Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Finally done with this dead gamemode


The Boz.2038

Recommended Posts

You can try to find a server that is active at the times when you normally get online and transfer. Go where the action is.

Also, joining guild active in wvw helps a lot. You can see where your guild mates are at all times in wvw even if they are in different maps. It is not perfect and some times inaccurate but it helps. ūüėĀ

Edited by MaLong.2079
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Boz.2038 said:

Wow. Impressive inability to even think about what I wrote.

There is no point to a spying system if I can already see what the spy would tell me. Baseline detection such as "mark enemies on map if anywhere in own territory, or tagged by one of a dozen mechanics that are or are not in the game already". We literally have consumables for that, but they are barely functional.

But no. It is more important to you to talk to me as if to a child, pretending I don't know what spying means, just to live in the delusion of winning an internet argument.
Sad, tbh, but if it helps you cope...

Dismissing your childish jabs... So, now you want to know where the enemy is, how close are you wanting?  The towers have the option (if someone slots it).  Or are we talking automatically?  Personally, if a player is sitting in a tower, that should expand the Watchtower tactic.  Hmm... Idea, a player can enter the Watchtower tactic balloon and raise it up thereby expanding the "radar" range, however if they leave the balloon (or shot out of it), it falls back to the original level.

What you are talking about is not "barely functional".  They are limited intentionally.

Edited by Morden Kain.3489
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Boz.2038 said:

If ANet were competent, they'd have not designed something so vulnerable to spying. It is not impossible. Worse games have solved this issue, and most often by actually implementing a baseline detection system, such as seeing enemies within your borders.

that would be even worse. it would be worse for roaming then warclaw and taking stuff with anything less then a zerg would become impossible. people already hate sentries so making them perma map wide would be quite the move. wouldn't mind testing out the detecting all allies, chances are the benefits would outweigh the costs. i get what you're saying, the grouping system in wvw is no good, imo its cuz it relies way too heavily on commanders.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

imo its cuz it relies way too heavily on commanders.

Yup, it does.  It is kind of comical watching us PUGs trying to follow an invisi-tag.  Always having to be mindful of where they are going... then suddenly POOF! the invisi-tag and their group are gone.  We are all left there wondering "what do I do now??"

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:

5 years of FB scourge meta says everything. They were never even trying to balance anything.

Yall can't even say what's OP about them other than a all out nerf of all Support in WvW across the board which would kill WvW once again like vanilla did since there was no trinity to make more variation of combat. 

  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sahne.6950 said:

They monitor activity of all the servers and then create equal matchups. ūü§°

Gunnarshold being teamed with WSR is another example..... Gunnars is/was kind of the new bandwagon server (went from medium to full in a few weeks) and WSR is another server that has alot of activity.....

for some reason... we are linked together and completly stomp T1 currently....

I would remind everybody that when Arenanet talk about the matchmaking system (when they used to talk about the matchmaking system) they talk in terms of Matches, NOT the ladder.

 

The weird links and such are generated with "good matches" in mind (I think this means "with a specific tier in mind"), not "even teams" or "equal chances" or whatever.

I suppose Bandwagoning would have broken any of those systems anyway.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, misterman.1530 said:

I sort of agree with you. Am on ET, and no way should we be a Host Server, and no way does an ET/AR link work. This has been a horrible link, and except for the one week of hopefully successful Alliance Beta testing starting Aug 12th, there will be little joy to be found until the next relink.

I would love to see how Anet's world linking algorithm works: I suspect it's just someone tossing rusty darts at a dried up husk of a dartboard, but perhaps I'm wrong.

How doesn't the link work?  What are you expecting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Darman.1468 said:

How doesn't the link work?  What are you expecting?

Well, we don't have any coverage for one. AR seems a bit disjointed with, as far as I've seen, few commanders (at least very few tags). ET tends to be active during NA primetime, and so does AR (with a few exceptions - SLAP guild, from ET, is based out of Australia).

