T G.7496
-
Posts
569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by T G.7496
-
-
Well, they just removed one of the few things keeping this forum alive.
-
8
-
-
You just have to accept that the world is full of exploitative thieves, negligence and apathy, and that humanity is doomed.
Let it go.
-
2
-
2
-
-
People can see if you don't release. They know you can see them. If they know you're spying, are you a spy?
Also, it's a game. Games are meant to be fun. Looking at a black screen, or whatever, ain't fun. Deciding not to respawn because you want to watch part or all of the remainder of a fight can be fun.
Also, you can still target call. That can be fun, too.
Nothing is unfair when it's available to both sides.
-
1
-
-
Ah, breaker one-nine, this here's the Rubber Duck,
You gotta copy on me, Pig Pen, c'mon?
Ah, yeah, 10-4, Pig Pen, fer sure, fer sure.
By golly, it's clean clear to Flag Town, c'mon.
Yeah, that's a big 10-4 there, Pig Pen,
Yeah, we definitely got the front door, good buddy,
Mercy sake's alive, looks like we got us a convoy.-
3
-
1
-
-
Does anybody really, seriously care about points or where they come from. At all.
I cannot remember a time when I was in a squad of any size or composition when there was a conversation, and a decision was made, about what to do next based on points.
I literally have no idea, one moment to the next, whether what I'm doing is costing or gaining points for my team. I simply don't care. My decisions are based only on what might be most fun.
Am I unusual?
-
7
-
-
20 minutes ago, Nash.2681 said:
If you need a pc game to achieve that, that would actually be sad. Very very sad.
That's your PoV, apparently many others think differently and do care for points/winning and don't care about PPK. And considering how WvW was designed and how the scoring works, I think Arena.Net does not agree with your PoV...
Why so serious?
Read the room 🙂
-
15 hours ago, Johje Holan.4607 said:
The match.
What do you win with PPK?Self esteem?
-
1
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:
It's "easier" to blame external forces for whatever happens than take internal control for some, I guess. Neither one is good in their extremes, but taking no decision or choosing to do nothing and then blame surroundings is pretty far out from the middle.
It's a lot more common than perhaps you or I would have thought.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Nash.2681 said:
What's really bad about the system (if I understood it right)- in the past, you knew the moment you were put against WSR you would just skip that week for WvW. Now it seems they're mostly on MoL, but in four weeks we have to figure things out again...
The landfill that was WSR at the end is not on MoL.
You are conflating the misery of playing against the chimpanzee's tea party, with what is simply very poor Team-making by Anet resulting in an apparently over-stacked MoL relative to it's competitors so far.
-
1
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, guildwarstwentytwelve.5693 said:
I agree with original poster this sucks. Im sitting in the other room from my kids and NONE of us are on the same WvW server. What genius thought this up? I just bought your new expansion but if WvW is going to run like this Ill just go play something else. I cant believe you dont even have an option to switch to your friends/family/ guilds server. Yall broke PVP with builds that insta-kill everyone if they haven't played for years and now your gutting WvW. Have you guys gotten into the game and tried talking to new players, they hate PVP because they just drop and have no chance. You removed any items in PVP that allowed survival or tank builds and now you guys decided to just toss a grenade into WvW server balance. I expect better from Anet. Yall have done so well for so long and now your killing the main reason people played GUILD WARS to fight others, but all the love and balance seems to be focused on PVE now. Its a shame.
Make a family guild.
Invite your family to join it.
Encourage them to select it as their WvW guild.
Wait till next relink.
Done.
-
3
-
4
-
-
For most people, the requirement to make a choice is painful.
Because it implies a sacrifice of some kind.
And, because you also have to face the consequences of your own decision, it becomes harder to place the blame for disatisfaction elsewhere.
Over several weeks I narrowed my WR choices down to two, and made a final decision only in the last couple of days before the cut-off. It wasn't easy.
But two things occur to me.
Because I made a choice, I'm more invested.
It remains entirely open to me to reverse my decision. I just have to wait a bit.
Some people, it seems, just let this happen to them. They refused to make a choice. Which is a choice in itself, I suppose, and actually one which superficially makes it easier to blame everyone and everything else for whatever comes. But whose fault is it, really?
And some people, it seems, characterise what has happened as the end of the world, and not simply the end of servers.
Sometimes these are the same people.
I don't know if WR is better or worse. For me, so far, it has been both. I'm in the late stages of my relationship with this game anyway, I think.
But at least I took some positive action in determining the shape of my future. I'd recommend it.
