Sovereign.1093
-
Posts
5,441 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Sovereign.1093
-
-
haha, you started this thread. >3< you gave birth to a monster
-
does fa have a choya parade? or something similar?
-
> @"Genlog.4983" said:
> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > pips ruined eotm
>
> before the pipes was beter when you get tons of exp that was good
> fun place to lvl your alts fast
hehe, now its all about gathering the tomes
-
> @"Bigpapasmurf.5623" said:
> Personally, I think banners shouldn't have existed period (at least in WvW anyway)
banners keep stat buff presence of keep bloodlust banners and supre food shouldn't exist. >3<
-
> @"expandas.7051" said:
> Please read.
you have to understand, eu hasn't won a gvg with na since ep. so it's all forum puff for now. :)
if this happens. :3 i hope eu does prepare. it's been 2 almost 3 years now? i'm sure eu gvg catched up.
-
> @"Voltekka.2375" said:
> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > > @"Zephyra.4709" said:
> > > Wanting eotm back is wanting WvW & everything regarding it to inevitably die off and lose more players to casual, ez-mode reward mindset where everything is handed to you on a silver platter without ever facing consequences or incentive to get better at wvw pvp. And don't lie you know many of those eotm mu's were rigged for sole purpose of 3-way ktraining pve carebear time by certain guilds. Did those pugs really learn to fight other players? The state that WvW is in right now I would much rather development assets be funneled into proper WvW stuff than wasted on the rose tinted glasses of players milking the ez ktrain bonanza that was once eotm.
> >
> > to be fair i wouldnt mind if wvw died if eotm is up. why? there are no tournaments.
>
> Plenty of pve maps for you to play and karma/meta train. Plus you seem to forget what happened after the last wvw tournament, for some reason
i don't do pve :) afte we won tournament? well.. anet stoped it :/ what's to remember?
-
> @"Fatherbliss.4701" said:
> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > we need a king of the hill map.
>
> I'd love to see that. During the down state week I put together some scrims on top of the SE ruin on Alpine BL. Super hilarious. Didn't last longer than a few engages but good lord the bags flowed. lol
right? even along the weekend. :) they can test it.
-
> @"Botinhas.2018" said:
> Pls come, but bring 100 so after the first 50 RQ, there's still 50 more to farm
true eu may qq
-
> @"EremiteAngel.9765" said:
> Please video or live stream your adventure.
this :3 > @"Dawdler.8521" said:
> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > dont most major guilds play 6pm 7pm server time? i used to command 6pm to pm server time. was fun.
> 19:00 GMT / 20:00 CET is the real prime start, but yes of course there will be a fair bit of players from 18:00 CET. Guilds larger than 5 are very rare before prime.
>
> (Sidenote, the French are always an hour late. Too full on wine and baguettes I guess).
>
ah yes. liberty starts at that time 7 and up. also sep when he used to play and lead iron.
-
> @"Zephyra.4709" said:
> Wanting eotm back is wanting WvW & everything regarding it to inevitably die off and lose more players to casual, ez-mode reward mindset where everything is handed to you on a silver platter without ever facing consequences or incentive to get better at wvw pvp. And don't lie you know many of those eotm mu's were rigged for sole purpose of 3-way ktraining pve carebear time by certain guilds. Did those pugs really learn to fight other players? The state that WvW is in right now I would much rather development assets be funneled into proper WvW stuff than wasted on the rose tinted glasses of players milking the ez ktrain bonanza that was once eotm.
to be fair i wouldnt mind if wvw died if eotm is up. why? there are no tournaments.
-
> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> > > > > Oh... here: (Copied from this thread https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions#latest)
> > > > >
> > > > > December 8, 2017 edited December 22, 2017 in WvW
> > > > > Q: When is a world considered "Full"?
> > > > > A: Worlds are considered full when the average weekly playtime in WvW exceeds a set threshold. The status of worlds is periodically checked and then the “Full” status of worlds is adjusted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: But my world never has a queue but we're still full?
