Guild Wars 2

Nikola.3841:

Jayne.9251:

Wait.

So the definition of a good commander is one that gets everyone bigley loot?

Sigh.

No, definition of good commander is that he’s able to get more people than enemy one, so he can win, and get better loot that way

Again, its just the numbers game

So it has nothing to do with skill then?

Or leadership?

Or strategy?

Or willingness to teach?

Or people skills?

Or responding to multiple alerts?

Guess we have very different definitions of good. Mind you, I don’t blob.

When I first joined EU, I was gobsmacked to see how they fought there. Good commanders could take a crew of 20 and charge into a much bigger blob like crazed vikings, and wipe them. Simply based on confidence, and based on the commander inspiring those around him (or her) to risk it all.

There was no politics on the map, per se, that you’d see in NA — oh we can’t attack that side, or they’ll come get us! It was “Oh look, a tower that’s not ours! Let’s get it! CHARRRRGEE!” And off a group of five would go to flip SM, with a big enemy blob on the map. They didn’t care about map politics or being outnumbered, they just went for it.

Over and over again, I saw massive blobs melt to very few. And the difference was the leadership. So, in turn, I let go of being afraid to die, charged in like a madwoman, and wound up playing so much better than I ever did on NA.

That’s a good commander.

Lol the GW2 devs are such easy marks. BG suckered them again.

Grim West.3194:

Lol the GW2 devs are such easy marks. BG suckered them again.

Just shows they couldn’t care less about the lower tiers and balance.

Easy cash grab for them.

There is no one definition of a “good” commander. It’s going to be different based on what their squad wants to do and what they are good at.

There are great fight leaders that are incredibly toxic to some players. There are havoc commanders who fall apart with too many on them. There are commanders who can rally a server to turn around a rough week, but can’t fight open field. There are commanders who are beloved by guild a and looked down on by guild b.

And half the time, insults are thrown around without actually knowing the commander or what their goals are.

Variety. It’s a good thing.

Jayne.9251:

Rangerdeity.5847:

Nikola.3841:

Rangerdeity.5847:

Swagger.1459:

Rangerdeity.5847:

Swagger.1459:

Rangerdeity.5847:

ill pass your commanders are terrible which is why people are leaving your server. the only time your commanders have success is when they have a 7:5+ ratio on zerg scale. thats not being good thats being well manned.

Actually, wvw as a whole is boring as all get out due to lack of major and minor updates. Players are fatigued. There is nothing to “win”. Rewards still suck after 4 years. Professions have been stale for a long time. The devs don’t fix problematic issues. Players come and go on every server. There is only so much repetitiveness any player can take… There are a plethora of issues and circumstances created by the devs, and it’s short sighted of you to talk about “commanders” and niggle about “ratio” when wvw is an unhealthy competitive state…

you take a shot at commanders and rant about WvW’s problems? i take it your a commander.

anyway since im amused the rewards have been buff a lot other than lack of access to ascended armors in WvW short of the insane amount of crafting materials you get from WvW (lol like i want to craft that kitten if i can avoid it) other than dungeon spamming WvW is easily the most profitable in terms of gold and resource pick ups. but your right lack of access to ascended armor is what drags its population down. as far as boring honestly its the most interesting part of the game save people who enjoy 5v5 pvp. seriously what is more entertaining 30v30 team fights or might stacking in a corner then nuking a boss while you hide in that corner so he cant hit you?

You should probably rephrase that first sentence because you seem confused… You took a shot at commanders, not I. You don’t look at the big picture so I laid it out for you.

No, I don’t command btw.

lol at the “WvW is easily the most profitable in terms of gold and resource pick ups”…

find something more profitable that can be done all day long for a sustainable continual gain.

SW chest farming?

well i guess thats better than farming if your commander is terrible but if your commander is good WvW is still better

Wait.

So the definition of a good commander is one that gets everyone bigley loot?

Sigh.

no a good commander is one that keeps the enemy zerg subdued and captures/defends properly. those are by happenstance the things that grant loot in WvW.

Jayne.9251:

When I first joined EU, I was gobsmacked to see how they fought there. Good commanders could take a crew of 20 and charge into a much bigger blob like crazed vikings, and wipe them. Simply based on confidence, and based on the commander inspiring those around him (or her) to risk it all.

There was no politics on the map, per se, that you’d see in NA — oh we can’t attack that side, or they’ll come get us! It was “Oh look, a tower that’s not ours! Let’s get it! CHARRRRGEE!” And off a group of five would go to flip SM, with a big enemy blob on the map. They didn’t care about map politics or being outnumbered, they just went for it.

