Karagee.6830

That is not how it works. Current T1 numbers are 62746 kills and 65287 deaths. Deaths counted are also from NPCs or the environment (fall damage would be the most common) and in fact the discrepancy is smaller (2%) in EBG where these are less frequent. In any case, even the simple fact that deaths are higher than kills surely invalidates every single word you have written in your comment, does it not? Otherwise good luck to you sir: in reconciling your strange ideas with the hard cold numbers, you'll need plenty.

You can't understand that 1 kill, + for 1 team and - for another team, is the clearest indication of participation and activity in a (mostly) pvp game!? You see how the problem here is not K+D right? How many people do you see parked for 20 minutes at spawn (where they can't be killed) on your server? Repairing doesn't give participation, using siege doesn't give participation and on and on and on. So as you (or your party giving you participation) need to go out and cap stuff or kill players...

The K+D data comes from Anet's API, I don't give a rat's kitten about GW2 Mists player numbers, they are interesting, but that was not what I was criticising you for. What I asked you plain and simple was to compare K+D numbers for Gandara to that of linked servers. Since Gandara is usually around 45k (and typically in the bottom 2-3 among all 15 teams at that) and the top linked servers are around 85k what do you deduce from K+D numbers?

I genuinely can't understand what you wrote. I was referring to you mentioning K+D which you did twice, but carry on, whatever you are trying to say.

It also shows Desolation going from 40k to nearly 83k one week (no link) to the next (with link). Note that the top K+D server is usually in the region of 85k so roughly double the size of a normal Gandara. And it shows BB consistently at 60k+ (lowest at 55k highest at 70k) every week with Gandara typically around 44k-45k. So to level with BB (perpetually Very High, never Full) Gandara should be gaining a third more players than it currently has. And this might be an explanation: people on servers with no link are just going to either transfer or play on an alt account elsewhere. Except Gandara. And this de facto tanking by every other server without a link ensures that we remain without link. Unless we want to claim that Ring of Fire accounted for more participation than Desolation when they more than doubled in size.

Very amusing. Assuming you are on FSP+GH this is how the numbers stack up between Gandara and your link at the moment: EBG: 6625 v 16401 (40%) Green: 2346 v 6243 (37%) Blue: 2370 v 9429 (25%) Home: 3922 v 4224 (93%) Total: 15263 v 36297 (42%) Now let's help you out a little and assume your 2 full servers are exactly 50% of the total numbers. This means that both your server and the linked one are larger than Gandara based on your proposed metric. Alternatively if one is smaller than the other one must be much much larger than Gandara. Simple math isn't it? Now keep in mind FoW+Kodash is at 47959 and SFR+RoS is at 45964, both more than three times the size.

Funny how you creatively use the data, don't you think. Which server has by far the lowest K+D? As in 25% less than the second lowest which is also an unlinked server. Pray do tell.

I don't disagree with this, I have said that bandwagoning transfers can make it challenging for long term residents of a server. But that's 2 months. Now please think about it: is it better to suffer for 2 months due to transfers who will eventually move out and be able to compete at some level wherever it may be or be permanently closed to transfers and permanently outnumbered without a link? I'd trade in a heartbeat, that's a small price to pay.

Eh no, you made a counterclaim without providing any proof, not even circumstantial evidence. At this point all you're doing is misinformation. I provided you with my direct experience of the situation and the little red icon that says outnumbered everywhere you go. If that's not enough for you to understand things do not work the way you claim and Anet claims and you are still in denial, then the evidence on participation can be easily inferred from GW2 mists data as Mabi (a commander on another EU server) and Arky have done in other threads. I'm still waiting on your proof on the other mythical server locked and full and without a link for a year. I guess I'll keep waiting.

I just want some Anet figurehead or placeholder to lie to me, so I can be at peace that they will never be honest about it or confirm they live in denial.

It may be fine for you people on Desolation who only need to suffer the no link purgatory every other relink (more or less, probably less), but there is no fun in being outnumbered in T5 almost every day, definitely every weekday, at every time. And of course one of the 3 unlinked servers on EU is Baruch Bay, the only Spanish server which does not have any sort of limit to numbers and is permanently open with hordes of north and south American players every night of the week.

And so we deserve to be locked to transfers and without a link for a year, unlike every other server, including BB.

And here is the reason why what people claim Anet said about counting participation does not stack up: Gandara does have players, but a large number of them play a couple of evenings and do not play the rest of the week. If this was assessed correctly we wouldn't be Full and/or we wouldn't be unlinked. Because on weekdays we are outnumbered even by the other unlinked servers.

So you presented no proof. No proof about the fact Anet calculates numbers as you (and they) say they calculate numbers. The premise of this thread is they the do not do what they say they do. So no, words from Anet are not proof. Charts with the size of the servers are like doodles on toilet paper if they are not calculated in any rational way. But I would be happy if someone at Anet at least grew a pair and lied straight to my face that Gandara is the most WvW populated server by a country mile. No proof that there has been a server Full and without a link for a year. Your quote is no proof of this. Getting a link 50% of the times like Desolation does is not the same situation as Gandara, not even close. Don't offend my intelligence. The Kodash situation after the people left is the situation Gandara is in every weekday, so thank you for proving my point that we are in a similar situation to a server after it suffered a mass exodus.

lol you failed to understand some elementary concepts here. We are outnumbered when all the guilds are playing and they are tanking because the server has been locked up for a year despite being outnumbered every week and 0 links. Now as you put it, it's not like being outnumbered week in week out in T5 can't be fun. So let's rotate the full servers or open the ones that are permanently without link. Agree?

