What's the Status on JQ conspiracy

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @"Jerry CCH.9816" said:

> > @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> > > @"Jerry CCH.9816" said:

> > > > @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> > > > JQ SEA is like 1 active guild that runs daily with around 15 people, but leads a 30+ pugs. Larger than many lower tier server, but by no means it is 'overstacked' like many believes

> > > >

> > > > The reason why JQ has such high play hours and godly ppt is probably because there are many people on JQ with too many time who can somehow play almost 24 hours a day. JQ really do not have the numbers to compete t1 t2 servers in peak times.

> > >

> > > dont give us fake info plz :/

> > > JQ SEA TZ EBG Q 22 now and theres 40 ppl at TPA channel

> > > https://imgur.com/a/9DFbr

> >

> > Stop misdirecting people. It's 1st day of reset. I'm talking about weekly average, and if you expand that screenshot, you only see around 15 TPA and rest pugs.

> >

> > Oh JQ is also in t4, if they cannot compete in t4, then JQ might as well be dead

> nvm i will take a pic about EBG Queue every SEA TZ "

> So you think "15 TPA / 50 man full squad / EBG Q 22" still no enough people for JQ during SEA TZ ?? B)

>

> Happiness consists in contentment. :3

>

>

 

In case you haven’t been reading. The problem was never JQ SEA. It’s JQ NA and Oceanic. I never said JQ sea is outnumberred, just not as overstacked as people believe, especially considering the largest SEA guild in jQ runs 10 to 15 people.

[Jerry CCH.9816]

> @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

 

> I never said JQ sea is outnumberred, just not as overstacked as people believe.

:+1:

 

> @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> In case you haven’t been reading. The problem was never JQ SEA. It’s JQ NA and Oceanic.

JQ NA TZ Guilds : SF OnS FLUX CLAM MUSA HzH TPA(TPA 24hr raid) => 7 Guilds :o

BG NA TZ Guilds : KnT XvX Rev Kis => 4 Guilds B)

JQ ocx have InS 20 plus Guild Members running

 

# Wat Server Can run 7 Guilds during NA tz ? nope! only JQ. Isn't??

#

[Kyon.9735]

In case someone's forgetting, it's Christmas holidays on a Saturday noon in NA lol. No use tallying numbers during the holiday season as it'll obviously produce inflated numbers.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

> @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> > @"Xslare.8735" said:

> > It's actually really sad that the group that knows the least about what's going on are the JQ pugs themselves, even second to ANet.

>

> What's even more sad is Anet using BG as a unit of measure for the rest of the servers. Something is amiss here, lol.

 

The way Anet gauges population status is by a minimum threshold so to speak, lets call 100 as the threshold. Right now we see these servers as full:

 

Blackgate (Which means BG is 100 or 100+X)

Jade Quarry (JQ is 100 or 100+X)

Yaks Bend (YB is 100 or 100+X)

 

The rest of the servers are less than 100 which makes them open. Anet measures the threshold by play hours in WvW (or they use this as one of the main metrics), the problem is BG's "X" is considerably larger than the rest, and nobody can get remotely close to it. Despite what Anet says otherwise, BG has a much larger populace that plays more often. This is evident because I have 2 friends that play on BG who routinely send me screenshots of multiple qued maps during times that no other server can and will ever match under these metrics. JQ might be 100, YB, might be 100+10, but BG might be 100+100 (and that is being conservative.

 

Point being, even if JQ or any other servers opens up, their population aren't likely going to shoot up so far past 100 that it will equal BG's 100+100. Not unless there is some coordinated effort to do so, much like how BG has done multiple controlled blackouts to pull in certain guilds.

 

It's not that JQ needs to open up, BG needs to be blown up and deleted, then the players (and guilds) scattered randomly, throughout other servers. Then those players can transfer where they see fit (if they can, if a server isn't full). Give the server a month or so warning before it gets deleted to allow players to transfer off to another with friends or guild mates.