Over and over again, I saw massive blobs melt to very few. And the difference was the leadership. So, in turn, I let go of being afraid to die, charged in like a madwoman, and wound up playing so much better than I ever did on NA.

That’s a good commander.

Mindless zerglings that charge into the enemy without care. if they die they respawn and repeat. If they die more than once its obv the game’s fault.

Thats a commmander who doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Cerby.1069:

Mindless zerglings that charge into the enemy without care. if they die they respawn and repeat. If they die more than once its obv the game’s fault.

Thats a commmander who doesn’t know what he’s doing.

I find it’s the mindless zerglings that start to charge, lose confidence, then let the rest of their group wipe, are the culprits. And that’s usually the result of a commander who hasn’t bothered to: lead, strategize, teach, communicate, etc …

I don’t get why people are so hung up on dying in pvp. And your hesitancy winds up wiping the entire group. Then you get picked off after anyhow. Carpe Diem.

BG is Full now.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World#List_of_worlds

Jayne.9251:

I don’t get why people are so hung up on dying in pvp. And your hesitancy winds up wiping the entire group. Then you get picked off after anyhow. Carpe Diem.

I’d have thought the reason was obvious: time.

We have a few commanders who rant about people being “afraid” to die. I don’t follow them. It’s a total misreading of what’s going on and that level of disconnect between what a commander sees and what he or she understands destroys any confidence I might have in him or her.

Every time you die in WvW it wastes a significant proportion of your play session. How much depends on how long your PC/Internet connection takes to load data, how far away you respawn, how far the commander has moved since you died etc etc. For every death you can take 30 seconds to several minutes out of your gaming session. as far as active play is concerned.

If you have an hour to play WvW and you follow a commander who encourages reckless pushes that leave several people dead every time, and if, like most commanders and zergs rightly insist, there is no raising of the fully dead, then you can reduce your active play in that session by 10-20% with surprising ease. Add to that how tedious people find it to have to keep running back to rejoin the zerg and how annoying it is to be ganked on the way and have to do it yet again and you can see why people are “afraid” of dying.

Actually they just value their time more than they value the commander’s appraisal of their bravery.

Moderator.5482

We’re going to go ahead and close this thread, as match-up threads are not permitted on the forums.

so cd thread gets closed but not the bg one? I am trying to understand how this is not a matchup thread. I thought all threads talking about any server were closed.

Why does Anet let other servers fall out of T1 but BG always get re-opened before they have the chance to fall? JQ, TC, DB, YB have all dropped at least one tier. Some have dropped three. Why don’t you test the “great community” of BG by letting them drop a tier or two?

Swamurabi.7890:

Why does Anet let other servers fall out of T1 but BG always get re-opened before they have the chance to fall? JQ, TC, DB, YB have all dropped at least one tier. Some have dropped three. Why don’t you test the “great community” of BG by letting them drop a tier or two?

What do you mean let servers fall out? Do you not understand what tier 1 is? There is nowhere to go but down in tier 1, therefore a server must remain competitive to remain in it. All those servers went through large exodus’ and issues with server drama that made it difficult if not impossible to stay competitive in tier 1.

Also, do you really want BG rolling a lower tier match…really? I don’t think anyone wants that lol.

X T D.6458:

Swamurabi.7890:

Why does Anet let other servers fall out of T1 but BG always get re-opened before they have the chance to fall? JQ, TC, DB, YB have all dropped at least one tier. Some have dropped three. Why don’t you test the “great community” of BG by letting them drop a tier or two?

What do you mean let servers fall out? Do you not understand what tier 1 is? There is nowhere to go but down in tier 1, therefore a server must remain competitive to remain in it. All those servers went through large exodus’ and issues with server drama that made it difficult if not impossible to stay competitive in tier 1.

Also, do you really want BG rolling a lower tier match…really? I don’t think anyone wants that lol.

I think that if BG stayed locked and dropped out of tier 1 that you’d see a mass exodus of players back into whichever server replaced them.

I think all T1 servers should be locked just so they can’t steal experienced players from lower tiers just to stay “competitive” in tier 1. And I think they shouldn’t be unlocked until they drop at least one tier, maybe two.

Hibergate on that.

#rotate_the_dream

X T D.6458:

Swamurabi.7890:

Why does Anet let other servers fall out of T1 but BG always get re-opened before they have the chance to fall? JQ, TC, DB, YB have all dropped at least one tier. Some have dropped three. Why don’t you test the “great community” of BG by letting them drop a tier or two?

