Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Sovereign.1093

Members
  • Posts

    5,441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sovereign.1093

  1. > @"IceTcK.4358" said:

    > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

    > > > @"IceTcK.4358" said:

    > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

    > > > > > @"IceTcK.4358" said:

    > > > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

    > > > > > > they may be just taking advantage of the situation. i would do the same if i find it beneficial to my party.

    > > > > >

    > > > > > So youre saying there's an indirect alliance?

    > > > >

    > > > > no. say server 1 2 3. 3 has sm t3. 1 attacks sm. 3 defends. i'd attack server 3's land since it will be to my benefit that sm is t0 so i can take it too.

    > > > >

    > > > > servr 1 and me are not allies, i just took advantage of the situation.

    > > >

    > > > What if 1 and 3 are both german servers? Who will you attack?

    > >

    > > 3.because 3. has sm. it is situational. the idea is to split their attention.

    > >

    > > example i have my 7 dh team. we attack veloka, they def, main team or other com will hit sm. they may kill the com or me but if thy are spread, they may lose something.

    > >

    > > ---

    > >

    > > when i was in deso, germans were always hitting each other. so... kind of surprised in your situation or is your team the weaker of the three?

    >

    > 1 thing is being deso, other thing is when you are on a german server. As i mentioned above its a personal opinion due to some time of observation over the german server movements

     

    hehe i am no longer in deso.

     

    but, you never know. commanders may talk.

     

    for me, if you're red, and i can kill you, you're dead.

     

    but if i have an ally com who says they working with server.2, then i will..=)

  2. > @"IceTcK.4358" said:

    > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

    > > > @"IceTcK.4358" said:

    > > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

    > > > > they may be just taking advantage of the situation. i would do the same if i find it beneficial to my party.

    > > >

    > > > So youre saying there's an indirect alliance?

    > >

    > > no. say server 1 2 3. 3 has sm t3. 1 attacks sm. 3 defends. i'd attack server 3's land since it will be to my benefit that sm is t0 so i can take it too.

    > >

    > > servr 1 and me are not allies, i just took advantage of the situation.

    >

    > What if 1 and 3 are both german servers? Who will you attack?

     

    3.because 3. has sm. it is situational. the idea is to split their attention.

     

    example i have my 7 dh team. we attack veloka, they def, main team or other com will hit sm. they may kill the com or me but if thy are spread, they may lose something.

     

    ---

     

    when i was in deso, germans were always hitting each other. so... kind of surprised in your situation or is your team the weaker of the three?

  3. > @"IceTcK.4358" said:

    > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

    > > they may be just taking advantage of the situation. i would do the same if i find it beneficial to my party.

    >

    > So youre saying there's an indirect alliance?

     

    no. say server 1 2 3. 3 has sm t3. 1 attacks sm. 3 defends. i'd attack server 3's land since it will be to my benefit that sm is t0 so i can take it too.

     

    servr 1 and me are not allies, i just took advantage of the situation.

  4. we all grew up. i am married, i own a company, i cant play as long as before and so do my peers. the new batch of players kinda whine a lot :/ but feedback in business is important.

     

    before it was hey sov - phone, time to go play.

     

    now, it's hey sov - discord - these are the beers we nommed today. these are my pets. these are the works i did. oh can i hire you for this? how are the kids?

     

    etc. and so forth.

  5. > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

    > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

    > > id play the tourny. someone has to man up. =)

    >

    > I'd play it, too. That doesn't mean adding a new one is best for the game or the mode or the community. Heck, tons of people played in each of the three tourneys and, as it turned out, a lot of people left WvW (and sometimes all of GW2) afterward.

     

    tons of ppl left wvw for various reason before during and after tourneys.

     

    players could win but not keep it up because the player coverage were limitted. to compensate two servers made alliance to prop each other to win. servers bought players and guilds for wvw man power. back then it was apparent that two many servers cant keep up the pace but merging would.

     

    labeling then came to be. bandwaggoner, ppt, blobbers, because the enemy could not handle it. in short, mindgames destroyed that portion of gw2.

     

    ppl also left because devs were interfering in game about how ppl are playing the game. like intervening in gvgs since back then the game was stale because wvw had no new content.

     

    if i am to sum it. devs and players should seek a compromise. beta test is the best way to go about it. then listen to feedback. this way you have a sample size before committing to the big change.

     

    still despite all the yakitiyakyak, if i ignore what ppl say and base it all on what i feel. gw2 is good.

     

    just need to keep things clear.

×
×
  • Create New...