Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

areainvalid

Member Since 17 Sep 2012
Offline Last Active Feb 03 2013 06:52 PM

#2039961 Tarnished Coast vs Fort Aspenwood vs Dragon Brand

Posted Vorpallion on 24 October 2012 - 03:29 PM

View PostLouis8k8, on 24 October 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

Have any of you guys won vs Sea of Sorrows before? Tarnished Coast's morale does not get easily hurt. Every day, we log into a map completely owned by Sea of Sorrows. We fight hard, take it back, only to lose it all the next day. Yet we won against them in the end by a marginal amount.

We won against sea of sorrows...two weeks ago? Exact same situation you described.

Also, it's obvious that TC's morale does get hurt. You easily have 3 to 4 times as many people out there now that you are winning, as you had out there while BG was winning. I'm sure you have a dedicated core whose motto is "Never give up, never surrender", but last week between 60 and 75% of your server had just given up, as evidenced by the score.

This isn't an insult, FA is in the same boat. Even more of our players gave up in the BG matchup. We were even farther behind in score than you were. But the point remains: the vast majority of people do get discouraged and give up. I think all servers are in this situation. I think game mechanics are designed and the information presented seems expressly designed to encourage people to give up. I don't really blame the players so much in this instance as the game.

Once one server has a lead and all the orbs, people conclude it's impossible to take first place, and get demoralized and stop showing up. It's probably, beside transfers, the single biggest contributor to unfun lopsided matches.

I don't think TC is winning because they got huge zergs of transfers, I think they are winning because they have the strongest night presence and so people woke up and saw TC with a lead, all the orbs, the upgrade advantage, realized this would happen every night, and just gave up.

I'm almost thinking they need to have several borderlands, one for each 'time zone' which is open for a specific amount of time during the day and then is locked.


#2031899 Traitors Unite ! BG vs HoD vs ET 19-26/10/12

Posted MaddBomber83 on 20 October 2012 - 06:12 PM

View PostRome, on 20 October 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

You can see score updates from mos.millenium.org/matchups#NA. link

First night of Wuv Wuv was a lot of fun.  The defense of EB was fantastic, thank you all who came out.  As a lot of people, after we were wiped off the map in EB I decided to do something else.

Also, the link given, they have updated things ALOT there.  They now have dynamic graphing that basically does exactly what I did, but much better.  My below 'update' uses their data and really, there is very little reason for me to continue to graph the matches now that it is done automagically (with you updating that site's score system).

The next step is for the devs to release an API.

As for the current matchup, while the first night was fun, I see little else going on the rest of the week.  Maybe 5 man runs through the countryside killing supply camps and small scale wuv wuv while ducking out before the rest of the bored defenders show up.

Score Update: (Saturday 12:01 PM)
BG - 59,272 + 665 (+217 ppt average for the match from extra Yak points / error)
HoD - 3,171 + 20 (+26 ppt average for the match from extra Yak points / error)
ET - 2,868 + 10 (+23 ppt average for the match from extra Yak points / error)

Posted Image

Battle for First (BG v HoD): HoD needs a 94 PPT Lead (Not plausible)
BG Current (665) v HoD Current (20) = HoD will not take 1st
BG Min (495) v HoD Max (90) = HoD will not take first
BG Min (495) v HoD Avg (21) = HoD will not take 1st
BG Avg (655) v HoD Max (90) = HoD will not take 1st

Battle for Second (HoD v ET): ET needs a 1 PPT Lead (37% plausible)
HoD Current (20) v ET Current (10) = ET will not take 2nd
HoD Min (0) v ET Max (110) = ET 2nd in 1 Hour(s) (Saturday 12:25 PM)
HoD Min (0) v ET Avg (19) = ET 2nd in 3 Hour(s) (Saturday 2:18 PM)
HoD Avg (21) v ET Max (110) = ET 2nd in 1 Hour(s) (Saturday 12:31 PM)

Battle for First (BG v ET): ET needs a 94 PPT Lead (Not plausible)
BG Current (665) v ET Current (10) = ET will not take 1st
BG Min (495) v ET Max (110) = ET will not take 1st
BG Min (495) v ET Avg (19) = ET will not take 1st
BG Avg (655) v ET Max (110) = ET will not take 1st



#2013863 24 reasons your server might be losing WvW

Posted Nevron on 12 October 2012 - 05:42 PM

What is this? A center for ants?!


#1990685 Dragonbrand vs Blackgate vs Fort Aspenwood

Posted theSkillzThatKillz on 03 October 2012 - 11:50 PM

Dear TSym and other guilds

Please don't leave DB, i love you guys.  All of you are awesome at WvW and we wouldnt be this high on the leaderboard without you.  I love this server and i think that we can get our act back together if we just try.  Don't let this match get you down, let's just focus on boosting morale and getting prepared for the next game.  Just because we lost doesn't mean that we should jump ship, let's work with what we got and rebuild our server's WvW domination.


#1989953 Dragonbrand vs Blackgate vs Fort Aspenwood

Posted Snuffalufagus on 03 October 2012 - 08:06 PM

Everyone in this thread appears to have short term memory loss... Pgs 6-8 give you a quick recap on how it was prior to EU showing up and this is how I saw it.

NA: Was a push. Maybe a biased edge to DB because I like to troll and they were strongest coming out of the weekend.
Asia: Was controlled by Blackgate mainly through Urge from the looks of it, but DB had Twin holding up what we could keep. 270-350 for Blackgate during this time.
Euro: Blackgate was weak, but had some presence to hold from DB's strong NA afternoon crowd. This swings to +300-350 for DB. Which then swings back to 200 for everyone at primetime.

This cycle was in DBs favor, but has obviously been blown out by the EU guilds. If this match restarted on Friday as it is today, BG would win by 150k with their new crowd.