Guild Wars 2

I didn’t see any advantage in the Function Gyro stomp since another player was able to run over to a downed player and stomp him faster than the Function Gyro executed its stomp. :/

They didn’t enable the enhanced squad ui yet. The fix after midnight Pacific last night was for commanders getting locked out of the game with a network error when changing maps in WvW with a squad active.

Hammer Engi is fun. It feels weird to be able to be so aggressive on my engi without having to rely on certain other melee-oriented boons from my group. Let’s be honest that the melee playstyle overall is fun. Ranged style/pirate shipping isn’t as fun, which is why we saw a lot of complaints by melee players to the stability change. Hammer Engi is more fun without the gyros. :/

Chris Cleary.8017:

The new build is live

Huzzah!

I had deleted the local.dat file and then waited over 10m. Back in finally.

Chris Cleary.8017:

ETA on Fix: Soon

Soon™

;)

I appreciate that you guys are up working on this.

“How Gyros perform under regular Arrow Cart fire”

Sneak Gyro chases after players who attack it. Medic Gyro seems to want to follow it Sneak Gyro (healing it?).

Yea, I agree. Don’t want this thread buried.

SEA is starting to get active. If you are a SEA player returning for HoT, consider joining FEAR, Dx, or GK.

Bump!!!

Join these guys before HoT!

You might try out [IA] Insomniacs Anonymous. http://insomniacs-anonymous.com/

Tongku.5326:

Chaba.5410:

TL;DR: Map queue shows 23 but allows player in instantly.

TL;DR2: 40 peeps max on map but its qued and no one can get it while facing confirmed double map ques from opponent servers.

You missed the primary, the secondary which you pointed out may or may not be related to it, perhaps via some sort of bug / delay in counting / determining que position and wether to let someone in or not ?

I understand its quite a read, cause I tried to provide lots of concrete info regarding buggy behavior and you got lost in it, but it’d be nice if you corrected your TL;DR.

I just TLDR’d what stuck out as obvious bug. :/

When people say there is a queue and only 30 on tag and that proves its bugged, I usually ignore it TBH. It is really difficult to get a full accounting of how many are actually on map because so many people tend to think it is just themselves off doing something else. Might check for AFK-ers in the jumping puzzle though…

Latorn.4209:

I’m certain that many WvW guilds that are on FULL servers would still love to have the ability to recruit new members. However they are unable to, due to the costs of transferring a whole guild to a new server.

That’s a fallacy. It is more difficult to recruit players that are already on your own server, but not impossible, especially with so many players coming back to the game on the server you are already on. Take the time to recruit in PvE maps too. That’s been the largest source of new recruits for a friend’s WvW guild. She’s starting to expand her WvW rally days too. And with newer players going to be checking out the new borderland map at HoT, you’ll have another avenue to recruit from.

TL;DR: Map queue shows 23 but allows player in instantly.

coglin.1867:

find something to either solve your perceived issue, that does not treat various players differently based on their life and when it allows them playtime.

How does the current system treat various players equally based on their normal playtime? You have never answered that question.

BrickFurious.7169:

coglin.1867:

BrickFurious.7169:

He never said anything about whether the scoring system in WvW is “fair” or not. All he said is that competition in WvW isn’t fair, and linked to a dev blog post explaining that it was never designed to be (I think most of us in this thread understand and even like this aspect of WvW). He then stated that pure PPT scoring, what we have now, is a good fit for completely fair competition design like sPvP, and a not-so-good fit for “unfair” WvW (that was the only claim he made).

Chaba’s analogy of how “nightcapping” in WvW is like losing a player due to a disconnect in sPvP works perfectly at highlighting a flaw of pure PPT when applied to WvW scoring. Of course it isn’t a perfect analogy because there are buffers in WvW — gates and walls, siege, larger maps — that allow an outmanned team to survive and generate points from objectives they own longer than they would in sPvP. But in the kind of nightcapping people complain about (such as being outnumbered 30 to 2 on a map), those buffers don’t tend to last very long.

That’s all fine and dandy but that doesn’t mean we should replace the current system with a worse one, that is bias and segregating bt having different score systems for different hours of the day.

The problrm, as I see it, is that you two are repeatedly arguing against those who disagree with you, instead of offering good suggestion to find something to either solve your perceived issue, that does not treat various players differently based on their life and when it allows them playtime.