> > > > > A: We adjust based on average weekly playtime. This does not mean that your world will always have queues if it is marked as full. A world with high peak time population and a world with more spread out activity could both exceed the playtime threshold.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: But I want to play with my (guild/friends) and they are on a "full" server.
> > > > > A: This is an unfortunate side effect of locking worlds and we agree that it can feel bad. However, if we do not lock worlds, worlds become overpopulated and it becomes impossible to have balanced match-ups.
> > > > > During any given period, you will find that some host worlds and links are open. While this may require some members of a group to make changes, there are options for everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: When will my world be open?
> > > > > A: This depends on the players on that world. If players transfer to a different world or stop playing for a period then they no longer will affect the thresholds and the world could open back up.
> > > > > [This is why it is against forum rules to ask us to open a world since world playtime determines this, not ArenaNet]
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Why are some worlds allowed to remain open over the threshold?
> > > > > A: There are several reasons for this:
> > > > > 1. We adjust world population status periodically, but it does not update constantly. We are working on automating this process, but at this time, worlds occasionally can get more players on them because the threshold is not updated every time someone transfers.
> > > > > 2. Thresholds have been adjusted. As the populations have adjusted so have the thresholds. We switched from using WvW players to WvW play hours, and because of this the thresholds needed to change. Adjusting thresholds has caused some worlds to have populations temporarily over the threshold.
> > > > > 3. Players coming back to the game can put a world over the threshold. When a player has stopped playing for an amount of time they are no longer considered in the world thresholds. When they return to the game this can cause the world to go over the threshold since we do not remove people from worlds. We also have no plans to remove people from the worlds they play on because this would be a bad experience for those players.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Are thresholds based on the top populated world?
> > > > > A: Yes and no. When we adjust thresholds, we always take into consideration the worlds that have the highest population and play hours and make sure they are “Full”. However, the thresholds do not change based on the biggest worlds because this could be more easily manipulated by players, where they purposely do not play for several weeks to lower their population and open the world back up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Why not just delete all the worlds and start over? (Or other equally valid population idea)
> > > > > A; Deleting worlds and letting players choose a new world is something we have considered in many forms. At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our other requirements to allow us to make such a change. This particular problem is tricky and involves many factors, not all of which we can share with players. Because of this limited knowledge, many of the ideas for population solutions that may seem as if they could solve the population issues fall short in some other way.
> > > > > Even when we, or the community, has proposed these ideas the reactions are very mixed, which further proves how risky deleting worlds would be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution?
> > > > > A: As the game has matured, world populations have drifted further apart. World Linking was implemented so that world populations and play hours could be flexibly adjusted to be closer to one another. World linking is also “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. The world linking concept utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, which allowed us to address the growing population issue more quickly while also supporting issues in WvW.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Do you balance/look at timezones for World Linking or World status?
> > > > > A: We look at timezone participation but timezone participation is hard to balance because people who play at certain times tend to all gravitate towards the same worlds so they can play with more people. Since the off-hour players are concentrated, there are not enough “off-hour” players to create 24-hour coverage for every world. It just is not possible with our current world populations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Is the maximum number of players in a WvW map fixed or do you adjust it dynamically according to server load?
> > > > > A: Fixed. Every team gets the same number of people per map. We do adjust this number manually from time to time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q: Does the WvW team handle skills and balance or other profession/skill related feedback?
> > > > > A: No. The Skills and Balance Team handles skills and balance. For skills and balance feedback, please use the profession forums: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/professions. This is by far the best way to get your voice heard as it focuses the discussion in one place.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q. Why can’t we cash out participation?
> > > > > A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out. We would also need to lock them out of WvW (or at least from gaining participation) for a set period. That period would need to be as long as or longer than the amount of time it would take to decay to discourage playing a little, cashing out, and repeat in an attempt to gain an advantage in pip and reward track rewards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q. Will there be another WvW Tournament?
> > > > > A:The old tournament format encouraged extensive play that resulted in a lot of burnout across the player base and a permanent drop off in WvW players. This had a negative impact on the format, and in order to keep WvW healthy, we currently do not have plans to bring back WvW tournaments.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kittens and rainbows @"Sovereign.1093" !
