Showing Posts For SickDelirium.3956:
1) People getting skipped in the queue and can’t requeue because NPC says you’re still queued.
2) Sometimes 2 contestants will be placed in the same gauntlet with 2 enemies.
I only left in your response what was relevant.
You do it because it is challenging. Because it takes skill. Because it is rewarding to beat people who outnumber you.
It’s not that hard to grasp.
1) Thanks for admitting you outnumbered them. It’s an admission that it’s not really a fair fight.
2) You’re right; it is rewarding to beat people who outnumber you. And they did beat you. DR is mad they didn’t try a tactic that was more likely to lose.
There’s a fun aspect of open field combat with no siege to weigh down a side. It wouldn’t bother people so much if you didn’t do it every time. However every single fight zerg on zerg you guys flash build siege like clockwork, first thing you do. It just gets old after a while, and when our only move is to change positions away from your siege it is frustrating. Nobody likes staring at each other for 15 minutes awaiting a fight that takes 30 seconds.
There aren’t any roaming grsoups interested in even fights, and when we go to your BL looking for enemies every single player is balled up tight on the commander, and you choose to waypoint instead of fight. I understand that is the tactic the game mechanics suggest and we even use them sometimes. It’s just the total dislike of open field combat that IoJ has, it brings boring fights and a boring matchup.
I understand it’s a PPT game, but surely we can’t be the only ones who like large scale open field combat.
You talk like DR was in IoJ BL looking for an open field fight. Let’s be honest: DR was there to flip objectives for PPT, so complaining about the lack of an open field fight rings very hollow. If IoJ went there to stop you, they’re in a much better position than you to say they were looking for a fight (because they knew where DR was), even though they honestly were probably there for PPT too.
If both sides felt they had an advantage fighting in the open field, then the fight would’ve happened. But if one side doesn’t, then it doesn’t happen. So in that context, your criticism is basically that they didn’t fight you when they think they’re at a disadvantage. To which, the response of “why the kitten would I do that?” was appropriate.
If you really think that it would have been a fair fight and IoJ didn’t, then you should take that as a compliment and move on.
To DR as a whole:
Siege (including ACs and Ballis) is a mechanic of WvW. If you don’t like it, go to sPvP. My goal isn’t to have a glorious charge with nothing but an even or outnumbered zerg against my enemies. My goal is to win / make others lose. So, why would I stop using siege on you all when it kills you & caps your assets more efficiently than banging my face against you? Isn’t that also something you complain about (PvDooring)? Don’t act like you all don’t take advantage of WvW mechanics in an effort of “fairness”.
This.
Basically, half of the criticisms in these threads can be boiled down to something like this:
Q: “Why don’t you fight in a way more advantageous to me?”
Correct answer: “Lol. No.”
And whether you want to admit it or not, your NA primetime has received a significant boost since we last faced you, whether it is transfers, your uplevel zergs finally hitting 80, or increased PvE involvement, you easily put up similar numbers to DR during NA primetime now.
Pfft, I’ll admit that IoJ has more during NA primetime now; fair is fair. We definitely don’t have the outmanned buff nearly as much anymore, if at all. But the fact that you KNOW that we used to have fewer numbers just reflects badly on you since you apparently had no problem talking smack back then about a server you outmanned. Now we’ve got more players to play you on a more even footing and we’re roflstomping you in points, but can you take the loss like man? No. Instead, you kittening whine about night capping. What a steaming load of kitten.
But you know what? Keep telling yourselves this matchup doesn’t matter. Or that you don’t care about points (though the amount of debate in this thread over whether this matchup was fair or whether the win means anything suggests you actually care a lot). Whatever helps you preserve your fragile egos.
Lol you guys,
We’re not WINNING because of our Oceanics, we simply have a 45k lead on you because of them.
It takes both NA and Oceanic to keep the PPT up and stay in the lead.
QFT.
If people wanna QQ about night capping, go complain to ANet. They’re the ones who decided to allow it.
Ya, thats definitely 21 people. 10 seconds before the tail end of them made orange swords killing one DR.
Actually, yes. It looks like about 20 people. It takes 25 to pop orange swords, and 21 + pugs is consistent with your evidence. I think you should work on your estimation skills.
Why would you want to rank server higher for not playing WvW?
Because I believe that the number of people who happen to WvW on your server should be irrelevant to your score.
Also, fixing disproportionate server populations does not guarantee a server would be ranked higher. It just makes the matchups less about who has more people and more about other things like strategy, coordination, supply management, etc. Even with a different outmanned buff, the server might still be terrible at WvW.
(edited by SickDelirium.3956)
What happens if your server is constantly outmanned? Yes, you lose the matchup and fall to lower tier after a week. Then your server is no longer outmanned.
You seem to think that the servers are of similar average population within each tier; this is incorrect. There are tiers with little movement and where servers are regularly outmanned every week.
If you give the outmanned server handicaps, it will stay in the tier where it does not belong. So week after week the server is outmanned and hovering up there only because of the handicap.
Who says it does not belong in the tier? The entire point of the gripe about average server populations is that ranking is based, in large part, on average WvW population and that it is not “fair.”
What if you played a game of chess where pieces randomly appeared on the board and there was no guarantee both sides would have the same number of pieces? What if there were no limit to the number of players on a football field? Obviously, the side with more players or pieces is much more likely to win. Would you call such games “fair”? This is largely how people on regularly outmanned servers feel.
Average WvW population is almost completely outside the control of the WvW players, and yet it has a significant effect on how the server performs in the matchup. If ANet did a regression to see just how much average WvW population affects performance in WvW, I suspect they would find that it is one of the best predictors of WvW score.
So to bring this back around, why should a server not belong in a tier merely because of average WvW population? It can be based on a host of other things that are much more within the control of each WvW player, group, or guild like coordination, strategy, supply management, and gear (though ANet tends to disfavor creating gear differentials I think). Basing rankings on which server happened to get lucky when players were picking home servers or which servers suffered or benefited from a mass exodus is silly.
Sidenote: I’d also like to point out that if there was an outmanned buff, it would also probably solve a fair portion of the night-capping phenomena people complain about, which is essentially “we’re outmanned at night and it’s not fair.” IMO, the outmanned issue and night-capping issue are two sides of the same coin: disproportionate WvW populations.
2) It’s extremely detrimental to gameplay. A team should never actually STRIVE to be outmanned in order to gain bonuses.
This is highly debatable. It is arguably much more detrimental to gameplay when one server in a match-up is constantly outmanned. If every encounter is 30 v 10, people cease to play WvW because of it. And there actually would be little incentive to seek the buff if it does what is intended: equalize. If it truly equalizes, then there is no incentive to seek the buff because it isn’t an advantage. Example: golfers don’t intentionally seek handicaps.
People complaining about zergs in a WvW game is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever came across. What do you expect everybody to do? Run around solo accomplishing nothing? Zergs make WvW fun for many, many people. I don’t think this game should hold your hand to make it so it’s “fair and fun” for you.
Instead, make those zergs manageable by reducing culling and making small-man play more powerful versus those zergs. Only then will outmanned buff not be a problem.
Let’s be clear, zergs are fun when the matchups are even. Getting rolled constantly is only fun for the roller, never for the rollee. The question is how to better equalize matchups and the only thing I would agree with you on is finding a way for smaller groups to be more powerful versus zergs. A stat-based outmanned buff is just one way to do that, but I’m sure it’s not the only way if the devs brainstorm hard enough.