-
5
-
2
-
1
-
-
They need to develop much, much better ways of analysing and utilising the data - that they must have available now - in the composition of Teams.
But, we have to accept that however much better they might get at this, week-1 of a relink is always going to be a bit of a shitshow. It's kinda unavoidable.
They then might consider adopting a Swiss Tournament approach, going in to week-2, in an attempt to accelerate the speed at which Teams might find more evenly balanced MUs.
They might also consider reducing the membership limit of guilds which can be selected as a WvW guild. But this last item is gonna break eggs and lead to confusion all over the place at this point. I still think they should do it, though.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
To tell the truth I don't even remember the name of the fragment of where I'm playing, I should go online but from here I can't. ( who would have thought I'd be so disinterested that I didn't know the name of your server in WVW after 10 days. crazy , I swear I never even thought it possible ) so I can't give you feedback of names or guilds right now.
But if we want to stay in the theme of this post, I can tell you that I don't know what is the most ''adequate'' number to group/keep players together and at the same time get ''effective'' fragments in order to see them really well redistributed, in order to redistribute content a bit everywhere. Anet also stated (a long time ago) that 500 is just the most convenient number to start with, and they would monitor this number and the result that this limit would generate. ( Obvious grouping issues or bugs apart ).
Understood.
For what it's worth, after all of our to and fro, I've stated elsewhere (earlier in this thread I think) that I believe 500 is too large for a WvW guild entity.
-
Just now, Mabi black.1824 said:
No problem my friend, we're all playmates in here. If I sometimes write a little roughly, it's because I'm trying to get to Anet's door, never to another playmate's door.
Understood. Likewise.
-
13 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
And we're not talking about those players who show up 2 times a week a couple of hours. Those have long since been kicked by the alliances that are the subject of this discussion.
To this point, specifically...
Since Mirrors of Lyssa is, by any metric, the most egregious example of the asymmetry that is going on between Teams at the moment. And since you are talking about how the largest 'alliance guilds' are the most dangerous expression of that. I can tell you - from first hand experience, as a member of probably one of the largest guilds created for this purpose, and therefore probably 'the subject of this discussion' - that the environment, culture and playstyle you are describing is a fiction.
If there exist other guilds - members of Teams creating the same or worse situation than MoL at the moment - which are single-handedly causing the problem you imagine, who are they?
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
Re-read well what I wrote please, because no one came up with this idea, on the contrary, both me and the person I mentioned clearly shared that it only takes 1 of a team of 50 guild men and well organized to have the ''good weather'' wherever they want. So why the hell do you want to give it a chance to cluster 10 times as much beyond what's already enough?
I did reread it, shortly after posting, and I take your point about that.
However, my comments still stand, somewhat - the extrapolation and catastrophising you do is just unrealistic and unecessary, based on my own experience.
Playing in a squad of up to 50 players is literally a game-design feature, in a mode that aims to encourage cooperation between players.
The expectation, one can assume, is that opposing teams will organise themselves similarly.
That this sometimes doesn't happen - and, most recently, hasn't happened on a wildly asymmetric scale - is not a function or fault of players gaming the system, or of playing against the design of the system.
It is simply the result of woeful Team-making and Match-making by Anet at the start of this WR period.
If what you fear is even remotely likely, what is your proposal... to limit guild size to 50? Or less than 50?
I just don't get your point.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:
A lot of words, when you could have stopped at that. What you wrote here is so true that I ask you: what is the point of giving the possibility of grouping 10 well-organized groups of 50 players? Is it possible that you don't see how stupid it is to do it? 1 is enough you have written it clearly, in addition to the fact that we know that structures and points (in this state) no longer make any sense to anyone. So what's the reason? To be all together passionately? Say it's a great way to distribute content? So we get epic battles ( primary socopo of WR )? For whom? Those 500 active and organized players?
This Sunday it rained all day in my city so I played in the afternoon for 3 hours straight. on our home border. 3 hours with the ''outnumber'' icon always on. Was I the only tag on the map with 8 people in the team (for 3 hours) vs 50? more or less. They took all the structures they wanted, naturally while we watched them from a safe distance . And we took their tail, the latecomers and the jhon rambo players, every time, for 3 hours. Are these the epic matches we've been looking for?
The maximum squad size, as you know, is 50 - one might assume that it was intentionally designed this way by Anet, to be used by 50 players together.