[HazyDaisy.4107]

All 12 guests and 1 host were marked medium population. Want to know what Medium means? Maybe 3 guilds of 5-10 people and anywhere from 30-50 pugs, forget timezones, they play whenever they feel like it, they're disorganized to a fault and prefer it that way.

 

What exactly was JQ hoping for by dropping...take a link from another server that desperately needed those 50-80 people? Open up and hope 1 or 2 of the guest pugs would transfer over?

 

In an alternate universe JQ happily, albeit through gritted teeth rotated between T1 and T2 for 8 weeks just like Mag and whatever T3 server was tricked into doing so last link in this universe did. In an alternate universe JQ opened and got transfers from top tier servers and their guests. In this universe, JQ gambled and rightfully so lost.

 

Purposeful failure of that magnitude should not and thankfully WAS not rewarded. There is no conspiracy, only a line of pop woes that can no longer withstand anyone trying to "cut" in that line.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> > > @"Xslare.8735" said:

> > > It's actually really sad that the group that knows the least about what's going on are the JQ pugs themselves, even second to ANet.

> >

> > What's even more sad is Anet using BG as a unit of measure for the rest of the servers. Something is amiss here, lol.

>

> The way Anet gauges population status is by a minimum threshold so to speak, lets call 100 as the threshold. Right now we see these servers as full:

>

> Blackgate (Which means BG is 100 or 100+X)

> Jade Quarry (JQ is 100 or 100+X)

> Yaks Bend (YB is 100 or 100+X)

>

> The rest of the servers are less than 100 which makes them open. Anet measures the threshold by play hours in WvW (or they use this as one of the main metrics), the problem is BG's "X" is considerably larger than the rest, and nobody can get remotely close to it. Despite what Anet says otherwise, BG has a much larger populace that plays more often. This is evident because I have 2 friends that play on BG who routinely send me screenshots of multiple qued maps during times that no other server can and will ever match under these metrics. JQ might be 100, YB, might be 100+10, but BG might be 100+100 (and that is being conservative.

>

> Point being, even if JQ or any other servers opens up, their population aren't likely going to shoot up so far past 100 that it will equal BG's 100+100. Not unless there is some coordinated effort to do so, much like how BG has done multiple controlled blackouts to pull in certain guilds.

>

> It's not that JQ needs to open up, BG needs to be blown up and deleted, then the players (and guilds) scattered randomly, throughout other servers. Then those players can transfer where they see fit (if they can, if a server isn't full). Give the server a month or so warning before it gets deleted to allow players to transfer off to another with friends or guild mates.

 

Only if ALL players from ALL servers are randomly distributed regardless of guild or server.

 

IF blowing up is an option, it could only start there

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> > > @"Xslare.8735" said:

> > > It's actually really sad that the group that knows the least about what's going on are the JQ pugs themselves, even second to ANet.

> >

> > What's even more sad is Anet using BG as a unit of measure for the rest of the servers. Something is amiss here, lol.

>

> The way Anet gauges population status is by a minimum threshold so to speak, lets call 100 as the threshold. Right now we see these servers as full:

>

> Blackgate (Which means BG is 100 or 100+X)

> Jade Quarry (JQ is 100 or 100+X)

> Yaks Bend (YB is 100 or 100+X)

>

> The rest of the servers are less than 100 which makes them open. Anet measures the threshold by play hours in WvW (or they use this as one of the main metrics), the problem is BG's "X" is considerably larger than the rest, and nobody can get remotely close to it. Despite what Anet says otherwise, BG has a much larger populace that plays more often. This is evident because I have 2 friends that play on BG who routinely send me screenshots of multiple qued maps during times that no other server can and will ever match under these metrics. JQ might be 100, YB, might be 100+10, but BG might be 100+100 (and that is being conservative.

>

> Point being, even if JQ or any other servers opens up, their population aren't likely going to shoot up so far past 100 that it will equal BG's 100+100. Not unless there is some coordinated effort to do so, much like how BG has done multiple controlled blackouts to pull in certain guilds.