So there's no balance against servers that appear to run 24/7.

So what do I expect? Better link making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, misterman.1530 said:

Well, we don't have any coverage for one. AR seems a bit disjointed with, as far as I've seen, few commanders (at least very few tags). ET tends to be active during NA primetime, and so does AR (with a few exceptions - SLAP guild, from ET, is based out of Australia).

So there's no balance against servers that appear to run 24/7.

So what do I expect? Better link making.

Understood.  I am still looking for Utopia as well.  Maybe one day we will find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Darman.1468 said:

Understood.  I am still looking for Utopia as well.  Maybe one day we will find it.

Well, we had a great link with JQ. Balance, we were doing well, we meshed well. It was pleasant running with them. They had good coverage, coupled with ET's coverage. Life was good. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, misterman.1530 said:

Well, we had a great link with JQ. Balance, we were doing well, we meshed well. It was pleasant running with them. They had good coverage, coupled with ET's coverage. Life was good. :)

We had a great link with BG...I ain't bitchin about ET tho.  Enjoy.

Edited by Darman.1468
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Darman.1468 said:

We had a great link with BG...I ain't bitchin about ET tho.  Enjoy.

Who's "bitchin" about AR? I just wrote that coverage-wise we don't mesh well - nor do we mesh well in total numbers, for that matter. I wasn't "bitchin" about them, I was just stating a fact that the link is not working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, misterman.1530 said:

Who's "bitchin" about AR? I just wrote that coverage-wise we don't mesh well - nor do we mesh well in total numbers, for that matter. I wasn't "bitchin" about them, I was just stating a fact that the link is not working.

You are 100% correct, these days aggressive comes first.  You were certainly not bitching, my apologies.  You were more or less suggesting.  Sorry to offend.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol this thread...

First of all ET is a host because they were very high during last links, so they're probably still one of the highest "high" servers, and 4 of the high servers were needed for Host.

Not enjoying the coverage? well guess what, most servers don't have it either!

Well JQ was great! yeah and they're one of the constantly Full servers with BG and TC and MAG.

Funny for ET to talk about other link servers as if they aren't good enough for them, when ET just got bandwagoned and before slummed/dragged down host in T3/4 no matter who they linked with.

There's no better links when you have servers like SoS sucking up all the ocx/sea players, and everyone else is scattered by two monthly bandwagons, thanks "fite" guilds! BG cultist bandwagoning their links then dropping them like a stone two months later.

Not much Anet can do with moronic players who can't police themselves from restacking, just have to wait on world restructuring.

 

2 hours ago, Knighthonor.4061 said:

Yall can't even say what's OP about them other than a all out nerf of all Support in WvW across the board which would kill WvW once again like vanilla did since there was no trinity to make more variation of combat. 

Whew boy, what a mighty swing that was into left field, it went pretty far, almost a homerun, then straight into foul territory. Support has been around since day one, dedicated spam support came in with the expansions, and the balance between boon application and removal is so kitten one sided now with constant nerfs to the removal side, it highly benefits the organized stackers.

This support meta is effin garbage. There was more variations than just running in a ball half stacked with two specs.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Knighthonor.4061 said:

Yall can't even say what's OP about them other than a all out nerf of all Support in WvW across the board which would kill WvW once again like vanilla did since there was no trinity to make more variation of combat. 

They have a monopoly over boon generation and corruption. Nothing even comes close to countering the fb scourge comp, and nothing has ever been done to offer more counterplay to them. Its always just boonball or pirateship, both of which are fb scourge comps and the only way to fight that is to mirror the comp. The meta has been the same for 5 years and anet doesnt think there is anything wrong with that.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Darman.1468 said:

Understood.  I am still looking for Utopia as well.  Maybe one day we will find it.

we are not looking for a utopia, we just want to have more simi teams and combinations. at the end of the week we should see differences of + or - 10%.