As I said, it would be ok to be in the same situation as BB: leave us open to transfers or greatly, and I stress greatly, increase the population cap and don't ever give us a link. Hell, do the same with Desolation since they are almost the same as us. Alternatively, prove that we have a higher 8 week total population playtime in WvW than any other server. Show us some sort of data, we have no way to check that data ourselves, but we'll take it at face value. Regarding RoS, 80% of people in WvW don't give a rat's kitten about bandwagoners. I understand inflows of bandwagoners may in fact be a nuisance to long term players on a server, but there are obvious advantages from being overstacked, so if you can enjoy outnumbering everyone for 2 months, you can also suffer the reverse situation the following 2 months. Currently only one server is in permanent purgatory, month after month after month, incorrectly as I have argued, with no way to change the situation.

There is no other server that I know of that has been in this situation: 2 links in 2 and a half years, but you're welcome to provide proof another server has had this treatment before. I'll gladly concede. There's really no proof you've presented or Anet has presented to say that the way Anet counts population is what they say it is. Agree? My evidence is anecdotal, based on total absence of queues and outnumbered buff, but neither you nor Anet have presented even anecdotal evidence of the contrary. Agree?

And that's where the problem is. It is an impossibility for this to be true and Gandara to be full and without link endlessly. The people who transferred to RoS, paid and transferred there...to play WvW. So RoS had a large inflow of people with a high WvW hour count. Note that server status change once a week (not Gandara's) so during that week you can go way way over the treshold as long as enough people transfer. The stacked servers full of bandwagoners should always be without a link the following 2 months, if the population count is carried out as you believe it is because Anet said so. Those are server that are full because of high intensity accounts that transferred all together before the server hit the threshold (and largely exceeded it) and got closed up. Perfect. In your example who should be without a link the following 2 months? Somehow they randomly select 2 servers above the threshold (plus BB) and Gandara has lost 10 times in a row with 1/4 1/5 chance? Because this is the core of the issue: 3.5k to 5k+2k from linked server you will be outnumbered 2:1 on average. That's math. So why does the 3.5k server end up without link for a year and a half? Yes and the only time Gandara went below that threshold was when they increased it and all servers were open or when the a large part of community stayed away from WvW for 3 weeks.

That is not possible. Unless I see data, even anonimised data, I won't ever believe that Gandara has more total hours played than stacked servers where the bandwagoners go (see RoS right now). I would even bet confidently we have fewer hours played than Desolation as a matter of fact, as they outnumbered us 5 days a week for 2 months during the previous link period. And the 'outnumbered' buff is anecdotally very accurate: when you have it, you almost always see or encounter much larger enemy groups on the border. To address your point about 'true participation'. Note that the 'outnumbered' buff is independent of whether someone is afk in WvW or trying hard, you get it based on simple numbers. I can also tell you that when I play there is almost nobody sitting still at spawn on any border. The participation changes implemented in relation to alliances make it much harder to play and maintain participation without actually playing. What I believe is that Anet count accounts that log into WvW irrespective of hours played. Then it could conceivably make sense. It would be a travesty, but it could explain the Gandara situation.

Anecdotally last time this was done it took...3 weeks (which would have been today this time).

The bottom line here is that: a) the way they count participation is not fit for purpose. Forget about having no queues ever, Gandara is almost always outnumbered on home or EBG or both outside of the weekend. That is in T5. Whatever metric they use is just clearly not able to assess the total participation over a 2 month period. 1 player playing 400 hours of WvW in 2 months and one playing 1 hour shouldn't be counted the same way. b) the problem with Gandara is the combination of having no link and being full. If they wanted, they could make us like Baruch Bay: always open and always without a link. It wouldn't be ideal but at least it would be less unfair. Right now we always have no link and we are always full and closed to transfers.

Ok so according to you people not playing for the last 3 weeks should make us not full next Monday, is that right?

How many years do you need to go back for that? Before the current system was implemented? Last time we sniffed T1 (1 week or 2 in 2 months, that is) was when other servers were actually tanking because Deso+WSR was unplayable and won 320 consecutive skirmishes in T1, so people were trying to avoid T1 and feeding kills to get to T2. We had Fort Ranik as a link at the time (a small server) and the following linking period Fort Ranik went to Desolation and WSR became host and got its own link. You should know all of this: you are on Desolation, aren't you? Desolation should be next after the other 6 mentioned above.

Gandara has tanked brutally for 3 weeks, like really no tags, no major guilds playing or raiding, a few disjointed roamers doing dailies for 10 minutes, spawn towers owned by other servers with watchtower on them most of the time. Gandara is still full 3 and a half weeks later. Nobody, NOBODY in his right mind can argue that Anet assess participation in WvW in any rational way anymore. That said these are the servers that are currently Full on EU: Augury Rock Piken Square (linked to RoS also full) Desolation (linked to Ring of Fire, very high) Ruins of Surmia (linked to Piken, full) Elona Reach (unlinked, will be in T5 in 2 weeks, like clockwork) Drakkar Lake Riverside (linked to AM, Very High) Far Shiverpeaks (linked to GH, Very High) Gandara Ok out of these only Gandara (over a year) and Desolation have had a number of unlinked sessions in the last year. So how about next relink you start by giving no link to Piken and the bandwagoners on RoS? After that AR and DL and then wrap it up with Riverside and FSP. Since you can't count at least rotate the Full servers.

It's cute to read NA players complain at the state of WvW on their servers when we have perennial unlinked servers on EU that experience the same issues...in T5. Mind you, last year Anet managed to have a link (Deso+WSR) that did not lose a single skirmish, not match, skirmish, in T1 for like 5 weeks. They won over 320 consecutive skirmishes during that link period and they only came second in a handful. I think we collecrively need to ask that someone with a brain is put in charge of transfers and have variable transfer costs to counter stacking. They can leave the same monkeys and cuckoos to decide links, if the must.