[Discussion] Population problem.

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: anzenketh.3759

anzenketh.3759

So I was thinking about how to fix this the other day and thought though some of the items that have already been suggested and found some holes in them.

Faction vs Faction has a queue problem as there are more players that want to play WvW then can reliably fit in the server. Also it does not solve the stacking issue. See Luxons vs Kurzicks in GW1.

A signup based system using guilds has issues for the guildless and those in non WvW centric guilds.

Those are the main two that I have seen what are some other ideas or how would you overcome those issues. Because honestly I am at a loss.

These are the ground rules

You need to keep in mind the following.
1.) Not just a 1-2 hour game but something that is about a week long.
2.) People are allowed to come and leave at will and still have the game continue. It also is open 24/7
3.) Something that will not drive the population though the roof.
4.) Allow a maximum of 200-300 players to participate at any given period of time.
5.) Something that will not develop large queues.
6.) Something that will not turn into exactly what you are upset about. Stacking on the winning team.
7.) Something that will get pride in a chosen faction and allow friends to play together.
8.) Something that can use the existing maps.

In Game: Storm Bluff Isle — Anzz, Anzenketh Kyoto

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: Nokaru.7831

Nokaru.7831

WvW population will never be balanced until there is some sort of throttling system in place.

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: anzenketh.3759

anzenketh.3759

WvW population will never be balanced until there is some sort of throttling system in place.

Explain what you mean by a throttling system. How would you implement such a thing.

In Game: Storm Bluff Isle — Anzz, Anzenketh Kyoto

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: FreeRide.2547

FreeRide.2547

Try to stack losing servers
What about some kind of weekly reward: 1st place not so good reward, 2nd good reward, 3rd place best reward.

FreeRide GOM

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: anzenketh.3759

anzenketh.3759

Try to stack losing servers
What about some kind of weekly reward: 1st place not so good reward, 2nd good reward, 3rd place best reward.

But then the loosing servers would then become the winning servers in addition people stating that they are just doing it to get us to transfer.

In Game: Storm Bluff Isle — Anzz, Anzenketh Kyoto

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: Nokaru.7831

Nokaru.7831

If Large Server is facing off against Small Server and Medium Server, the population cap will allow the Small Server and Medium Server to field a comfortable amount, whereas Large Server will have queues. If Large Server is fighting two other Large Servers, then the cap will be higher.

Queues are the consequence of being on Large Server. Don’t like queues? Go to Small or Medium server. The devil’s in the details but that’s about it.

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: FreeRide.2547

FreeRide.2547

Try to stack losing servers
What about some kind of weekly reward: 1st place not so good reward, 2nd good reward, 3rd place best reward.

But then the loosing servers would then become the winning servers in addition people stating that they are just doing it to get us to transfer.

FreeRide GOM

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: FreeRide.2547

FreeRide.2547

Your first point. Yes, Losing servers would become winners then back to losing then back to winning then back to losing………………

Second point. Yes you are right. I did not think about that.

FreeRide GOM

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: yanniell.1236

yanniell.1236

Faction vs Faction has a queue problem as there are more players that want to play WvW then can reliably fit in the server. Also it does not solve the stacking issue. See Luxons vs Kurzicks in GW1.

Megaserver.

[HUE]

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: Killthehealersffs.8940

Killthehealersffs.8940

Lower the cap of each map to 250 ppl (if the caps is 500)
At the WvWvW UI there are 2 options :
a) que up for WvWvW . If there are a huge amount of ppl in the que , then you have to w8 .

b) or play as a ‘’etheral steam/ascalonian Form’’ or a ‘’wisp/small golem/wooden figure’’ or a ‘’cute teddy bear that shoot lazers from its eyes !!!’’ from an alternate dimension , till the que pop ups (‘’option a’’) . You have less stats/less dps , but you can help your server with building sieges-do some aoe-slows , but you cant use the current traps
Edit; If ppl insist to stack on the top servers , then increase the stats penalty > that way they loose most zerg fights and forced to change servers

(edited by Killthehealersffs.8940)

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: Johje Holan.4607

Johje Holan.4607

Time slices for matchmaking. That is the only way to get some semblance of balance.

Will every match be balanced? No. But a whole heck of a lot more will be than now.

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: anzenketh.3759

anzenketh.3759

If Large Server is facing off against Small Server and Medium Server, the population cap will allow the Small Server and Medium Server to field a comfortable amount, whereas Large Server will have queues. If Large Server is fighting two other Large Servers, then the cap will be higher.

Queues are the consequence of being on Large Server. Don’t like queues? Go to Small or Medium server. The devil’s in the details but that’s about it.

This suggestion I think has some merit to it. The biggest downside is the queues that would generate on the larger servers. I also personally agree that if you don’t like queues you should change population. But not everyone thinks that way.

How would you account for coverage differences.

Population can be determined per map and those who enter or leave any map.

Faction vs Faction has a queue problem as there are more players that want to play WvW then can reliably fit in the server. Also it does not solve the stacking issue. See Luxons vs Kurzicks in GW1.

Megaserver.

But then it would be just like the EoTM you have a possibility of not playing with your friends. Nor do you care so much about your instance of winning.

In Game: Storm Bluff Isle — Anzz, Anzenketh Kyoto

(edited by anzenketh.3759)

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: Sungak Alkandenes.1369

Sungak Alkandenes.1369

I had an old suggestion in another thread, which basically leveraged the League system to change how each group of worlds play.

Gold servers would be changed to focus on PPT/Competition: Karma/MF/XP would be reduced (exception going to opponent players you take out), no Bloodlust (and/or use the old maps), only Siege can take out structures (no PvDoor), and so on. Tournaments that cross League boundaries would use these rules.

Silver is the current WvW.

Bronze I don’t have a good answer for anymore. My original idea was BvRvG (aka EoTM format on all maps), but I no longer believe that’s going to work. Open to suggestions here, but my core goal for this League was to cater toward more casual players like myself. Perhaps keep the Silver rules, but World Bonus advancement is earned faster.

“The Meta Game does not stop at the game. Ever.” — Me
I like to view MMOs through the lazy eye of a Systems Admin, and the critical eye of a
Project Manager. You’ve been warned. ;-)

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: Helzy.4036

Helzy.4036

Stacking any server does more harm then good usually, the server in question does great for the tournament then everyone leaves often leaving the server in a position that is worse then before the stacking.

[Discussion] Population problem.

in WvW

Posted by: VIK.6205

VIK.6205

In NA, T1 is stacked, and are currently in the process of buying/or just bought more guilds, season helps to ensure lower tiers dwindle off.