>

> It's not that JQ needs to open up, BG needs to be blown up and deleted, then the players (and guilds) scattered randomly, throughout other servers. Then those players can transfer where they see fit (if they can, if a server isn't full). Give the server a month or so warning before it gets deleted to allow players to transfer off to another with friends or guild mates.

 

So.. Anet is lying? Within 90% of the play hours was the statement. That's a fallacy then?

[DeWolfe.2174]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > > @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> > > > @"Xslare.8735" said:

> > > > It's actually really sad that the group that knows the least about what's going on are the JQ pugs themselves, even second to ANet.

> > >

> > > What's even more sad is Anet using BG as a unit of measure for the rest of the servers. Something is amiss here, lol.

> >

> > The way Anet gauges population status is by a minimum threshold so to speak, lets call 100 as the threshold. Right now we see these servers as full:

> >

> > Blackgate (Which means BG is 100 or 100+X)

> > Jade Quarry (JQ is 100 or 100+X)

> > Yaks Bend (YB is 100 or 100+X)

> >

> > The rest of the servers are less than 100 which makes them open. Anet measures the threshold by play hours in WvW (or they use this as one of the main metrics), the problem is BG's "X" is considerably larger than the rest, and nobody can get remotely close to it. Despite what Anet says otherwise, BG has a much larger populace that plays more often. This is evident because I have 2 friends that play on BG who routinely send me screenshots of multiple qued maps during times that no other server can and will ever match under these metrics. JQ might be 100, YB, might be 100+10, but BG might be 100+100 (and that is being conservative.

> >

> > Point being, even if JQ or any other servers opens up, their population aren't likely going to shoot up so far past 100 that it will equal BG's 100+100. Not unless there is some coordinated effort to do so, much like how BG has done multiple controlled blackouts to pull in certain guilds.

> >

> > It's not that JQ needs to open up, BG needs to be blown up and deleted, then the players (and guilds) scattered randomly, throughout other servers. Then those players can transfer where they see fit (if they can, if a server isn't full). Give the server a month or so warning before it gets deleted to allow players to transfer off to another with friends or guild mates.

>

> So.. Anet is lying? Within 90% of the play hours was the statement. That's a fallacy then?

 

Been trying to say they have a bias. They are not even following their own rules as they described them to us. We need the restoration of how the mode was handled at launch. What they are doing the past couple of years is failing. Besides that fact that pip, node, and daily farmers can probably skew the heck out of "play hours".

[DeWolfe.2174]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> The way Anet gauges population status is by a minimum threshold so to speak, lets call 100 as the threshold. Right now we see these servers as full:

>

> Blackgate (Which means BG is 100 or 100+X)

> Jade Quarry (JQ is 100 or 100+X)

> Yaks Bend (YB is 100 or 100+X)

>

> The rest of the servers are less than 100 which makes them open. Anet measures the threshold by play hours in WvW (or they use this as one of the main metrics), the problem is BG's "X" is considerably larger than the rest, and nobody can get remotely close to it. Despite what Anet says otherwise, BG has a much larger populace that plays more often. This is evident because I have 2 friends that play on BG who routinely send me screenshots of multiple qued maps during times that no other server can and will ever match under these metrics. JQ might be 100, YB, might be 100+10, but BG might be 100+100 (and that is being conservative.