What do you mean let servers fall out? Do you not understand what tier 1 is? There is nowhere to go but down in tier 1, therefore a server must remain competitive to remain in it. All those servers went through large exodus’ and issues with server drama that made it difficult if not impossible to stay competitive in tier 1.

Also, do you really want BG rolling a lower tier match…really? I don’t think anyone wants that lol.

All of those servers were locked for a long time which made them drop because no one could transfer there.
BG always was the special snowflake which got opened for transfers.

Swamurabi.7890:

X T D.6458:

Swamurabi.7890:

Why does Anet let other servers fall out of T1 but BG always get re-opened before they have the chance to fall? JQ, TC, DB, YB have all dropped at least one tier. Some have dropped three. Why don’t you test the “great community” of BG by letting them drop a tier or two?

What do you mean let servers fall out? Do you not understand what tier 1 is? There is nowhere to go but down in tier 1, therefore a server must remain competitive to remain in it. All those servers went through large exodus’ and issues with server drama that made it difficult if not impossible to stay competitive in tier 1.

Also, do you really want BG rolling a lower tier match…really? I don’t think anyone wants that lol.

I think that if BG stayed locked and dropped out of tier 1 that you’d see a mass exodus of players back into whichever server replaced them.

I think all T1 servers should be locked just so they can’t steal experienced players from lower tiers just to stay “competitive” in tier 1. And I think they shouldn’t be unlocked until they drop at least one tier, maybe two.

Hibergate on that.

#rotate_the_dream

I don’t think you understand the mechanics. All 3 tier one servers are currently locked. Your idea would simply allow a tier 1 server to open up a lot faster by intentionally dropping to tier 2 and easily regaining the glicko points needed to go right back up to tier 1.

Server status is attributed to population activity. People take breaks, its a game remember? Anet is not here make your server competitive, that is up to that servers population.

Hate on BG all you want, that is fine, but we haven’t broken any rules or done anything wrong. It is not our fault that people want to come to a stable server considering what has been going on in WvW, in fact it is downright reasonable for those that do want to be on a stable server. It is not for everyone and that is perfectly fine, as long as people are happy where they are.

gebrechen.5643:

X T D.6458:

Swamurabi.7890:

Why does Anet let other servers fall out of T1 but BG always get re-opened before they have the chance to fall? JQ, TC, DB, YB have all dropped at least one tier. Some have dropped three. Why don’t you test the “great community” of BG by letting them drop a tier or two?

What do you mean let servers fall out? Do you not understand what tier 1 is? There is nowhere to go but down in tier 1, therefore a server must remain competitive to remain in it. All those servers went through large exodus’ and issues with server drama that made it difficult if not impossible to stay competitive in tier 1.

Also, do you really want BG rolling a lower tier match…really? I don’t think anyone wants that lol.

All of those servers were locked for a long time which made them drop because no one could transfer there.
BG always was the special snowflake which got opened for transfers.

BG is locked for months at a time, and only had a link the first time it was implemented. Any other excuses?

I will make this one other point. There are players who would be hesitant to transfer out of a full server to a lower tier for fear of not being able to get back in if they are not satisfied with the new server they choose. This can result in a player opting to purchase an alt account instead of transferring their main account.

X T D.6458:

gebrechen.5643:

X T D.6458:

Swamurabi.7890:

Why does Anet let other servers fall out of T1 but BG always get re-opened before they have the chance to fall? JQ, TC, DB, YB have all dropped at least one tier. Some have dropped three. Why don’t you test the “great community” of BG by letting them drop a tier or two?

What do you mean let servers fall out? Do you not understand what tier 1 is? There is nowhere to go but down in tier 1, therefore a server must remain competitive to remain in it. All those servers went through large exodus’ and issues with server drama that made it difficult if not impossible to stay competitive in tier 1.

Also, do you really want BG rolling a lower tier match…really? I don’t think anyone wants that lol.

All of those servers were locked for a long time which made them drop because no one could transfer there.
BG always was the special snowflake which got opened for transfers.

BG is locked for months at a time, and only had a link the first time it was implemented. Any other excuses?

Excuses? Your server is full since 2015 and always was. You never really lacked numbers and the only time you did, someone at Anet decided to “open” BG for some days.
As last week for example. And the link was the same stupid decision.

Others servers were treated completely differently. ie TC, YB, JQ. They never had similar numbers and got locked until they dropped into tier 2 or tier 3.