The idea, which you extrapolate from this - that any of the more organised 'alliance guilds' of up to 500 players might concurrently field 10 of these squads - is absurd. You know this, of course, it's intentional hyperbole. I'm a member of one of these larger guilds, comprising a number of smaller guilds, and we rarely, very rarely, are able or want to field more than one organised squad at a time. Additionally, such a squad most often doesn't hit the max. 50 limit.
The capability - the matchup-damaging capability - you are ascribing to individual guilds is, in my recent experience, simply nonsense.
What is not nonsense, however, is that Anet have evidently failed to put together balanced Teams of guilds (small and large) together with individual players. It is Anet's stacking of multiple, very active guilds together in a single Team - not the behaviour or capability of individual guilds within a Team - that appears to have caused the terribly asymmetric match-ups experience in the first 2 weeks of WR.
This is Anet's responsibility. The problems to date are Anet's failures in Team-making.
-
2
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:
The players created the mega guilds. These mega guilds are running over smaller guilds and roamers. Having multiple fight guilds team up into a mega guild is causing problems.
I don't care if peak NA is "balanced" for the mega guilds - I don't play during peak NA time.
Anet provided the means, expressly (and literally, with the new guild slot), for this purpose.
It is, therefore, presumably how they intend the game to be played.
The team-making and match-making so far has been a disaster, sadly.
But don't blame the players.
Blame Anet.
-
4
-
-
12 minutes ago, Junkpile.7439 said:
Where you see these alliances? We have couple medium guilds and totally random pugs running around. There is probably one or two "alliances" in eu and rest of player have just selected own normal guild. 🤦♂️
-
You are mixing terms of reference.
Players create Guilds.
There are no Alliances, technically.
Some new guilds have been created by players to come together expressly for the purpose of the new World Restructuring. We can call them alliance guilds. But these entities are limited in the same way as any other guild. This is the absolute limit of player agency.
Beyond this there are Teams.
The size of teams is unknown, but estimates have put it at several times the maximum size of a guild.
Anet create Teams.
Players have zero agency in the composition of the Team beyond the limits of the guild they select.
The terrible match making we are experiencing is the result of apparently terrible Team composition.
This is Anet's responsibility.
11 minutes ago, Hesione.9412 said:-
7
-
2
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, MercurialKuroSludge.8974 said:
... And a LOT of them are player-made.
Players can only act within the bounds of the game design.
The game designers are responsible for defining those boundaries.
Players will, inevitably, try and find ways to break the game or bend the game to their maximum advantage.
But, outside of actually cheating, the players are only able to do this to the extent that the game's designers allow them.
-
2
-
3
-
-
Teams comprise match ups.
You're entrenched in the idea that players create Teams.
They don't.
Anet does.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:
They're stacked because they went into an alliance together.
No.
They're stacked because Anet's match making was very poor, putting several of the largest, very active guilds on the same Teams.
Anet did this, not the players or guilds.
Mirrors of Lyssa is the most egregious example of very poor Team-making.
I am in a guild on that team.
There has been practically zero content. We hoped it might improve in this second week. It's worse. MoL is incredibly active. So many commanders and squads, from many, many different guilds, all looking to create and find content. But, seemingly, there are very few people to play with on the other Teams.
This is not a choice all the players on MoL made. This is simply the Team we all found ourselves on. It's miserable for us, too. It's not as miserable as losing, I can understand that. But it's miserable nonetheless.
We've been doing a lot of in-houses to relieve the boredom.
I was really looking forward to WR.
So far, apart from the excellent company, it's been a huge disappointment.
This is Anet's sole responsibility. Not the fault of the players.
-
5
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:
But how do you figure out - beyond doubt - that every single member of a guild that has one or multiple hackers, is actively supporting those? Well, unless all of them are hacking ofc. But then you don't need to ban them based on guild membership, you simply ban them for hacking. There better be a lot of "checks" to make sure nobody innocent gets punished, and even then - i still don't like the idea of collective punishment.
I didn't say every single member.
I said beyond doubt harbouring or encouraging. That's grey, I know, but it implies a period of time, multiple instances, multiple members, chat logs, etc.
I'm neither a dev, an investigator nor a prosecutor. But burning them out of refuges is a legitimate approach for me. Maybe there would be some collateral damage, but nobody would die.
Perhaps that's too severe for some tastes.
I think it would be pretty clear where the nests were though. I don't think anyone would countenance nuking a community guild, for example.
Anyway, it was just a provocation from someone who despises cheats.
-
3
-
Thieves are fine, you're just bad
in World vs. World
Posted
This is a game.
The problem with playing against a thief, is that it is fun for exactly one player.
It is fundamentally bad game design.