especially outside of primetime - is not uncommon and completely different from being "outnumbered always and everywhere". And right now Gandara is winning their skirmishes, so i guess players are back from vacation and you aren't actually always outnumbered anymore?
Generally population disparities are lower than what they used to be pre world linking. You know, back when gandara was a healthy "gold" server while some bronze tier servers had the "pleasure" to experience population differences that gandarans wouldn't even dream of in their worst nightmares. We are talking about the winning side having up to 10x the total score of the losing server - several weeks in a row. Go figure. Nowadays we rarely see double the warscore for one side over another and even that usually only happens after relinking when matchups are messed up.
Edit: I found even more extreme cases - like a server not even getting above 20k score total - within an entire week (with the winning server having 500k+). That's less than 1/10 of gandaras score right now, and the current matchup isn't even over (I know i know, the score isn't compareable1:1, but still)
Servers that accidentally, emphasis on accidentally, get no link, don't play for 2 months because they can't take it. And yet one server (well 2 with BB) is forced to do this almost all the time. Does that seem fair to you?
BB is treated differently because it's the only Spanish server, that is correct. That means they can and will make exceptions. Now, why can BB have players coming in but not Gandara, despite being a third larger? It makes no sense. At least open us until we get the same numbers as BB, with those numbers we are going to be without link every time, guaranteed, but at least we wont be half the opponents.
Yes people got fed up with having to stay away and still be locked. I'm not going back just yet. So what you see now is what happens usually on Friday and Saturday. Before we get outnumbered every other day of the week as I repeatedly said, despite people continuing to ignore it. As you can see it was short lived as in the next skirmish we're already last (and we were last in ppt when you posted btw). Come back in a week and if everything is back to normal, we'll see how your take aged.
The bottom line is there are many ways to fix this, but there is no logical reason to keep the server close and without a link for 10-12 months straight every time. If you don't want to eliminate a tier, then open Gandara and cap us at the same level BB is right now. Mentioning that in the previous system things were as bad or worse for more people (and I disagree but this is beyond what we're discussing here) is asinine. They created this system to balance things out and avoid screwing the same people over and over and yet that's exactly what is happening.
Now I'm curious to hear what you think should be done in this situation. Nothing and leave Gandara permanently outnumbered without a link and locked? Is that it?
-
1
-
-
Just now, Strider Pj.2193 said:
I mean you could. It’s just that the last person to do so got banned, and forgotten.
We shall see, we shall see.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
I said:
Funny enough Gandara has almost as many kills on DBL as my full+full link, but the other borders... not so much.But you apparently read that as whatever you want to read.
I read it like any normal person would: oh look Gandara has a similar participation on red border as my stacked team. 'The other maps not so much' is also playing down the difference which is massive in every single one of them. Maybe that was not your intention but it's how it reads.
-
39 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:
And how do you know that's how the API counts kills? What happens to a kill when there's an assist from a 2nd server? Why does the API end up showing different numbers than what in-game shows? And why do you keep representing that data as anything other than total PvP activity on combined teams such as individual server population when that information can't be teased out from API? How do you know who plays on your server after you log out and how they are playing? Of course they're not going to have a big influence on activity level, but they certainly add playhours to a server's rolling average.
Oh boy. At the times I don't play our score is in the gutter. You really want to check the scores and participation for Gandara, in T5, in the morning and early afternoon? Be my guest. I occasionally have played at those times: we have very few people, so it's not like we have a surge which is dwarfed by an even bigger surge by every other server.
-
2 hours ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:
That site shows all servers that have been unlinked during the past 69 weeks (as well as all link combinations). So that makes 7 servers that have been unlinked if i didn't miss some. It is also the "activity" averaged out over a longer period of time. This doesn't mean a server can't be above or below that at times. But it doesn't make sense to determine a server's population based on a single snapshot anyway, due to how volatile player activity can be (as gandara beautifully displays currently).
So yes, it is likely that some worlds temporarily have a higher population than gandara, mostly due to transfers. Also as i said, K+D might be indicative of activity, but not very accurate, because it also depends on enemy worlds/matchups as well as PPT/PPK relation. Especially if you look at a very small sample size (eg. a single match) and insignificant disparities.
(Btw according to said website the average k+d of gandara is just above 50% of the most "active" EU pair that existed during that period of time.)
What's the likelyhood that the pairs with 85k K+D are both below 45k?
Baruch Bay has 1/3 more players and activity than Gandara and it's not full, so why not treat us the same way? Any logical explanation? I said I'd be ok with being permanently open, like BB, and never having a link, like BB.
-
1 minute ago, Magnuzone.8395 said:
We're linked with Vizunah Square. You can have them if you want a link.
