SoR! looking for info

[Sovereign.1093]

could imagine a random vs pairing in the future, regardless of ppt. would be fun. 1 week, pawning, next week pawned.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > @"Evolute.6239" said:

> > > @"morrolan.9608" said:

> > > > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > > > > @"BlueMelody.6398" said:

> > > > > > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > > > > > They'll be in t1 next week along with bg for the rest of this link period.

> > > > > > Just don't ppt your server into the 3rd team for t1 and you'll be fine.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > T2 is going to be no fun either. 3 teams all trying to out-tank each other to avoid T1.

> > > > >

> > > > > T4 is ghost town. T3 is the only tier worth being in now.

> > > >

> > > > How's it any different that BG and SoS tag team ppting 3rd right now?

> > >

> > > No tag team as far as I know, at least not in ocx time.

> >

> > BG takes Fire Keep, SoS flips air and towers 24/7

> >

> > Makes it very hard to do anything as red in T1. It took a lot of effort for KNSBI and KNJQ to push both SoS and BG out of T1.

> >

> > It’s not a tag team like a 2v1, SoS just can’t ever compete with BG but it PPTs red out of the match.

>

> Bu FA isn't even trying to do a modicum of PPT, at least not in ocx time. They are looking like a bigger version of the maguuma of the last few months.

>

>

 

Define "modicum" of PPT. Why is it up to the third server to do the PPTing when the other servers are more than capable of PPTing each other?

[SkyShroud.2865]

FA so far in off hours has been staying in ebg, ignoring bl, basically what mag does. Fact.

[shiri.4257]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> FA so far in off hours has been staying in ebg, ignoring bl, basically what mag does. Fact.

 

Skyshroud doesn't even wvw. Fact

[Chaba.5410]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> FA so far in off hours has been staying in ebg, ignoring bl, basically what mag does. Fact.

 

I'm trying to figure out how that is any different from any other time a server has been in T1 and didn't have the population/coverage to match/care about chasing after BG and SoS PPTers who like to play on redbl. Don't make me repost a screenshot of DB getting the BG/SOS redbl treatment... no wait.. here it is!

 


 

[SkyShroud.2865]

Irrelevant.

 

Try telling your off hours to defend BL instead of queuing up for ebg like what mag does.

Oh, I don't need to remind that FA has the MOST number of SEA guilds.

 

While the SOR bandwagon topic is overshadowing a lot of things, I do remember that.

[Chaba.5410]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> Irrelevant.

>

> Try telling your off hours to defend BL instead of queuing up for ebg like what mag does.

> Oh, I don't need to remind that FA has the MOST number of SEA guilds.

>

> While the SOR bandwagon topic is overshadowing a lot of things, I do remember that.

 

I'm not going to tell others to go play on a map with T3 keeps against enemy who just scuttle away to their siege or backcap if they don't want to play that way.

 

Also, morroIan's comment was about OCX, not SEA. And that's irrelevant anyway because DB+KN+IOJ in my screenshot would also have OCX/SEA offhours players, being long-time SEA and OCX servers, not to mention that SoS is a long-time OCX server.

 

Again, how is this any different from any other time a server has been in T1? BG and SoS play the way they do no matter what the third server in T1 is. The only time T1 has been different in recent memory is when the third server has had some sort of bandwagon and we will see that again next match when SoR returns to T1.

[Sovereign.1093]

=) less talk in forum more wvw.

[shiri.4257]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> =) less talk in forum more wvw.

 

WvW ded game. stacking and cordial pvf is end game. please achieve.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > Irrelevant.

> >

> > Try telling your off hours to defend BL instead of queuing up for ebg like what mag does.

> > Oh, I don't need to remind that FA has the MOST number of SEA guilds.

> >

> > While the SOR bandwagon topic is overshadowing a lot of things, I do remember that.

>

> I'm not going to tell others to go play on a map with T3 keeps against enemy who just scuttle away to their siege or backcap if they don't want to play that way.

>

> Also, morroIan's comment was about OCX, not SEA. And that's irrelevant anyway because DB+KN+IOJ in my screenshot would also have OCX/SEA offhours players, being long-time SEA and OCX servers, not to mention that SoS is a long-time OCX server.

>

> Again, how is this any different from any other time a server has been in T1? BG and SoS play the way they do no matter what the third server in T1 is. The only time T1 has been different in recent memory is when the third server has had some sort of bandwagon and we will see that again next match when SoR returns to T1.