X T D.6458:

Swamurabi.7890:

X T D.6458:

Swamurabi.7890:

Why does Anet let other servers fall out of T1 but BG always get re-opened before they have the chance to fall? JQ, TC, DB, YB have all dropped at least one tier. Some have dropped three. Why don’t you test the “great community” of BG by letting them drop a tier or two?

What do you mean let servers fall out? Do you not understand what tier 1 is? There is nowhere to go but down in tier 1, therefore a server must remain competitive to remain in it. All those servers went through large exodus’ and issues with server drama that made it difficult if not impossible to stay competitive in tier 1.

Also, do you really want BG rolling a lower tier match…really? I don’t think anyone wants that lol.

I think that if BG stayed locked and dropped out of tier 1 that you’d see a mass exodus of players back into whichever server replaced them.

I think all T1 servers should be locked just so they can’t steal experienced players from lower tiers just to stay “competitive” in tier 1. And I think they shouldn’t be unlocked until they drop at least one tier, maybe two.

Hibergate on that.

#rotate_the_dream

I don’t think you understand the mechanics. All 3 tier one servers are currently locked. Your idea would simply allow a tier 1 server to open up a lot faster by intentionally dropping to tier 2 and easily regaining the glicko points needed to go right back up to tier 1.

Server status is attributed to population activity. People take breaks, its a game remember? Anet is not here make your server competitive, that is up to that servers population.

Hate on BG all you want, that is fine, but we haven’t broken any rules or done anything wrong. It is not our fault that people want to come to a stable server considering what has been going on in WvW, in fact it is downright reasonable for those that do want to be on a stable server. It is not for everyone and that is perfectly fine, as long as people are happy where they are.

BG has been playing by the rules so much they’ve actually named some of their tactics.

Blackouts: A way to get players to transfer to a full server in off hours.
Hibergate: A way to lower player participation to open up a server.
Then there’s all the “I want to play with my friends” threads that Anet finally had to put up a stickied thread about it.
Then there’s every thread talking about BG that always seems have the propaganda that “BG is a stable server” and “we have fights 24/7” and “we have a great community”

If BG was such a great community and stable why do they always need more players?

Attrition in any game exists. Guilds and servers need to be able to recruit to stay healthy. That’s a reality.

The attrition is selfmade. Let’s take BG for example. In the normal times BG queued 4 maps on reset and at least 3 on a weekend while commanders pulled crazy overtimes and players that followed them too.
You will lose players because “the queues are too long” and players by “burning out”. Instead of accepting that queuing so many maps on a regular basis is bad they recruited even more and keep recruiting.
On the opposing servers players burn out too, because they feel that they have to be online to not get their stuff taken in off hours or help their commanders facing huge numbers.

In the end you create a bottomless hole of recruiting and burning out people in a gamemode.

It’s not a server specific problem. So all servers should be treated equally, but that never happened due to BG manipulating player numbers and Anet falling for it.

Swamurabi.7890:

Blackouts: A way to get players to transfer to a full server in off hours.
Hibergate: A way to lower player participation to open up a server.

Swamurabi.7890:

Then there’s all the “I want to play with my friends” threads that Anet finally had to put up a stickied thread about it.

Freegate: Threads created by the Blackgate community in an appealing effort to Anet to open their server. Usually the message is I want to play with friends and family, or guilds are losing players we need fresh recruits, or we need more roamers.

Swamurabi.7890:

Then there’s every thread talking about BG that always seems have the propaganda that “BG is a stable server” and “we have fights 24/7” and “we have a great community”

Beastgate: When the community is steam rolling the opposition with blobs, nothing seems to be able to stop them with the exception of Hibergate and Boredgate.

Swamurabi.7890:

If BG was such a great community and stable why do they always need more players?

Paragateia: Effects of paranoia sets in when operation Hibergate turns into Retiregate, which is when players go on longer than scheduled break, temporary or permanent. Players that do return see 3 queues instead of 4, which triggers anxiety, fear, and delusions that the server will fall into tier four. This can lead into a Freegate, and then a Stackgate situation.

Stackgate: Recruit as many guilds as you can with gold, this usually happens after with a Hibergate or previously Blackouts.

Boredgate: The state of Blackgate wvw when they are not playing for anything special such as tournaments, the first links, or pve events open for a limited time which they need to participate in, or also against Maguuma.