 

population on reset:

BG 5 maps

YB 4.5 maps

JQ 2.5 maps

 

So why is the "100" set so low then? On reset, all 4 maps should be filled. Cannot expect a match to be so wildly imbalanced that a World gets a free map or two. That's not competitive at all.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > The way Anet gauges population status is by a minimum threshold so to speak, lets call 100 as the threshold. Right now we see these servers as full:

> >

> > Blackgate (Which means BG is 100 or 100+X)

> > Jade Quarry (JQ is 100 or 100+X)

> > Yaks Bend (YB is 100 or 100+X)

> >

> > The rest of the servers are less than 100 which makes them open. Anet measures the threshold by play hours in WvW (or they use this as one of the main metrics), the problem is BG's "X" is considerably larger than the rest, and nobody can get remotely close to it. Despite what Anet says otherwise, BG has a much larger populace that plays more often. This is evident because I have 2 friends that play on BG who routinely send me screenshots of multiple qued maps during times that no other server can and will ever match under these metrics. JQ might be 100, YB, might be 100+10, but BG might be 100+100 (and that is being conservative.

>

> population on reset:

> BG 5 maps

> YB 4.5 maps

> JQ 2.5 maps

>

> So why is the "100" set so low then? On reset, all 4 maps should be filled. Cannot expect a match to be so wildly imbalanced that a World gets a free map or two. That's not competitive at all.

 

The threshold is set to push people off overpopulated worlds. You may not feel this is good.

 

It's pushed people off both BG and JQ. That has been their intent.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > > > @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> > > > > @"Xslare.8735" said:

> > > > > It's actually really sad that the group that knows the least about what's going on are the JQ pugs themselves, even second to ANet.

> > > >

> > > > What's even more sad is Anet using BG as a unit of measure for the rest of the servers. Something is amiss here, lol.

> > >

> > > The way Anet gauges population status is by a minimum threshold so to speak, lets call 100 as the threshold. Right now we see these servers as full:

> > >

> > > Blackgate (Which means BG is 100 or 100+X)

> > > Jade Quarry (JQ is 100 or 100+X)

> > > Yaks Bend (YB is 100 or 100+X)

> > >

> > > The rest of the servers are less than 100 which makes them open. Anet measures the threshold by play hours in WvW (or they use this as one of the main metrics), the problem is BG's "X" is considerably larger than the rest, and nobody can get remotely close to it. Despite what Anet says otherwise, BG has a much larger populace that plays more often. This is evident because I have 2 friends that play on BG who routinely send me screenshots of multiple qued maps during times that no other server can and will ever match under these metrics. JQ might be 100, YB, might be 100+10, but BG might be 100+100 (and that is being conservative.

> > >

> > > Point being, even if JQ or any other servers opens up, their population aren't likely going to shoot up so far past 100 that it will equal BG's 100+100. Not unless there is some coordinated effort to do so, much like how BG has done multiple controlled blackouts to pull in certain guilds.

> > >

> > > It's not that JQ needs to open up, BG needs to be blown up and deleted, then the players (and guilds) scattered randomly, throughout other servers. Then those players can transfer where they see fit (if they can, if a server isn't full). Give the server a month or so warning before it gets deleted to allow players to transfer off to another with friends or guild mates.

> >

> > So.. Anet is lying? Within 90% of the play hours was the statement. That's a fallacy then?

>

> Been trying to say they have a bias. They are not even following their own rules as they described them to us.

 

They are following their own rules. They instituted the manual piece because of the volumes of complaints about servers (yes BG) doing blackouts to open their server. This kept JQ from doing the same thing. Say what you will: they are following their rules and it worked as intended

 

 

*We need the restoration of how the mode was handled at launch. What they are doing the past couple of years is failing.*

 

What was being done at launch created the BG and JQ monsters.

 

*Besides that fact that pip, node, and daily farmers can probably skew the heck out of "play hours".*

 

Ok. So..., no other server has this issue? It's only a JQ problem?

Look on these boards. Everyone talks about BGs causal, huge PvE player-base.

 

Have you counted the guilds in the last year who left BG? No? Try it. And how many current guilds raid regularly. It's working how Anet wanted.

[Baroness.9506]

To be brutally honest and burst anyones balloon. Those numbers you see in this pic are frightfully similar to BG. In all honesty BG had less of an EBG que.

 

 

It has always been the same case though, its not a story of numbers so much, the top servers all have the same round a bout playerbase. But there is a massive skill difference in those leading the pugs and the types of guilds on those servers.