 

Irrelevant, data of the past does not represent people of the present.

Again irrelevant. You mention a reply that is about ocx which is another person, you quoted my post which didn't specific a timezone.

Yet again, irrelevant. FA got like 4 SEA guilds? Let's not forget there is also ocx. With DH that would be like 6 SEA guilds? So, 6 SEA guilds fail to outppt 1 sea guild each of sos and bg? Fact is FA off hours is like mag, sticking to ebg and only ebg, ignoring all other bl. Furthermore, what with that number of sea guilds, that's stacked.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > Irrelevant.

> >

> > Try telling your off hours to defend BL instead of queuing up for ebg like what mag does.

> > Oh, I don't need to remind that FA has the MOST number of SEA guilds.

> >

> > While the SOR bandwagon topic is overshadowing a lot of things, I do remember that.

>

> I'm not going to tell others to go play on a map with T3 keeps against enemy who just scuttle away to their siege or backcap if they don't want to play that way.

>

> Also, morroIan's comment was about OCX, not SEA. And that's irrelevant anyway because DB+KN+IOJ in my screenshot would also have OCX/SEA offhours players, being long-time SEA and OCX servers, not to mention that SoS is a long-time OCX server.

>

> Again, how is this any different from any other time a server has been in T1? BG and SoS play the way they do no matter what the third server in T1 is. The only time T1 has been different in recent memory is when the third server has had some sort of bandwagon and we will see that again next match when SoR returns to T1.

 

There is a definite difference, other servers may mainly play on EB but will defend objectives on other BLs if required. FA used to in ocx time but now they will only stick to EB and completely ignore objectives on other BLs just like Mag used to do.

[LetoII.3782]

Considering FA will be trading places with SoR this Friday... Keep PPTing SoS, you can do it! (Until Friday, after Wich you most certainly won't be doing it. See you in t2)

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"shiri.4257" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > =) less talk in forum more wvw.

>

> WvW ded game. stacking and cordial pvf is end game. please achieve.

 

it's relative to the person =) so yes, it is dead to you who claim it to be.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"shiri.4257" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > =) less talk in forum more wvw.

>

> WvW ded game. stacking and cordial pvf is end game. please achieve.

 

lots of claims here. whats your basis?

 

:)

 

 

[Chaba.5410]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> Again irrelevant. You mention a reply that is about ocx which is another person, you quoted my post which didn't specific a timezone.

 

Are you serious?! I was responding to morroIan before you chimed in the very next post to say essentially the same thing he did. You don't get to jump in the middle of a conversation and ignore what was previously posted. The switch to talking about SEA was you. You don't even say how big these SEA guilds are (purposeful obfuscation?) and if you look at the wvwstats site it shows FA SEA timezone behind both BG and SoS. So clearly they aren't out there playing a nightcapping game against those servers.

 

Then you want to say that data of the past is irrelevant but this is match is exactly the same as a few past matches between BG, SoS, and FA with my addition that a few other servers have also experienced a match against BG and SoS with the same pattern. The one match where BG, SoS, and FA had a closer match was when a certain late night BG havoc guild appeared to be taking a break and wasn't pvdooring redbl constantly. You just don't seem interested in exploring that pattern at all and would rather narrow the scope down constantly until the data fits your idea. Use a bigger dataset.

 

 

 

 

[Trajan.4953]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > Again irrelevant. You mention a reply that is about ocx which is another person, you quoted my post which didn't specific a timezone.

>

> Are you serious?! I was responding to morroIan before you chimed in the very next post to say essentially the same thing he did. You don't get to jump in the middle of a conversation and ignore what was previously posted. The switch to talking about SEA was you. You don't even say how big these SEA guilds are (purposeful obfuscation?) and if you look at the wvwstats site it shows FA SEA timezone behind both BG and SoS. So clearly they aren't out there playing a nightcapping game against those servers.

>

> Then you want to say that data of the past is irrelevant but this is match is exactly the same as a few past matches between BG, SoS, and FA with my addition that a few other servers have also experienced a match against BG and SoS with the same pattern. The one match where BG, SoS, and FA had a closer match was when a certain late night BG havoc guild appeared to be taking a break and wasn't pvdooring redbl constantly. You just don't seem interested in exploring that pattern at all and would rather narrow the scope down constantly until the data fits your idea. Use a bigger dataset.

>

>

>

>

 

Damn Chaba....

