Guild Wars 2

IF it were only a couple minutes then I would not mind. But it is not. It is a huge patch and on top of that it is crashing on me. Very poor timing indeed.

I was hoping I was right about the geology. Psychology “was completely out of the realm of probable statistics”.

I am glad you have such a nice career going for you. You should provide for your children well. And don’t worry about the Ph.D drop out. Many people don’t make it and yet prove to be great scientists. Being an specialized internet tech guy is kinda cool.

I have to say though, my favorite part is the weight lifter. Do you put that on your curriculum vitae?

2nd Armor Division, Fort Hood eh? Nice. They have not been around for 18 years. You must have served quite a while ago.

Edit: bah, you deleted your post. I think everyone would have enjoyed it.

Side note: My parents were poor. I used the good o’ GI Bill to pay for my collage.

mcl.9240:

1. By admission, I didn’t read “much past” your first statement. Which is different than my “only” having read the first statement. Subsequent posts I’ve made more than demonstrate that I did, in fact, read and address your entire post, and raised points you’ve yet to address.

2. Could you please restate that in comprehensible English?

3. Your very first statement, which is present as support for your entire argument, makes exactly such a claim.

4. Specious. See 1.

4(ii) (sic; should be 5). I see your issue with rampant assumptions carries through here as well. You might want to have that seen to; it doesn’t serve you well.

It’s been an interesting exchange, to be sure. Which university is taking your hard-earned (parents’) money? I’d like to know who to avoid hiring in the future.

1- Yes you did demonstrate you read the rest of my post, but did not offer a counter argument at all to borderland instances. You just keep arguing with the “many people” statement, which has little to do with my argument on instances.

2- Can’t follow the statement? Must be a geologist. :P I would hate to think a physicist, chemist or mathematician does not know what a basis is.

3- My first statement is not support for my argument on instances. Just informing the reader the what the post is addressing.

4- Thanks for the corrections. I could probably get you a job with the rest of our document reviewers. (You are making this too easy, friend. )

I am a computational physicist. I got my Ph.D in particle physics. You?

Kiviar.7063:

I like how this thread has spiraled in to two people trying to out do each other with faux academia.

Mods may as well lock it now.

You are probably right, but we can try to enjoy it while it lasts? Oh I do love a good verbal fray!!

mcl.9240:

Bisben.5392:

mcl.9240:

Bisben.5392:

mcl.9240:

Bisben.5392:

“Many eat at McDonald’s. That doesn’t mean it’s good for you, either.” -mcl.924

Not sure how this statement is relevant.

“Many complain about the population imbalance allowing one server to push out the other two in the borderlands. " -bisben.5392

SCIENCE!

I am a scientist. I am not sure you understand the word. In fact, from your comment I am not sure you even made it past my first sentence.

As am I. Multiply-published, in many peer-reviewed journals in my field, as well as several book chapters.

I’m not certain you understand the meme.

You’re right; I didn’t make it much past your first sentence. I saw no need to. Any argument that starts with “many believe”, “the consensus here is” and so forth isn’t worthy of much, if any, attention. Arguing from a standpoint of being supported by the amorphous and invisible “many” is a sure sign of a weak position.

You then proceed to argue for a mechanic that, at first blush, is similar to DAoC’s Darkness Falls, minus all the mechanics of DF that actually made it a functional part of DAoC. You also assume that every player in WvWvW that unlocks that instance will be in, or even want to be in, that instance.

You assume incorrectly.

And you do so on the backs of the “many” who I’m sure all support you privately. Thanks, but no thanks.

Say, you didn’t happen to have any first-author publications where that was the basis for your thesis, did you? I’d love to read them; I could use a good laugh.

To be published is indeed nice (I am as well), however it does not strengthen your argument.

First, your assumption that my first sentence was the thesis of my post is wrong. It was a primer. I was just offering a way to address the concern of many in this game (a measurable presence).

Secondly, your statement was sufficient by not necessary. Meaning, “many feeling a way does not mean it is good”, does satisfy yours and my statements, however it is not required by mine. This means your argument is just arbitrary, and you are just trolling. :-P

First, I never said that the first sentence was your thesis. I said it was the basis for your argument. You might want to revisit the difference between the two with your advisor, as I’m not even certain you’re out of school yet.

Secondly (sic), I agree, it’s not required by your basis. However, you entirely missed the point, which was: arguing from the basis of “many believe” is not proper argumentation, and provides poor (some would say ‘no’) support for anything that follows.

Finally, you misuse the term ‘trolling’. It is not merely ‘anyone who disagrees with you’. Were I trolling, I might — for example — highlight your atrocious use of language, for someone supposedly published as a scientist. However, I did not do that.

You might want to quit this argument. Each time you respond you more prove my point.

1- By admission, you originally only read my first statement. So at that point, you could only assume that was my thesis.

2- Basis is included within any thesis statement, or quickly in follow up same paragraph sentences. In the case of a forum post, it would be safe to assume it is in the thesis statement.

3- None of my posted relied on “many believe”. It was just a statement that informed a causal reader the perceived problem on the forums and in the game [map] chats, before I offered a solution.

4- Your initial argument only depends on an irrelevant “history lesson” I was offering, since you only read the first sentence. Therefore, any argument you offer now is just to save face.