Uh, I’ve already agreed with you previously in the thread that a proper solution shouldn’t treat players differently based on when they play. And I offered an example of a proper solution too. Did you miss my post? Here it is:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WVW-Man-Power-Balance/page/2#post5548935

Of course he didn’t see any suggestions because he was too busy arguing about terminology.

BrickFurious.7169:

The problem is that your idea involves the handicap for scoring to change dynamically. So if two servers X and Y are facing a server Z that has a strong night presence, rather than playing, they are better off not playing…

Sadly, that already happens under the current system. The quicker a server with the stronger presence can be allowed to PPT and gain Glicko rating by players on the other two servers not playing, the faster that server will be out of the weaker servers’ hair.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Interesting how they very specifically stated that WvW isn’t intended to be FAIR, and you use that as your argument to incorrectly claim the scoring system needs to be changed, because you do not think it is “fair”

This just proved your reasoning for your own argument to be pointless, because you stated, and provided an official statement proving it is working as intended.

What fine reasoning skills you have! Can you please explain this post to me? https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Invitational-Statement-from-John-Corpening-game-director-for-World-vs-World/first#post5350913

I don’t get it where he says, “Hand in hand with population imbalance is scoring. The current scoring structure allows scores to run away…” Maybe you can help explain? The scoring system is completely fine and doesn’t need to be changed, as you and coglin have so eloquently argued. Like, what is ArenaNet thinking? Why would they think the scoring system needs to be improved? They said very specifically that WvW isn’t intended to be fair and that proves that the scoring system doesn’t need to be changed!

lioka qiao.8734:

The current system is simple. It’s not effective though. Currently:
- You have to guess at how much supply you have. Do you have enough for rams at stonemist? The extra ram can be the difference between a capture and a wipe.
- You don’t know your zerg size or composition. Now you can know it. This will help you determine if you can win a fight or not.
- You don’t currently know how your zerg is holding up in a fight, instead you end up wondering why everyone’s dead.
- You can’t setup parties for pugs so they miss out boons.
- You can’t issue retreat orders because noone pays attention to the chat screen while fighting.

QFT

Add in the time asking and waiting for players to stack into little groups based on their class so that well-composed parties can be formed.

Sometimes I feel like the people commenting here saying that this Squad UI will increase micromanagement are trolling.

coglin.1867:

You have proof of that? Seems to me that your surmising this with no facts. I have never seem any official statement that said this.

Yes. Here’s the proof:

“At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.”

Written by former WvW dev Devon Carver at archived thread https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Final-solution-for-league-and-transfers/first#post2747282

If you have never seen this, it shows how you are still relatively new to the conversation surrounding a topic that has been tossed around for over 3 years now.

And with that, there’s really no reason to pick apart anything else you wrote since that quote nicely counters everything.

Hopefully, your fine reasoning abilities will be able to lead you towards a conclusion that the WvW scoring system has to align with its design goal, not the design needing to align with the scoring system.

Tongku.5326:

If you have a system based on the number of received transfers vs the actual WVW activity, then the system will grossly over represent the actual population in WVW as it will falsely assume everyone that transferred in will be playing 7 days a week, entire length of their respective prime time, which is extremely not the case.

We don’t know enough about the current system to say how “WvW activity” is being measured to form the rolling average. We don’t know if the guy who logs into WvW to play for 2-3 hours once a week is counted.

coglin.1867:

You have to keep the same scoring system at all times.

The entire scoring system has to be replaced. The scoring system DOES NOT work fine.

Many of you seem to think that “fixing” the population problems is going to solve the problem. It doesn’t because WvW was never meant to be played by teams of equal size.

FACT: The PPT scoring system is used in Conquest mode sPvP where matches are played by two teams of equal size.
INFERENCE: Teams of equal size are the intended use of the scoring system.

FACT: “Night-capping” can be seen in an sPvP match when a team loses one player to a disconnect.
INFERENCE: The other team is allowed to run away with the score.

Just look at the sPvP forum sometime of players qq-ing about matches with disconnects or players who afk at spawn. And it is thought that somehow population in WvW is going to be “fixed” so that the flaws of the scoring system don’t show?

OPINION: The most practical solution is to change the scoring system!