 

Good to see you back! So few of us left:)

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

almost like FA took on a bunch of MAG or something.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > Again irrelevant. You mention a reply that is about ocx which is another person, you quoted my post which didn't specific a timezone.

>

> Are you serious?! I was responding to morroIan before you chimed in the very next post to say essentially the same thing he did. You don't get to jump in the middle of a conversation and ignore what was previously posted. The switch to talking about SEA was you. You don't even say how big these SEA guilds are (purposeful obfuscation?) and if you look at the wvwstats site it shows FA SEA timezone behind both BG and SoS. So clearly they aren't out there playing a nightcapping game against those servers.

>

> Then you want to say that data of the past is irrelevant but this is match is exactly the same as a few past matches between BG, SoS, and FA with my addition that a few other servers have also experienced a match against BG and SoS with the same pattern. The one match where BG, SoS, and FA had a closer match was when a certain late night BG havoc guild appeared to be taking a break and wasn't pvdooring redbl constantly. You just don't seem interested in exploring that pattern at all and would rather narrow the scope down constantly until the data fits your idea. Use a bigger dataset.

 

Apparently you don't play off hours. Having a large seas presence, not less say is 4 + 2 guilds, it will spill over to neighboring timezones. This is why I mentioned off hours and not specific a timezone but when I do specific a timezone, you don't seem to realize the spillover. Regardless the accuracy and how vague of what I am saying. morrolan already mentioned OCX is playing like mag and I said SEA too is playing like mag. Those alone should tell you enough that both timezones are the same kind of players. Furthermore, wvwstats data for most part is rubbish. Likewise, Data A is not the same as Data B since there are already notable differences; the number of sea guilds and FA always hold smc while bl losing things.

 

I understand that FA is your server and you get very defensive about it. However, this is nothing personal. Afterall, fact doesn't care about your feelings. Nobody like stacked servers and apparently, little mention how stacked FA SEA is and the worst part is they playing like, hugging ebg hard.

[JoEWas.1409]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

 

You just all kinds of assume anso much about a server you throwing much SALT at....Plus you are on HoD, a host server currently being dwarfed by a **OVERLY STACKED LINKED** server. fact.

 

Can't wait for the SoR alliance to be broken up and HoD goes back to being a 3rd rate server.

[shiri.4257]

Comon lads lets show your server pride 2013!

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"JoEWas.1409" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

>

> You just all kinds of assume anso much about a server you throwing much SALT at....Plus you are on HoD, a host server currently being dwarfed by a **OVERLY STACKED LINKED** server. fact.

>

> Can't wait for the SoR alliance to be broken up and HoD goes back to being a 3rd rate server.

 

Sad, I assume you have forgotten how HOD keep floating up to T2 without SOR last link while being medium at times.

 

Anyway, I guess server pride is much more important than population balance, that is why we have wvw as it is today.

 

Keep stack and bandwagon peeps, keep destroying wvw as it is.

 

PS: Just because there is one big evil, doesn't mean the lesser evil isn't evil anymore.

[JoEWas.1409]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

>

> Sad, I assume you have forgotten how HOD keep floating up to T2 without SOR last link while being medium at times.

>

> Anyway, I guess server pride is much more important than population balance, that is why we have wvw as it is today.

>

> Keep stack and bandwagon peeps, keep destroying wvw as it is.

>

> PS: Just because there is one big evil, doesn't mean the lesser evil isn't evil anymore.

 

Sad I assume how you forgotten and discredit the 2 links HoD has always needed to "float" up to T2. BG and SoS have met our same SEA players with blobs and have more players actively across other maps, including redBL and you discredit any stats showing BG and SoS having higher activity.

 

And the problem on SoR right now is what is wrong with wvw and destroying it in the current server style, not 3 guilds that have been on FA's SEA population for awhile and a new guild that just recently joined. If your vendetta is with stacking then you should transfer off of the server hosting the bandwagon stacking server. But you would never do that I assume. So get out of here with the hypocritical garbage trying to point blame away from the glaring problem taking place in your own linking right now.

 

Waiting on your response because you need to have the last statement so I can ignore it. :+1:

[Chaba.5410]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > Again irrelevant. You mention a reply that is about ocx which is another person, you quoted my post which didn't specific a timezone.