4- From your post: “Say, you didn’t happen to have any first-author publications where that was the basis for your thesis, did you? I’d love to read them; I could use a good laugh” Does convince me you are indeed a scientist (probably a Ph.D or doctoral student) with the arrogance. But because of your hasty conclusions and poor reasoning, I am forced to assume you are either an inexperienced scientist or an extremely well established one, who no longer needs to prove his points or read others work. By your unusual hostility on these posts I assume you are a younger man and the former possibility is more probable.

Good day.

mcl.9240:

Bisben.5392:

mcl.9240:

Bisben.5392:

“Many eat at McDonald’s. That doesn’t mean it’s good for you, either.” -mcl.924

Not sure how this statement is relevant.

“Many complain about the population imbalance allowing one server to push out the other two in the borderlands. " -bisben.5392

SCIENCE!

I am a scientist. I am not sure you understand the word. In fact, from your comment I am not sure you even made it past my first sentence.

As am I. Multiply-published, in many peer-reviewed journals in my field, as well as several book chapters.

I’m not certain you understand the meme.

You’re right; I didn’t make it much past your first sentence. I saw no need to. Any argument that starts with “many believe”, “the consensus here is” and so forth isn’t worthy of much, if any, attention. Arguing from a standpoint of being supported by the amorphous and invisible “many” is a sure sign of a weak position.

You then proceed to argue for a mechanic that, at first blush, is similar to DAoC’s Darkness Falls, minus all the mechanics of DF that actually made it a functional part of DAoC. You also assume that every player in WvWvW that unlocks that instance will be in, or even want to be in, that instance.

You assume incorrectly.

And you do so on the backs of the “many” who I’m sure all support you privately. Thanks, but no thanks.

Say, you didn’t happen to have any first-author publications where that was the basis for your thesis, did you? I’d love to read them; I could use a good laugh.

To be published is indeed nice (I am as well), however it does not strengthen your argument.

First, your assumption that my first sentence was the thesis of my post is wrong. It was a primer. I was just offering a way to address the concern of many in this game (a measurable presence).

Secondly, your statement was sufficient by not necessary. Meaning, “many feeling a way does not mean it is good”, does satisfy yours and my statements, however it is not required by mine. This means your argument is just arbitrary, and you are just trolling. :-P

mcl.9240:

Bisben.5392:

“Many eat at McDonald’s. That doesn’t mean it’s good for you, either.” -mcl.924

Not sure how this statement is relevant.

“Many complain about the population imbalance allowing one server to push out the other two in the borderlands. " -bisben.5392

SCIENCE!

I am a scientist. I am not sure you understand the word. In fact, from your comment I am not sure you even made it past my first sentence.

Kiviar.7063:

Bisben.5392:

Also, the map is already all the enemy color. This is a suggestion on how to get the weaker servers a chance to take it back without punishing the winners.

I don’t understand how you can think limiting one side’s score generation will make the side which was already horribly beaten, not lose as badly the second time. I suggest you come down to the bottom six servers and take a look at what its like to have your map taken in one night.

Also I assume the linking maps thing was referring to how Planetside 1 arranged its map, which would probably help the population problem quite a bit.

I don’t think you read my whole post. The losing server is already lost. You can’t force people to stay on your server or even to transfer to it. Locking the servers could only help a little.

I am just suggesting how a losing server can gain a chance to fight fewer opponents, even if only for a short time. Yes they will lose again when the instance is closed. It is better than an empty WvW borderland.

Also, several severs with nobody in WvWvW are full (they have plenty of PvE players). Sometimes you just need to offer some incentive for the majority of the server populace to join in.

“Many eat at McDonald’s. That doesn’t mean it’s good for you, either.” -mcl.924

Not sure how this statement is relevant.

You both read wrong. I said lock their points (meaning where their points were at, not zero) so they don’t have to worry about leaving the Borderland.

Also, the map is already all the enemy color. This is a suggestion on how to get the weaker servers a chance to take it back without punishing the winners.

People don’t queue WvW to stand outside of spawns. To just hit players, you can do Spvp. People do WvW to take keeps and objectives or protect them. I think you either need to have map resets or give the winning team something else to do while they wait for losing side take some things back. Those who don’t want to do instances can stay and defend, but with fewer on your side. And how much time do people waste on the pve events and jumping puzzles in Borderlands?

Linking all the maps will not fix the population problem at all. Sometimes the less populated servers just focus on one Borderland because that is all they have numbers for. Linking all the borderlands takes that away from them.

Very cool fight! That must have been fun to organize.

Many complain about the population imbalance allowing one server to push out the other two in the borderlands. Some people suggest adding population balancing (make queue worse on the full servers). Others suggest giving the buffs to the losing teams instead of the winning (wow, really?). Resetting the borderlands every 8 hours would give people more things to take or defend, but still does not fix the population imbalance.

I would suggest adding a 5 to 15 man 3-hr instance you can unlock in each borderland when you control everything. When it is unlocked that sides score accumulation is locked, while the other sides can still go up and down. This reduces the population significantly on the winning side (even from other borderlands when they see a borderland instance unlocked) and allows the other servers to earn back some of the map for a few hours. They would have to make the keep and towers on the instanced team side locked to stop the other side from a free full cap.

The less populated servers could focus on one borderland to try to unlock one of the 4 instances. Cool looking armor could be motivation for more of the PvE players to participate in WvWvW.

Just my thoughts.