Spurnshadow.3678:

Sounds like this will be a waste for WvW. This is way too much micromanagement for a commander.

No this is great! Maybe you’re used to running with a highly coordinated guild that has class assignments and players who regularly form parties together. More casual groups have to be helped along and it is done with way more manual methods. Squad UI simplifies that all.

It finally connected again. And it’s patching again, this time without the “playable” option.

If the patching hadn’t finished after 20-30m in-game the first time, then it would be nice to have some way to check the status of patching while in-game.

Knew I shouldn’t have logged out after patching…

Connection error(s) detected. Retrying…

Remember this? This was back in the game after the end of free transfers. Mass movement of population was highly unpredictable to the glicko system.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Update-No-WvW-Rating-Reset

“In light of the strong community response to the idea of a WvW ratings reset, the results of our ratings formula investigations, and our data on the current matchups we have decided not to reset the WvW ratings at this time. All existing WvW ratings will be preserved and the rating calculation methodology will remain unchanged. Any existing mismatches should be corrected by the system in relatively short order. Now that there is less volatility in the player base for each world we expect the quality of matches to improve more quickly. This is both because the rating system is operating in a less unpredictable environment and because more stable teams tend to produce better results.”

The only reasoning I could imagine for a rating reset would be due to the unpredictable nature of what kind of population WvW is going to see at HoT. Is ArenaNet predicting that the server populations are going to suddenly wildly fluctuate at HoT? The current WvW population is pretty stable unless free transfers were again offered.

Increasing the match-up variance creates better sampling opportunities between servers within vicinity of each other – and provide much-needed match change-ups – without creating wild blow-out matches that a ratings reset would cause.

There’s a rumor going around that ArenaNet is going to do something major like reset the ratings off servers. Complete speculation as no one has offered any reasoning or proof for their rumor and IMHO it would be highly damaging to player enjoyment of WvW with weirdly matched servers and demoralizing blow-outs. I can’t see ArenaNet doing something like that.

coglin.1867:

The scoring works fine.

Then prove it.

coglin.1867:

Living in Hawaii, the hours after I get off work until I need to go to bed are very very different then those of a player on the east coast, who work the same schedule that I do as far as NA is concerned.

So what? What does that have to do with resolving the flaw in the scoring system? If we call it something else, does that resolve the flaw?

Irenio CalmonHuang.2048:

• Bulwark Gyro has a decent pool of health and low defense. If you and several allies are taking heavy AoE then it is going to die quickly; that is the situation where it should die quickly.

And that’s the same situation where the players should die quickly too. Melee playstyle is characterized, defined by players and several allies taking heavy AoE. Only the players don’t die in that situation if they’re playing smartly and coordinating well as a team, if they’re properly dodging and using other skills that help mitigate or avoid the damage. The AI dies though.

CorrynnStarr.7942:

40+ here… shout out to all the old SWG vets! Computers and gaming started out when I was in my early teens… as in 12-13. Been a gamer ever since the C64… miss that old 64 with the fast load cartridge and an enhancer 2000 floppy drive! (btw for those old SWG dogs, theres an Emu project playable right now. its at www.swgemu.com if your interested!)

ZORK please.

Hokeypokey.2135:

-Do you know any parents that play? She’s in her mid 40s I don’t know if I could get her into games after decades of never playing one. Maybe meeting some friends her age would help shake off the negative stigma she has against video games.

-And my last question is about personal story. Can I just join her in her story with a character that has already completed it? And how much stronger is a down leveled 80 compared to a actual level 10? I don’t want to be just mowing down hordes of enemies before she gets a chance to fight should I just make a new character so I avoid that?

Thanks in advance for the help.

- That’s a really difficult question to answer. If she has not ever had an interest in playing games before she might not now either. The only thing I can say about this is don’t sell it as playing a game. Most of the games she has grown up with were solo games that could sometimes be frustrating if you didn’t know what you were doing or had skill for it. For older people that idea of what a game is can be boring or off-putting. MMOs are better marketed as online social spaces like Skype only there’s a shared activity attached to it. There’s lots of guilds who organize events in-game or are specifically targeted for older players. Highlight those social aspects and de-emphasize the leet gamer skill aspect.

- Yes, you can join in another person’s personal story to help them out. If you don’t want to feel like you are mowing down hordes of enemies for her, then adopt the tactic of only helping out if she’s struggling. Play a support build maybe.