> > > > >
> > > > > ????????
> > > >
> > > > o.o;; isnt that 2 years ago going 3 years ago?
> > >
> > > Why yes. Yes it is. Of course you could look for a more recent change.
> > >
> > > But I guess it’s easier to spout nonsense and make things up. There are news outlets paying a premium for that today!
> > >
> > > ???????
> >
> > actually its hard to make things up. =) and anet hasnt shared their pop algorythm yet
>
> To quote Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that word means what you think it means”
well, it think its time you think. =) hehe
-
> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> > > Oh... here: (Copied from this thread https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions#latest)
> > >
> > > December 8, 2017 edited December 22, 2017 in WvW
> > > Q: When is a world considered "Full"?
> > > A: Worlds are considered full when the average weekly playtime in WvW exceeds a set threshold. The status of worlds is periodically checked and then the “Full” status of worlds is adjusted.
> > >
> > > Q: But my world never has a queue but we're still full?
> > > A: We adjust based on average weekly playtime. This does not mean that your world will always have queues if it is marked as full. A world with high peak time population and a world with more spread out activity could both exceed the playtime threshold.
> > >
> > > Q: But I want to play with my (guild/friends) and they are on a "full" server.
> > > A: This is an unfortunate side effect of locking worlds and we agree that it can feel bad. However, if we do not lock worlds, worlds become overpopulated and it becomes impossible to have balanced match-ups.
> > > During any given period, you will find that some host worlds and links are open. While this may require some members of a group to make changes, there are options for everyone.
> > >
> > > Q: When will my world be open?
> > > A: This depends on the players on that world. If players transfer to a different world or stop playing for a period then they no longer will affect the thresholds and the world could open back up.
> > > [This is why it is against forum rules to ask us to open a world since world playtime determines this, not ArenaNet]
> > >
> > > Q: Why are some worlds allowed to remain open over the threshold?
> > > A: There are several reasons for this:
> > > 1. We adjust world population status periodically, but it does not update constantly. We are working on automating this process, but at this time, worlds occasionally can get more players on them because the threshold is not updated every time someone transfers.
> > > 2. Thresholds have been adjusted. As the populations have adjusted so have the thresholds. We switched from using WvW players to WvW play hours, and because of this the thresholds needed to change. Adjusting thresholds has caused some worlds to have populations temporarily over the threshold.
> > > 3. Players coming back to the game can put a world over the threshold. When a player has stopped playing for an amount of time they are no longer considered in the world thresholds. When they return to the game this can cause the world to go over the threshold since we do not remove people from worlds. We also have no plans to remove people from the worlds they play on because this would be a bad experience for those players.
> > >
> > > Q: Are thresholds based on the top populated world?
> > > A: Yes and no. When we adjust thresholds, we always take into consideration the worlds that have the highest population and play hours and make sure they are “Full”. However, the thresholds do not change based on the biggest worlds because this could be more easily manipulated by players, where they purposely do not play for several weeks to lower their population and open the world back up.
> > >
> > > Q: Why not just delete all the worlds and start over? (Or other equally valid population idea)
> > > A; Deleting worlds and letting players choose a new world is something we have considered in many forms. At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our other requirements to allow us to make such a change. This particular problem is tricky and involves many factors, not all of which we can share with players. Because of this limited knowledge, many of the ideas for population solutions that may seem as if they could solve the population issues fall short in some other way.
> > > Even when we, or the community, has proposed these ideas the reactions are very mixed, which further proves how risky deleting worlds would be.
> > >
> > > Q: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution?
> > > A: As the game has matured, world populations have drifted further apart. World Linking was implemented so that world populations and play hours could be flexibly adjusted to be closer to one another. World linking is also “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. The world linking concept utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, which allowed us to address the growing population issue more quickly while also supporting issues in WvW.
> > >
> > > Q: Do you balance/look at timezones for World Linking or World status?