 

Given, BG has Mez U Up, but other than that, we have pretty solid drivers all round, with some of them doing some big hours. When people mention JQ, there has NEVER, in my opinion been a decent driver on JQ EVER. I mean, i hear "Cloudfly" and "Malevolent Omen" and i ROFLMLFAOLOLZ and then 1 push.

 

 

 

 

 

 

> @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > @"jul.7602" said:

> > > @"Vermillion.4061" said:

> > > JQ's goal was to tank for 3 weeks before the holidays and hope that the trend continues since holidays and all to have the server open.

> > >

> > > JQ never wanted a link to begin with just to become open.

> >

> > If JQ is too big to not even have a link, then I doubt that they will open.

>

> by what metric are we "too big"? We're done with the blackout and even before it all we could muster was consolidating down to two full maps and another about half full during reset. Here's tonight for some examples.

>

> 

 

 

[DeWolfe.2174]

> @"Baroness.9506" said:

> To be brutally honest and burst anyones balloon. Those numbers you see in this pic are frightfully similar to BG. In all honesty BG had less of an EBG que.

 

> > @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > 

 

"BG had less of a Q??? You do realize that's a print screen capture of all 4 instances running at once, right? There is no more or less, it's exactly what it was.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > @"Baroness.9506" said:

> > To be brutally honest and burst anyones balloon. Those numbers you see in this pic are frightfully similar to BG. In all honesty BG had less of an EBG que.

>

> > > @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > > 

>

> "BG had less of a Q??? You do realize that's a print screen capture of all 4 instances running at once, right? There is no more or less, it's exactly what it was.

 

It looked like BG had two maps queued?

[DeWolfe.2174]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > > @"Baroness.9506" said:

> > > To be brutally honest and burst anyones balloon. Those numbers you see in this pic are frightfully similar to BG. In all honesty BG had less of an EBG que.

> >

> > > > @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > > > 

> >

> > "BG had less of a Q??? You do realize that's a print screen capture of all 4 instances running at once, right? There is no more or less, it's exactly what it was.

>

> It looked like BG had two maps queued?

 

Correct, the other two maps were occupied just not queued. And, had a total of 68 people in queue.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > > > @"Baroness.9506" said:

> > > > To be brutally honest and burst anyones balloon. Those numbers you see in this pic are frightfully similar to BG. In all honesty BG had less of an EBG que.

> > >

> > > > > @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > > > > 

> > >

> > > "BG had less of a Q??? You do realize that's a print screen capture of all 4 instances running at once, right? There is no more or less, it's exactly what it was.

> >

> > It looked like BG had two maps queued?

>

> Correct, the other two maps were occupied just not queued. And, had a total of 68 people in queue.

 

On reset NA.

 

JQ's strength has never been NA. BG has always had a dominant NA. Along with spread coverage as well.

 

It would appear that at least one other server had 4 maps queued.

 

So... either we can't use a reset night snapshot to demonstrate how busy a server is, or we can't rely on the other hours coverage.

 

Point is, neither of us have the data.

 

I don't doubt if the last couple of weeks that JQ had minimal playing. And yes, I get the blackout ended on the 18th.

 

Maybe a lot of those militia feel abandoned? Maybe they haven't got the message to start playing again.

 

But it's going to take longer than a 3-4 week blackout for JQ and definately BG to open. Anet has basically stated and demonstrated it.

[DeWolfe.2174]

From a month ago, prior to any thought of a blackout. We consolidated down to two maps on reset with only [ONS] on Mag BL. DB BL was left basically empty with maybe a couple roamers. This radical imbalance between the populations of the "full" worlds is pretty much what caused the blackout to begin with.

 


[X T D.6458]

Ok a few things here...

 

First, stop posting screen shots of queues and trying to pass it off as some kind of evidence. Lets face it, people cherry pick the times and numbers they want to display so it favors their talking points.