Menadena.7482:

I always sigh when people are shocked at 40+ year-olds using actual gasp computers. Especially playing games, we are supposed to be using MS office and getting our kids to tell us why our email broke right? I bought my first computer and learned how to program it before high school. Ok, not so uncommon now, but try before the mac even existed.

Is it all too hard to believe that I might actually be playing games now? Get off my lawn.

The consumer home computing market exploded in 1977. Kids these days forget that people 40+ were children when that happened. It’s the first generation to grow up having wide access to the first consumer-grade personal computers, the first generation to have “computer lab” and learning BASIC in elementary school, the first generation to grow up socializing via a computer network, and the first generation to play “PC computer games” on the Apple II, Commodore PET, Tandy TRS-80, etc (even first to play console games).

LOL

BrickFurious.7169:

If you want an idea of the direction Anet is likely to go with fixing this issue, look at this thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Scoring-Discussion/first

Likely it will involve some kind of time-sliced scoring, where PPT (but not the map/objectives itself) would reset every X hours, and servers are allocated a certain number of points for placing in 1st, 2nd, 3rd in PPT in each time segment.

For example, every 3 hours they could tally up total PPT accumulated by each server during that time period, and assign the server in first place 5 points, second 3 points, third 2 points (obviously the numbers could be different) toward the total weeklong match score. Then PPT would reset for the next 3 hour cycle, but the maps and all currently owned objectives and upgrades would stay the same.

A result of this is that “nighttime” players still matter a lot, but because they can’t drastically run up the weekly score their time segments are not more valuable points-wise than “primetime” players’ time segments.

This is better than, say, a system that weights PPT based on the amount of population online, because it is less vulnerable to exploitation and doesn’t disincentivise playing (servers that know they’ll be outnumbered could just log off to limit their opponent’s PPT).

Players gonna get what we asked for XD

Inb4 people complain about it.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Scoring-Discussion/page/5#post4477498

coglin.1867:

DaVinci.8073:

From 1am till 7am PPT ticks once per hour. Problem solved.
People can still night cap, but the damage can be easely overcom during the daytime.

1 AM to 7 AM Hawaii–Aleutian Time?

It is irrational to call it night capping if the sun hasn’t set yet.

It would be more constructive to the discussion to stop getting hung up on terminology that’s short-hand for a scoring system flaw when there’s no real alternative name for the flaw. That’s why it continues to be called “night-capping” even though no serious participant in the discussion would disagree that it isn’t actually the middle of the night for those players.

Zynac the Rouge.3829:

I’m wondering if any of you thinkers (I’m serious, you guys are putting out alot of thoughts) have ideas that can solve both problems? Match ups can become unwinnable based on night capping, but server population imbalance is far more potent in making them unwinnable I feel.

Night-capping was always a symptom of design flaws in the PPT scoring system exposed by server population imbalances. A scoring system like PPK + Points per Capture would address some of those flaws. And it really needs to be addressed because the new WvW mechanic with automatically upgrading towers will exacerbate that PPT issue when there’s no opponent around to reset upgrades (as opposed to players having a choice in whether to buy upgrades or not.)

Dawdler.8521:

dancingmonkey.4902:

Well, none of that is factually true, but you state it with a nice level of aver. Your confusing your subjective opinion, with that of objective fact.

So you are saying that 60 people fighting 120 people (all 3 servers duke it out, just for the fun of it) in an enemy garrison for 3 hours of constant battle only to finally cap it, is completely equal to 3 people taking 3 Omega golems and capping it in 10 minutes with absolutely no one defending?

He didn’t say that since he presented no counter-argument to prove what I wrote was opinion. That’s exactly what fact it is though. Three players taking an entire borderland with an omega and holding it for three hours because there is no one to defend or re-cap is worth more in the scoring system than 60 players spending three hours to flip a single waypointed keep that gets retaken within 10 minutes. Notice we don’t even have to specify timezones here? Three people getting more points for their server than sixty simply because of large disparities in population between the three servers in the match at the time they play is a fact.

Here’s subjective opinion: There’s nothing skilled about that, there’s nothing fun about that, and there’s nothing impressive about that.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Chaba.5410:

dancingmonkey.4902:

If you do not like your opponent capping stuff while they have more people on the map at night, then get off your duff, log in, and play at night.