You wanna be without link and closed for a year? Hahaha what a brave soul we have here. Get your server to sign a petition to swap with Gandara, I'll have my popcorns ready. You will have 100% support from Gandarans btw.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:
Exactly. Thank you. We cannot make claims that Anet is lying about how population is calculated because we only have a rudimentary idea of how their algorithm works based on what they've posted in the past. We have little reason to doubt what was told to us other than to say we don't have a way of finding out. FWIW the population status of worlds just updated yesterday and the API is showing more of T1 as "Full" (whatever that threshold is) than T2 so it's reasonable to use that as a datapoint due to how recent it is.
I added the K+D of all three competing teams yet I assume you mean add it up at the end of the match. That would indeed be better.
I do not, however, make the assumption that this is an accurate measure of server population, or rather strength. The scoring system rewards playhours and individual playhours are volatile over the course of multiple matches. That's why player numbers has never been a good metric and what lead to the creation of the algorithm. To be sure, Anet did write that they tried various other means to model population and found playhours to be the most accurate.
There's no doubt that being outnumbered during prime time is a terrible gaming experience. It happens quite a bit in NA. It is possible that what is hurting Gandara is, like on an NA server, that they have more players playing outside of EU prime time that is pushing their rolling playhour average up. K+D would not show that because such activity level is always low outside of prime. A single player isn't going to be able to see that from personal experience either. That is the type of data I would pursue.
The API exposes quite a bit of data other than just K+D that can also indicate player activity outside of PvP. These match websites don't always display nor retain that data. What it doesn't do is give us the data we would need to check and verify the Anet algorithm: WxP gain and playhours.
We. Are. Outnumbered. Every. Day. Of. The . Week. Except. Weekend. Primetime. I don't think you fully understand what having no link for stretches of 10 months and being full during the same period actually means. Just take the worst situation imaginable in NA and multiply it by 2 and then stretch it to 10-12 monrhs instead of 2 months for good measure.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:
So you are basically complaining that your attempt at exploiting the system isn't working as you want. So what is anet supposed to do now - make it easier to exploit?
Btw when checking "World Ranking" on that site you linked, and using K+D/match as rough indicator of activity - then gandara is actually the second most active unlinked server (after BB). Now i'm aware that K+D might not always be an accurate measurement of overall population, but there is certainly some correlation. So it would make sense that the presumably second most populated server is also the one to be unlinked the second most and BB not being full seems to be the only questionable thing.
lol you do understand that only 3 servers (of 27) are unlinked right? And that my point is that either those 3 should all be open (like BB always is) or they should rotate? Servers that are unlinked have a physiological drop in population because people can't bear to play outnumbered for 2 months so they either not play or they play on alt accounts. See if you can explain how Desolation went from 40k K+D with no link to 83k with a link in a week.
Linked servers have 2x and sometimes more than 2x the K+D than Gandara has (not now, now that we are tanking it's 3.5x+). Now think about it: when 2 servers together have 2x+ the K+D than a single opponent, how can they both mathematically have lower participation than the opponent? Enlighten me.
Btw this is no exploiting the system. This is exactly what all the servers that are unlinked do, other than Gandara, because we stick to our server unlike others where people transfer or play on alt accounts. All we ask Anet is: you hate and wanna keep us unlinked forever? Fine, do that, but at least you owe us the courtesy of keeping us open like you do with Baruch Bay.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
I would not be so sure of this, I believe that in that case 1 kill is counted on one side and 1 dead on the other. if we count as you suggest we are completely out of the way.
that is, a complete blob of 70 players who kills two poor lone enemies sitting in the middle of the meadow collecting daisies, should count as 140 kills ? and on the other side only 2 dead? I can't believe it.
We can double check how the API works in detail if the information was provided, but since deaths are always higher than kills it makes sense that it's counted as scoring points (ie. 1 kill = 1 point for whichever team kills the player, even though this may not be added if he/she has the outnumbered buff...). So at best you will have 2 kills for 1 death when you have players from all teams involved.
-
1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:
I didnt deduce nor had any intention of counting K+D numbers for Gandara. I just said it was better than GW2mists/effiecency. I only quickly looked at DBL for Gandara because I found it amusing that they roflstomp the other servers there yet is doing to quote myself "not so much" on the other borders. Even more amusing considering the complaints of DBL on the forums. But you seem to have gotten hung up on that mention with the perception of what, that I thought Gandara is full population with highest K+D, lol?.
I dont dispute your numbers at all.
For those arguing how the kills count, we dont really see extremes in practice when the week is over and all borders averaged. Most KDR at the end of a matchup is around 1. 0.8 low and 1.2 high would still be considered "normal" in an equal matchup among similar sized worlds, wouldnt it (when the K+D are also equal)?You said the K+D was similar to FSP+GH (my deduction) because you seem to be SM/EBG huggers. It happens when you are vastly outnumbering both opponents: they attack each other and stay away from the leading team home border, even more if that's the desert map. The issue is that you have 2.5x the overall K+D that Gandara has when counting all the maps.
-
5 minutes ago, Voltekka.2375 said:
Out of curiosity, what is Gandara?
It's Joko's fortress. Move on, nothing to see here, friend.
What EU server should i chose?
in World vs. World
Posted
Which server are you on out of curiosity?