Swamurabi.7890:

X T D.6458:

Swamurabi.7890:

Why does Anet let other servers fall out of T1 but BG always get re-opened before they have the chance to fall? JQ, TC, DB, YB have all dropped at least one tier. Some have dropped three. Why don’t you test the “great community” of BG by letting them drop a tier or two?

What do you mean let servers fall out? Do you not understand what tier 1 is? There is nowhere to go but down in tier 1, therefore a server must remain competitive to remain in it. All those servers went through large exodus’ and issues with server drama that made it difficult if not impossible to stay competitive in tier 1.

Also, do you really want BG rolling a lower tier match…really? I don’t think anyone wants that lol.

I think that if BG stayed locked and dropped out of tier 1 that you’d see a mass exodus of players back into whichever server replaced them.

I think all T1 servers should be locked just so they can’t steal experienced players from lower tiers just to stay “competitive” in tier 1. And I think they shouldn’t be unlocked until they drop at least one tier, maybe two.

Hibergate on that.

#rotate_the_dream

watch out moral high ground gets a damage bonus

Swamurabi.7890:

X T D.6458:

Swamurabi.7890:

Why does Anet let other servers fall out of T1 but BG always get re-opened before they have the chance to fall? JQ, TC, DB, YB have all dropped at least one tier. Some have dropped three. Why don’t you test the “great community” of BG by letting them drop a tier or two?

What do you mean let servers fall out? Do you not understand what tier 1 is? There is nowhere to go but down in tier 1, therefore a server must remain competitive to remain in it. All those servers went through large exodus’ and issues with server drama that made it difficult if not impossible to stay competitive in tier 1.

Also, do you really want BG rolling a lower tier match…really? I don’t think anyone wants that lol.

I think that if BG stayed locked and dropped out of tier 1 that you’d see a mass exodus of players back into whichever server replaced them.

I think all T1 servers should be locked just so they can’t steal experienced players from lower tiers just to stay “competitive” in tier 1. And I think they shouldn’t be unlocked until they drop at least one tier, maybe two.

Hibergate on that.

#rotate_the_dream

We dropped to T2 a while ago and roflstomped T2, wasn’t fun for anyone

gebrechen.5643:

The attrition is selfmade. Let’s take BG for example. In the normal times BG queued 4 maps on reset and at least 3 on a weekend while commanders pulled crazy overtimes and players that followed them too.
You will lose players because “the queues are too long” and players by “burning out”. Instead of accepting that queuing so many maps on a regular basis is bad they recruited even more and keep recruiting.
On the opposing servers players burn out too, because they feel that they have to be online to not get their stuff taken in off hours or help their commanders facing huge numbers.

In the end you create a bottomless hole of recruiting and burning out people in a gamemode.

It’s not a server specific problem. So all servers should be treated equally, but that never happened due to BG manipulating player numbers and Anet falling for it.

I came back to game in November 2015…since then BG was opened exactly 3 times, each time for few hours only…so you must be using some good stuff to hallucinate that strong

Nikola.3841:

I came back to game in November 2015…since then BG was opened exactly 3 times, each time for few hours only…so you must be using some good stuff to hallucinate that strong

You must be on some good stuff too if you think it was only a “few” hours at a time. Sure not a week at a time like some other servers, but goes to show how fast BG fills back up when they do open.

BG is still Full and Mag is open @ Very High.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World#List_of_worlds

Lord of Rings.5371:

BG is still Full and Mag is open @ Very High.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World#List_of_worlds

LMAO

we did lose 2 big guilds(rekz, KRTA) makes sense i guess

The fact that Mag was opened again, is a statement itself and pretty much says everything about the state of WvW NA. GG Anet.

Crazy.6029:

The fact that Mag was opened again, is a statement itself and pretty much says everything about the state of WvW NA. GG Anet.

Mag recently lost 2 guilds, one of which could run 40+ pretty consistently, added to that Maguuma still doesn’t have a single SEA guild and pretty horrible off hours in general and you can understand why Mag is open again~

So by that logic no matter how stacked a server is, if it loses 2 guilds and doesn’t have sea coverage it should open. It shouldn’t matter how it is in comparison to other servers. Ok, thank you for your input.

Would you all like for Anet to lower the population threshold again?

Crazy.6029:

So by that logic no matter how stacked a server is, if it loses 2 guilds and doesn’t have sea coverage it should open. It shouldn’t matter how it is in comparison to other servers. Ok, thank you for your input.

….. You mean the server population dropped with the leaving of a 1 decent sized and 1 massive guild leaving and that lead to it being opened as a result, what exactly is your point?