> > > A: We look at timezone participation but timezone participation is hard to balance because people who play at certain times tend to all gravitate towards the same worlds so they can play with more people. Since the off-hour players are concentrated, there are not enough “off-hour” players to create 24-hour coverage for every world. It just is not possible with our current world populations.
> > >
> > > Q: Is the maximum number of players in a WvW map fixed or do you adjust it dynamically according to server load?
> > > A: Fixed. Every team gets the same number of people per map. We do adjust this number manually from time to time.
> > >
> > > Q: Does the WvW team handle skills and balance or other profession/skill related feedback?
> > > A: No. The Skills and Balance Team handles skills and balance. For skills and balance feedback, please use the profession forums: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/professions. This is by far the best way to get your voice heard as it focuses the discussion in one place.
> > >
> > > Q. Why can’t we cash out participation?
> > > A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out. We would also need to lock them out of WvW (or at least from gaining participation) for a set period. That period would need to be as long as or longer than the amount of time it would take to decay to discourage playing a little, cashing out, and repeat in an attempt to gain an advantage in pip and reward track rewards.
> > >
> > > Q. Will there be another WvW Tournament?
> > > A:The old tournament format encouraged extensive play that resulted in a lot of burnout across the player base and a permanent drop off in WvW players. This had a negative impact on the format, and in order to keep WvW healthy, we currently do not have plans to bring back WvW tournaments.
> > >
> > > Kittens and rainbows @"Sovereign.1093" !
> > >
> > > ????????
> >
> > o.o;; isnt that 2 years ago going 3 years ago?
>
> Why yes. Yes it is. Of course you could look for a more recent change.
>
> But I guess it’s easier to spout nonsense and make things up. There are news outlets paying a premium for that today!
>
> ???????
actually its hard to make things up. =) and anet hasnt shared their pop algorythm yet
-
> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> Oh... here: (Copied from this thread https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions#latest)
>
> December 8, 2017 edited December 22, 2017 in WvW
> Q: When is a world considered "Full"?
> A: Worlds are considered full when the average weekly playtime in WvW exceeds a set threshold. The status of worlds is periodically checked and then the “Full” status of worlds is adjusted.
>
> Q: But my world never has a queue but we're still full?
> A: We adjust based on average weekly playtime. This does not mean that your world will always have queues if it is marked as full. A world with high peak time population and a world with more spread out activity could both exceed the playtime threshold.
>
> Q: But I want to play with my (guild/friends) and they are on a "full" server.
> A: This is an unfortunate side effect of locking worlds and we agree that it can feel bad. However, if we do not lock worlds, worlds become overpopulated and it becomes impossible to have balanced match-ups.
> During any given period, you will find that some host worlds and links are open. While this may require some members of a group to make changes, there are options for everyone.
>
> Q: When will my world be open?
> A: This depends on the players on that world. If players transfer to a different world or stop playing for a period then they no longer will affect the thresholds and the world could open back up.
> [This is why it is against forum rules to ask us to open a world since world playtime determines this, not ArenaNet]
>
> Q: Why are some worlds allowed to remain open over the threshold?
> A: There are several reasons for this:
> 1. We adjust world population status periodically, but it does not update constantly. We are working on automating this process, but at this time, worlds occasionally can get more players on them because the threshold is not updated every time someone transfers.
> 2. Thresholds have been adjusted. As the populations have adjusted so have the thresholds. We switched from using WvW players to WvW play hours, and because of this the thresholds needed to change. Adjusting thresholds has caused some worlds to have populations temporarily over the threshold.
> 3. Players coming back to the game can put a world over the threshold. When a player has stopped playing for an amount of time they are no longer considered in the world thresholds. When they return to the game this can cause the world to go over the threshold since we do not remove people from worlds. We also have no plans to remove people from the worlds they play on because this would be a bad experience for those players.
>
> Q: Are thresholds based on the top populated world?
> A: Yes and no. When we adjust thresholds, we always take into consideration the worlds that have the highest population and play hours and make sure they are “Full”. However, the thresholds do not change based on the biggest worlds because this could be more easily manipulated by players, where they purposely do not play for several weeks to lower their population and open the world back up.