> >

> > Are you serious?! I was responding to morroIan before you chimed in the very next post to say essentially the same thing he did. You don't get to jump in the middle of a conversation and ignore what was previously posted. The switch to talking about SEA was you. You don't even say how big these SEA guilds are (purposeful obfuscation?) and if you look at the wvwstats site it shows FA SEA timezone behind both BG and SoS. So clearly they aren't out there playing a nightcapping game against those servers.

> >

> > Then you want to say that data of the past is irrelevant but this is match is exactly the same as a few past matches between BG, SoS, and FA with my addition that a few other servers have also experienced a match against BG and SoS with the same pattern. The one match where BG, SoS, and FA had a closer match was when a certain late night BG havoc guild appeared to be taking a break and wasn't pvdooring redbl constantly. You just don't seem interested in exploring that pattern at all and would rather narrow the scope down constantly until the data fits your idea. Use a bigger dataset.

>

> Apparently you don't play off hours. Having a large seas presence, not less say is 4 + 2 guilds, it will spill over to neighboring timezones. This is why I mentioned off hours and not specific a timezone but when I do specific a timezone, you don't seem to realize the spillover. Regardless the accuracy and how vague of what I am saying. morrolan already mentioned OCX is playing like mag and I said SEA too is playing like mag. Those alone should tell you enough that both timezones are the same kind of players. Furthermore, wvwstats data for most part is rubbish. Likewise, Data A is not the same as Data B since there are already notable differences; the number of sea guilds and FA always hold smc while bl losing things.

>

> I understand that FA is your server and you get very defensive about it. However, this is nothing personal. Afterall, fact doesn't care about your feelings. Nobody like stacked servers and apparently, little mention how stacked FA SEA is and the worst part is they playing like, hugging ebg hard.

 

And yet WvWstats data is valid when comparing the three servers in a match since it is based on match data!

 

You keep bringing up the number of SEA guilds without including their size. Facts cannot be an explanation of anything when other facts are left out. The stats site shows that both BG and SOS have a larger presence than FA during SEA. Moreover, those guilds aren't starting from a strong (fortified) position objective-wise when they start playing which always puts them at a disadvantage, another fact you are leaving out.

 

But I'm not here to explain how WvW works to you, only here to say that the pattern that happens in a BG/SoS T1 match if the third server doesn't have enough to fend off both servers is not unique at all. When Mag had the population and coverage to fend both servers off, we saw how BG crumpled. DB in my earlier screenshot didn't. And when players notice this after the first few days, they don't care to bother because there is no point to doing so. That isn't "playing like Mag". That's a consistent pattern in a match against two PPT-focused servers that are both content with their own status quo between each other.

 

Now your server is the one that is super-stacked and will break that pattern as Mag did before. Let's also call it "playing like Mag".

[Chaba.5410]

> @"MaLeVoLenT.8129" said:

> almost like FA took on a bunch of MAG or something.

 

So did SoS.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"JoEWas.1409" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> >

> > Sad, I assume you have forgotten how HOD keep floating up to T2 without SOR last link while being medium at times.

> >

> > Anyway, I guess server pride is much more important than population balance, that is why we have wvw as it is today.

> >

> > Keep stack and bandwagon peeps, keep destroying wvw as it is.

> >

> > PS: Just because there is one big evil, doesn't mean the lesser evil isn't evil anymore.

>

> Sad I assume how you forgotten and discredit the 2 links HoD has always needed to "float" up to T2. BG and SoS have met our same SEA players with blobs and have more players actively across other maps, including redBL and you discredit any stats showing BG and SoS having higher activity.

>

> And the problem on SoR right now is what is wrong with wvw and destroying it in the current server style, not 3 guilds that have been on FA's SEA population for awhile and a new guild that just recently joined. If your vendetta is with stacking then you should transfer off of the server hosting the bandwagon stacking server. But you would never do that I assume. So get out of here with the hypocritical garbage trying to point blame away from the glaring problem taking place in your own linking right now.

>

> Waiting on your response because you need to have the last statement so I can ignore it. :+1:

 

And I assume that you forgotten you are a "Very High" server and then become a "Full" server with a "Medium" link, then you compare our link of 1 High (Medium to High to Medium and back to High) and 2 other medium server. Really?

 

3 guilds for awhile? Lol, the two of them were there for awhile no doubt but not so for the 3rd one who went to stack there. Then, now we have another one stacking there. If you think that people gonna keep quiet until a 2nd JQ's "we need more sea" server is created, then, you are in the wrong forum.