That’s stupid. Game companies do have an interest in having a continuous stream of players logging in, but they also don’t want to kill their customers nor make the game pointless for the time players do have to spend playing it.

No, it isn’t really stupid. It is just as reasonable a comment from folks who work nights, or have families and play at later then prime time hours, as it is for a primarily prime time player to irrationally demand that off peak hour players get less value out of every keep they take.

Chaba.5410:

As was said in John Coperning’s statement: “we don’t want to see players taking days off work or staying up all night expending a huge effort during a time when these issues (night-capping) stand out the most”

Sure no one wants anyone to do that. You appear to be reading more into it, then what was stated though. This statement does not mean prime timers have more value, nor does it mean they will even make any changes relative to it.

It says a lot that you deem anyone’s opinion, as “stupid” for having an opinion opposite of yours. It suggest you do not desire to resolve issues, as much as you want you opinion (which are highly subjective) to be seen as objective fact. Not a very reasonable approach if you ask me.

I called your opinion stupid not because it was opposite of mine, but because it is an unhealthy non-solution. There are players who do stay up or adjust their schedules like that to counter night-capping because they’re heavily invested in their server like that. You are encouraging that unhealthy behavior with your opinion. It deserves to be called stupid and even reckless for exactly that reason.

Moreover, the idea that off peak hour players would somehow get less value out of their keep caps than peak players is wrong. Off peak playtime hours are OVERVALUED right now. It’s the peak players who get less value score-wise out of every keep they take. That needs to be equalized.

dancingmonkey.4902:

If you do not like your opponent capping stuff while they have more people on the map at night, then get off your duff, log in, and play at night.

That’s stupid. Game companies do have an interest in having a continuous stream of players logging in, but they also don’t want to kill their customers nor make the game pointless for the time players do have to spend playing it.

As was said in John Coperning’s statement: “we don’t want to see players taking days off work or staying up all night expending a huge effort during a time when these issues (night-capping) stand out the most”

Arius.7031:

Instead, people here tend to move for community and/or position (that is, they like/know/admire some people or the community of server X, OR they like the position and population of server X).

Arius,

That’s a good way to look at it. That’s not necessarily stacking to be No. 1 nor moving for balance. It kind of encompasses both effects.

Also, us players have imperfect knowledge. It is really difficult to determine exactly how many others are moving to a server and the delays with glicko and now the population status change make it harder. Not everyone pays attention to discussions happening on this forum or the other one nor do they do their due diligence in scoping out their destinations. And glicko is some sort of voodoo that most players don’t understand.

displayname.8315:

Chaba.5410:

Mag doesn’t want T2 because they’ll get badly imbalanced match against the rank 4 server and SoS’s OCX.

Scared to fight outnumbered? Can’t zergbust? Dosen’t know how to kill a tail to force a good fight? All of the above?

OCX timezone never has been about fights I guess. Judging by T2 is all about running from even numbers and full nomads pirate ship combat.

Yea that’s part of it. The combat mechanics don’t exactly help out the smaller force against a larger force. Not saying they should either. There’s other adjustments that could be made, as many have spoken with regards to the outnumbered buff.

Jayne.9251:

Chaba.5410:

Jayne, just because you spent a lot of time early in this game recruiting for TC when TC didn’t need it doesn’t mean everyone else in NA does. You don’t think anyone in NA tells people not to come either? They come anyway!

Chaba.5410:

Xushin buying guilds. Mag for T2 2015.

Chaba.5410:

And lower tier servers also have warchests btw.

Just two quotes, not to cause a fight, just showing you your own examples.

EU servers don’t have war chests.

Well maybe SFR does, but they’re the only ones.

The rest of us kind of just huddle and rock ourselves to sleep whenever a new bouncing batch of bandwagoners arrive. At least they rotate fairly frequently, no cash incentive needed.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même ….

My whole point is players should be accountable and actively try to fix things themselves so they can enjoy greater variety and matches. Instead, it took Anet to step in and force it.

Those examples are not at all inconsistent with the idea that players are seeking balance and not just stacking to be No. 1. You used them without providing any explanation for why you used them. All you’ve done is prove by my examples the kind of things that players actively do to try to fix it so that they get closer matches and not blowouts.