>
> Q: Why not just delete all the worlds and start over? (Or other equally valid population idea)
> A; Deleting worlds and letting players choose a new world is something we have considered in many forms. At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our other requirements to allow us to make such a change. This particular problem is tricky and involves many factors, not all of which we can share with players. Because of this limited knowledge, many of the ideas for population solutions that may seem as if they could solve the population issues fall short in some other way.
> Even when we, or the community, has proposed these ideas the reactions are very mixed, which further proves how risky deleting worlds would be.
>
> Q: Why is there World Linking instead of some other solution?
> A: As the game has matured, world populations have drifted further apart. World Linking was implemented so that world populations and play hours could be flexibly adjusted to be closer to one another. World linking is also “easier” to change and adjust unlike other systems that have been discussed. The world linking concept utilized a lot of existing tech and required considerably less time to construct, which allowed us to address the growing population issue more quickly while also supporting issues in WvW.
>
> Q: Do you balance/look at timezones for World Linking or World status?
> A: We look at timezone participation but timezone participation is hard to balance because people who play at certain times tend to all gravitate towards the same worlds so they can play with more people. Since the off-hour players are concentrated, there are not enough “off-hour” players to create 24-hour coverage for every world. It just is not possible with our current world populations.
>
> Q: Is the maximum number of players in a WvW map fixed or do you adjust it dynamically according to server load?
> A: Fixed. Every team gets the same number of people per map. We do adjust this number manually from time to time.
>
> Q: Does the WvW team handle skills and balance or other profession/skill related feedback?
> A: No. The Skills and Balance Team handles skills and balance. For skills and balance feedback, please use the profession forums: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/professions. This is by far the best way to get your voice heard as it focuses the discussion in one place.
>
> Q. Why can’t we cash out participation?
> A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out. We would also need to lock them out of WvW (or at least from gaining participation) for a set period. That period would need to be as long as or longer than the amount of time it would take to decay to discourage playing a little, cashing out, and repeat in an attempt to gain an advantage in pip and reward track rewards.
>
> Q. Will there be another WvW Tournament?
> A:The old tournament format encouraged extensive play that resulted in a lot of burnout across the player base and a permanent drop off in WvW players. This had a negative impact on the format, and in order to keep WvW healthy, we currently do not have plans to bring back WvW tournaments.
>
> Kittens and rainbows @"Sovereign.1093" !
>
> ????????
o.o;; isnt that 2 years ago going 3 years ago?
-
> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> > > > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > > > > @"XenesisII.1540" said:
> > > > > I like how you guys are trying to make this out to some kind of complicated process, it's rocket science created by anet and only they can explain it and we demand they explain it!
> > > > >
> > > > > They count hours, can't get any simpler than that.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > hours played and rank of player. and averaging those with + - upper lower limit.
> > >
> > > That may be what you think would work, but isn’t what they use.
> > >
> > > As @"XenesisII.1540" said, it’s play hours. Simple as that.
> >
> > no =)
>
> It’s OK to be wrong. It’s healthy in fact. Of course denial is a river in Egypt too.
>
> ?
=) so you do admit you're wrong. else, basis that it is only time?
-
> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > > @"XenesisII.1540" said:
> > > I like how you guys are trying to make this out to some kind of complicated process, it's rocket science created by anet and only they can explain it and we demand they explain it!
> > >
> > > They count hours, can't get any simpler than that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > hours played and rank of player. and averaging those with + - upper lower limit.
>
> That may be what you think would work, but isn’t what they use.
>
> As @"XenesisII.1540" said, it’s play hours. Simple as that.
no =)
-
=) let me know which server you plan to go to. it would be interesting to see. i know eu hasnt faired against na since except ep time. would be nice to see if eu improved
-
i know what you mean op. when we run cheese 10 vs blob, that dragon banner ensures we win.
it is a tactical nuke.
blob i mean 40 and up
-
> @"XenesisII.1540" said:
> I like how you guys are trying to make this out to some kind of complicated process, it's rocket science created by anet and only they can explain it and we demand they explain it!