 

Second, unless you have the data for your entire server, at all times, you need to stop acting as if what you see in WvW during your playtime, is the only thing that is relevant. Just because you might not see a queue during your playtime does not mean ANYTHING, it does not mean that your server should not be closed.

 

Third, knock it off with the ridiculous conspiracy theories. If I want to see a bunch of made up stories, trying to pass off as news, with no evidence to back it up I'll watch CNN.

 

Fourth, maybe some people on JQ should put aside their egos, stop with the politics, and just play.

 

Now we wait for thread to close.

[jialelin.2968]

> > @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> > In case you haven’t been reading. The problem was never JQ SEA. It’s JQ NA and Oceanic.

> JQ NA TZ Guilds : SF OnS FLUX CLAM MUSA HzH TPA(TPA 24hr raid) => 7 Guilds :o

> BG NA TZ Guilds : KnT XvX Rev Kis => 4 Guilds B)

> JQ ocx have InS 20 plus Guild Members running

>

> # Wat Server Can run 7 Guilds during NA tz ? nope! only JQ. Isn't??

> #

 

LOL But why JQ 7 guilds running NA and still bm no ehough ???

 

BG like small NA. It's not stack

 

[henchmen.1856]

can someone post that discord screenshot where they list all the na guilds jq has, which is more na guilds than any other na server except maybe sbi?

[DeWolfe.2174]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> Ok a few things here...

>

>wall of BG propaganda

 

Sure, let's listen to the BG player and stop posting the data we have available to us. Then he basically asking for the thread to be closed because it's showing how imbalanced the locked worlds are.

[DeWolfe.2174]

> @"jialelin.2968" said:

> > > @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> > > In case you haven’t been reading. The problem was never JQ SEA. It’s JQ NA and Oceanic.

> > JQ NA TZ Guilds : SF OnS FLUX CLAM MUSA HzH TPA(TPA 24hr raid) => 7 Guilds :o

> > BG NA TZ Guilds : KnT XvX Rev Kis => 4 Guilds B)

> > JQ ocx have InS 20 plus Guild Members running

> >

> > # Wat Server Can run 7 Guilds during NA tz ? nope! only JQ. Isn't??

> > #

>

> LOL But why JQ 7 guilds running NA and still bm no ehough ???

>

> BG like small NA. It's not stack

>

 

Just fyi guilds =/= actual population.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > @"jialelin.2968" said:

> > > > @"ThunderPanda.1872" said:

> > > > In case you haven’t been reading. The problem was never JQ SEA. It’s JQ NA and Oceanic.

> > > JQ NA TZ Guilds : SF OnS FLUX CLAM MUSA HzH TPA(TPA 24hr raid) => 7 Guilds :o

> > > BG NA TZ Guilds : KnT XvX Rev Kis => 4 Guilds B)

> > > JQ ocx have InS 20 plus Guild Members running

> > >

> > > # Wat Server Can run 7 Guilds during NA tz ? nope! only JQ. Isn't??

> > > #

> >

> > LOL But why JQ 7 guilds running NA and still bm no ehough ???

> >

> > BG like small NA. It's not stack

> >

>

> Just fyi guilds =/= actual population.

 

And FYI, a screenshot of a moment in the queue list =\= actual population either.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > Ok a few things here...

> >

> >wall of BG propaganda

>

> Sure, let's listen to the BG player and stop posting the data we have available to us. Then he basically asking for the thread to be closed because it's showing how imbalanced the locked worlds are.

 

Imbalanced against JQ AND BG. Which means it really isn't unbalanced. Or, more accurately, it's not the whole picture. Which is what Anet has been saying.

[X T D.6458]

> @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > Ok a few things here...

> >

> >wall of BG propaganda

>

> Sure, let's listen to the BG player and stop posting the data we have available to us. Then he basically asking for the thread to be closed because it's showing how imbalanced the locked worlds are.

 

What does any part of my post have to do with BG?