Digikid.7230:

Crazy.6029:

So by that logic no matter how stacked a server is, if it loses 2 guilds and doesn’t have sea coverage it should open. It shouldn’t matter how it is in comparison to other servers. Ok, thank you for your input.

….. You mean the server population dropped with the leaving of a 1 decent sized and 1 massive guild leaving and that lead to it being opened as a result, what exactly is your point?

What you saying would make sense if you can explain why TC went full if they didn’t gain any guilds ?

Digikid.7230:

Crazy.6029:

So by that logic no matter how stacked a server is, if it loses 2 guilds and doesn’t have sea coverage it should open. It shouldn’t matter how it is in comparison to other servers. Ok, thank you for your input.

….. You mean the server population dropped with the leaving of a 1 decent sized and 1 massive guild leaving and that lead to it being opened as a result, what exactly is your point?

TC: Full (after losing a lot of guilds in the past month)
JQ: Full (TW left) – empty at EU, empty at OCX, normal sized NA, big SEA

MAG: High

Don’t know how this system works, but something can’t be right.
Maybe Anet needs to check IP adresses for second accounts on servers. Maybe on TC and JQ there is an army hidden somewhere that is in the borderlands but never participates in wvw.

I wonder if your server’s “WvW activity” level is affected by map hopping.

gebrechen.5643:

TC: Full (after losing a lot of guilds in the past month)
JQ: Full (TW left) – empty at EU, empty at OCX, normal sized NA, big SEA

MAG: High

Don’t know how this system works, but something can’t be right.
Maybe Anet needs to check IP adresses for second accounts on servers. Maybe on TC and JQ there is an army hidden somewhere that is in the borderlands but never participates in wvw.

How JQ is full is a mystery to me unless SEA is weighted differently in the population algorithm, for TC the server was a popular choice for players to be on for PVE and RP etc leading to TC maintaining a large casual playerbase, it seems entirely possible to me that now TC is in a tier its competitive in that those casual players are playing more then they would in T1.

Population is based on people I think, not on active hours.

If server x has 50 active people that are 10 hours online/day and server Y 50 active people that are 3 hour online/day. They have the same population but server X feels like they have 3 times more people.

It makes sense in a way that servers are not being punished for having active people and being fun to play in it. Servers are basically set full if they are not fun to play in (people dont stay online for long) and/or they have lot of PvE dailyfarmers

That would be a fatal stupid way to measure numbers, but could be totally Anets way.

Threather.9354:

Population is based on people I think, not on active hours.

If server x has 50 active people that are 10 hours online/day and server Y 50 active people that are 3 hour online/day. They have the same population but server X feels like they have 3 times more people.

It makes sense in a way that servers are not being punished for having active people and being fun to play in it. Servers are basically set full if they are not fun to play in (people dont stay online for long) and/or they have lot of PvE dailyfarmers

Yes this is exactly it, I keep saying this but clearly no-one listens. It perfectly explains why some servers are closed and others are open. JQ has been a casual servers for a long time, They have a lot of people that player for short periods but enough to be included in the population, BG in the last few weeks has gone this way as well. They come out for reset and maybe 1 or 2 days for the rest of the week and thats all. Whereas Mag still has a lot of people playing for long hours.

gebrechen.5643:

That would be a fatal stupid way to measure numbers, but could be totally Anets way.

I’m totally convinced its how they do it. Whereas it should be based on total man hours.

There are many things they should track.
- accounts in wvw
- time of accounts in wvw per day
- total number of accounts in a week
- accounts active on more than one server (should be trackable due linked accounts, ip and mac adress
- accounts in eotm count towards population

morrolan.9608:

Threather.9354:

Population is based on people I think, not on active hours.

If server x has 50 active people that are 10 hours online/day and server Y 50 active people that are 3 hour online/day. They have the same population but server X feels like they have 3 times more people.

It makes sense in a way that servers are not being punished for having active people and being fun to play in it. Servers are basically set full if they are not fun to play in (people dont stay online for long) and/or they have lot of PvE dailyfarmers

Yes this is exactly it, I keep saying this but clearly no-one listens. It perfectly explains why some servers are closed and others are open. JQ has been a casual servers for a long time, They have a lot of people that player for short periods but enough to be included in the population, BG in the last few weeks has gone this way as well. They come out for reset and maybe 1 or 2 days for the rest of the week and thats all. Whereas Mag still has a lot of people playing for long hours.

this is kittening sad if true.