>
> They count hours, can't get any simpler than that.
>
>
>
hours played and rank of player. and averaging those with + - upper lower limit.
-
dont most major guilds play 6pm 7pm server time? i used to command 6pm to pm server time. was fun.
-
> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:
> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > pips ruined eotm
>
> Saying it multiple times doesn’t make it so.
denying it doesn't make it not so too. :3
-
> @"kamikharzeeh.8016" said:
> @"SeikeNz.3526" said:
> > well the server is full on pve, wvw is boring so no one plays it
>
> what is this thing with "only PvE"-players that hate on WvW, i really don't get this. had lately one of them crying on reddit around too, with zero argumentation... WvW got literally nothing since the warclaw dropped, and the warclaw did rather make the entry for newbies more difficult, bc they cannot walk with zergs efficiently often.
>
> btw that is kinda the questionable part of links - they can pretty much render u unable to do anything. even if you can win 10 vs 30 battles with solid coulding by veterans, that isn't fun on longterm. but how to fix this is over my head. people dream of alliances, but wouldn't that be just this exactly^10?
>
> @ slick notsure what u mean but if anough people transfer from guilds to a server it surely can fight standalone. some links are so weak / low populated that u barely notice them while other are pretty full and some others are bandwagoner-filled (ppl that joined the server bc they wanted to be on your team kinda).
> some of EU t1 servers even have 'recruited' NA server guilds.
> @ lare
> you can see on character select screen on the server display if it is full or not. but with queues of 50-100 on weekends your servers seems pretty stacked, that's more than we have. ours go on WE from 30-70. there can be fake-queues as other said, when a zerg switches maps. that lasts for some minutes. you should just have random people tag up btw in the case of no commanders, people tend to do more if there's a tag around for reasons.
>
> @ gebrechen
> well i did not see piken around in t1 for quite a while here, on our server it's said that losing KISS did hurt them. not specially because KISS would be that good, but because numbers still win more often than not. i think also other guilds from them went to WSR for example. our matchups with kills were like "red blob inc hills!" ... "urgh its just kiss again, send 20 ppl to hills"
>
> @ sovereign
> can we leave "skill level" out of this discussion, that's likely just becoming biased. i know NA has some good players, EU surely has its veterans too though. if i look at gw2stats, the points in EU are overall higher. even that isn't transferable into "skill" but activity.
> also people would maybe learn what they are doing rather if they'd be motivated to ascend tiers. atm some tank for fun, or claim to do so at least, bc they wanna dodge some other servers. idk why there is even "tiers" because at present it does not matter a tiny bit where exactly you are, you gain nothing from it.
>
> about this GvG thing - it is privately organized, and i only randomly saw gvg fights in obisidan sanctums arena. u read no notifications about that in teamchat at all and it tends to be guilds that u NEVER see on the real WvW maps. even with tag'd up people that i never saw before from apparently our server.
i wish there was a way for eu and na to compete versus since we dont really have tournaments anymore. maybe it should simply be that. na v eu. who wears the crown?
-
> @"Fatherbliss.4701" said:
> Yep, Fury Combat Tonic. This is ironic considering I've got the darn thing and didn't even realize what it was doing when you used it. Initially I thought it was Diamond rank folks who had gotten a cool portrait icon....
thats worthy of implementing i think. portrait ranks. <3 id get into that
-
pips ruined eotm
-
will check after i get home from work.
Hey guys I am a Chinese player
in World vs. World
Posted
> @"DefendLions.5321" said:
> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:
> > i know what you mean op. when we run cheese 10 vs blob, that dragon banner ensures we win.
> >
> > it is a tactical nuke.
> >
> > blob i mean 40 and up
>
> No,my point is when both side equal in numbers ,the banner will be the key,Is it ignore the each class and them skill. thanks for ur comment.
mmm i find.even in unequal nos. where we are outnumbered, having a good dragon banner user ensures a win.
like i said. 10 vs.40 in a choke, that 40 can die if unaware.