just because we are at the end of the week you can see eu t5 green green 69000 k + d red 46000 k + d or eu t3 green 88000 k + d blue 62000 k + d . teams with the smallest numbers should have 40% of activity and therefore more players to get to the same numbers as their opponents. we are talking about almost doubling your players. and that's the stuff we wouldn't want to see anymore.

so it is not a utopia but as usual before you get something you have to want something. in this last year I have seen a lot of arenanet work, an immense work with EOD, new specializations, new balances etc etc but I have not seen a single thing, no activity to improve the matches to have more similar teams. and say that this is the foundation of this mode , should take precedence over anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

we are not looking for a utopia, we just want to have more simi teams and combinations. at the end of the week we should see differences of + or - 10%.

just because we are at the end of the week you can see eu t5 green green 69000 k + d red 46000 k + d or eu t3 green 88000 k + d blue 62000 k + d . teams with the smallest numbers should have 40% of activity and therefore more players to get to the same numbers as their opponents. we are talking about almost doubling your players. and that's the stuff we wouldn't want to see anymore.

so it is not a utopia but as usual before you get something you have to want something. in this last year I have seen a lot of arenanet work, an immense work with EOD, new specializations, new balances etc etc but I have not seen a single thing, no activity to improve the matches to have more similar teams. and say that this is the foundation of this mode , should take precedence over anything.

i am still failing to see the corelation between playernumbers and k/d. You keep bringing it up over and over again. But it makes no sense.

statistically speaking, there is a relation, but you keep acting like k/d = population, which is just outright wrong.

you can have 50 people not dying nor killing anything, but you can also have 2 people nolifing and killing people left and right.

you can have servers that tend to form bigger groups, thus resulting in more "kills" from a single enemy dying (everyone get a "kill" if thes tagged) and you have servers that have alot of soloroamers where 1 death = 1 kill...

 

you maths just are so wonky.... not in this specific post, but i have seen some from you where you are like:

chlearly you can see they have more k/d, so they have 15,24% more players... i would just scrap this tbh.

or you have to explain to me how you can get so "reliable" results from this... because i see so many factors which make calculating like this almost senseless.

Edited by Sahne.6950
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

i am still failing to see the corelation between playernumbers and k/d.

K+D is not K/D. The total number of K+D is an activity indication. If you get a number of 50,000 in a day its not going to be 2 people dueling unless they are REALLY serious about their dueling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

i am still failing to see the corelation between playernumbers and k/d. You keep bringing it up over and over again. But it makes no sense.

statistically speaking, there is a relation, but you keep acting like k/d = population, which is just outright wrong.

you can have 50 people not dying nor killing anything, but you can also have 2 people nolifing and killing people left and right.

you can have servers that tend to form bigger groups, thus resulting in more "kills" from a single enemy dying (everyone get a "kill" if thes tagged) and you have servers that have alot of soloroamers where 1 death = 1 kill...

 

you maths just are so wonky.... not in this specific post, but i have seen some from you where you are like:

chlearly you can see they have more k/d, so they have 15,24% more players... i would just scrap this tbh.

or you have to explain to me how you can get so "reliable" results from this... because i see so many factors which make calculating like this almost senseless.

hi sahne,

it is not k/d but it is k+d and is one of the few data to which we are given clear access. it is the only parameter we have to compare the teams, their activity and consequently their population.

rightly you talked about 50 players who connect and do not generate k and do not generate d . perfect this alone more credit to what I told you. here players do not count is like not having them. they have no influence on my team or even on the opposing team.

k + d only takes into account players who play the mode. and as I have repeatedly said when you connect and start playing you can only do two things in wvw or kill someone or someone kills you. and this assures you that that number continues to grow, continues to count throughout the week. if you don't have players to put online that number simply doesn't grow and stay where it is.

and when I indicate percentages they are always approximate, rounded, and should be taken into account as an indicator of the population, because like all of you I do not have access to other data to read and consider.

Edited by Mabi black.1824
  • Thanks 1
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
√ó
√ó
  • Create New...