Mag for T2 is poking fun at Xushin. He’s been using his funds to balance T3, not to stack Mag for T2. Mag doesn’t want T2 because they’ll get badly imbalanced match against the rank 4 server and SoS’s OCX.

Jayne, just because you spent a lot of time early in this game recruiting for TC when TC didn’t need it doesn’t mean everyone else in NA does. You don’t think anyone in NA tells people not to come either? They come anyway!

Stagnation is caused by players wanting balance, not No. 1.

You say that players in NA just want to be No. 1, but over time many came to realize that that’s boring. So is being on the opposite end of that no fun. Players want balance because the matches are more fun so they’ll go to where they can get it. That’s why T1 became 100% glicko locked. That’s why T2 became 100% glicko locked for the first time in history. It’s also why T3 is now almost 100% glicko locked for the first time in history.

You were gone for a large amount of time from this game when the population in the lower tiers collapsed in such a way that T5 resembled T8 of the past. At one point there were literally no T3-sized servers. And yes, that has a lot to do with Dragonbrand’s SEA population holding that server up around T2-T3 when the rest of the timezones were more like T4-sized. That was not balance so players move. HoT announcement brought a lot of new players and returning players. Without it, WvW would look very different today.

/fix this forum’s pagination!

Jayne.9251:

Folks should stop blaming the glicko and instead blame themselves. The reason it’s so obscene is because of how players themselves stacked upward.

You need to ask why players did that and stop blaming folks for the design of something that is completely outside of their control. Do you not understand why DB continues to have bandwagons and implosions for their non-SEA population or why SoS has such difficulty getting EU? Do you still not get why non-NA populations are most numerous in the higher tiers? EU servers don’t see this because there’s no such thing as an official SEA or official OCX server amongst EU.

Competitive SEA players will want to check out FEAR.

See their recruitment post at: http://www.fort-aspenwood.com/index.php?/topic/6909-legion-of-the-unseen-fear/

Bumperino.

GK had a lot of fun last night and are waiting for you to join them!

displayname.8315:

HI CHABA

If you say warchests didn’t gut the lower tiers and especially IoJ then I believe you.

Can we agree that YB are the golden boys of WvW and they didn’t destroy T2, it was all these people moving in and then out?

Look, I don’t know the reason why WOLF suddenly disbanded and Mexay moved to T1 with a few others. It’s probably the same reason as it is for most players; they leave because they’re not having fun. If more people go to watch Ant-man than they do Pixels, it isn’t because Ant-man had a higher budget. And lower tier servers also have warchests btw.

displayname.8315:

The massive influx of players to FA destroyed serveral lower tiers as it caused bandwagoning. The massive exodus of these same players FROM FA caused the destruction of sos/fa. Those moving to YB didnt do much IMO.

But did it really?

VP, JINX, and DN all came from T1, BG. I believe HG/DAWN also came to FA from BG at that time. Ra/NEWS/ME showed up unexpectedly from Chinese servers, not lower tier NA. Some of the other guilds that came from lower tier servers had left long before the massive exodus, for example: BEEP, VLK, and RP. I believe only PS and possibly END/Adv could be counted as being from a lower tier and then leaving during the mass exodus. It would be useless to mention the exodus of GvG guilds here or guilds like CL, OBEY, WS, and PVP here as “these same players” since those guilds had played on FA for a long time before the bandwagonning.

Players stacking into DB and causing uncertainty for their GvG guilds hurt SOS. That caused some guilds to leave SOS and go to YB, FA, and DB. A lot of those players that stacked into DB though had also played a lot in T2, transferred there from Maguuma for example. I think TIME and BS were about the only guilds that went to DB then who hadn’t played in T2.

What I’m saying is that the majority of what was going on in T2 6-9 months ago was movement primarily by T1/T2/T3 players, not the lower tiers. What’s really been hurtful for the lower tiers, including T2, has been the ability to auto-click into Full T1 servers and servers holding blackouts to do it. That’s been going on since before Season 1. No more finally.

Sqweegel.9145:

why dont blink on top the thread and see FA qqing

Oh I see. Selective reading. Where were you when all the YB players were QQ-ing here about T1 teaming up?

This is a game, people play it for fun, not to be a job, which is why tier health is important for every tier. I wanted to know which timezone the OP is in so that I could help direct him to a place he’ll enjoy, whether that be FA or another server.