Iris Ng.9845 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 BG lost about 4-5 guilds since the beginning of the year. It would be cool to see new blood and play with new allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 > @"Iris Ng.9845" said: > BG lost about 4-5 guilds since the beginning of the year. It would be cool to see new blood and play with new allies. i feel you. can't wait for this alliance thing to happen. so allies can work something out. for now, in my mind, that's not the case since it's still the existing system, which is linking. we don't have server resets to break and remake on a new server, the only option is to jump to a new server and rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapasmurf.5623 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 inb4 thread closed :trollface: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMelody.6398 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > @"Optimator.3589" said: > > Suppose for a moment that the threshold for a server to be full is 2500 players. Server A has 2732 players that got in before it locked. Server Z has 4821 players that successfully overstacked onto it. Both servers are full, but A gets a link while Z does not. Now why do you think that may be? > > It is a matter of consistency. If previously they chose not to give full servers a link, why are they doing it now? It is not like the previous full servers not any way lesser than BG. If anet is not showing consistency, then it simply means they are not basing their decision on any fixed set of principles. It is good as they doing it because they can. "Full" <> "gets no link", and Anet has never claimed it as such. The pop rankings were in place long before the link system. As the example pointed out, with Full being a threshhold whose purpose is to stop transfers in (not to prevent links), for the highest tier, there could be a significant variance among servers who meet that threshhold. This is not a matter of inconsistency on Anet's part, it's a matter of trying to twist a label meant for one purpose into meanings it never had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 we could request a disclosure of all server's ranking based on activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Well as always one of the great problems with these sorts of threads is that the only people willing to give bg the benefit of the doubt are bg players. This degree of cynicism is well earned imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapasmurf.5623 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 BG = 1st world problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majic Man.8354 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Share Posted September 1, 2018 > @"Djamonja.6453" said: > You have won the first 2 skirmishes with a 3.1 KDR, I don't know that you need a link. > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > o.o they are beating us. and tc. why the qq. > > clearly, they dont need the link > > https://wvwstats.com/na yes for now we are but wait till later in the week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liston.9708 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Did I see a complaint that bg lost 4-5 guilds this year? Ask JQ, YB, and others that lost that in 1day (multiple times) to the pseudo alliances. Not a complaint just pointing out 4-5 guilds over the year is nothing in a 6 year old game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Moderator.5907 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 We are closing this thread as Match Up Threads are not allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts