Guild Wars 2

Hi All,

We know what the fun is like trying to get in and do your WvW… One big blob vs a small 20 man server wide fight…demoralising.

What if..
The population maps dynamically only allowed a +20 across all maps compared to the largest force in there…(adjusting every min?).

This would mean that across all 3 maps – for two servers your WvW deviation would be at most +20 : creating fairer fights..more balanced match ups dynamically.

Yes this may mean there are more ques …

This would mean 2 servers who have 0 people during a time zone – would have a maximum of 20 people back capping all there stuff. There is no such thing as night modes as T1 for example is 24×7- but a maximum deviation may help.

After all it isn’t any fun for 120 people to fight 10 people and own everything on all 3 maps. This just creates bordem (larger force) and encourages people to leave (smaller worlds).

Just a thought…it won’t stop a 2v1 but at least there will be roughly even numbers across all 3 borderlands between at least two of the servers.

?…thoughts?

there needs to be overflow maps so queues can fill other maps. restricting numbers in either queues or map caps are a bad idea. queues do not promote transfers. map caps are basically a lopsided queue, they prevent players from playing which will make that player want to play a game they can play.

EOTM is your overflow map. As for the OP’s idea, it doesn’t work at all unless you mean to say “+20 compared to the server with the SMALLEST force.” And even then you’re going to effectively annoy more people than you please with a solution like this.

I understand the idea how having map filled with players from 1 side only is boring for everyone. yet, I am not sure if blocking the players will help, mostly because maps are huge and when you start to lower population because there is less people from one server, there will be now also less people from other server and then third server, and eventually whole map is much more emptier compared to current situation.

The best solution I have seen so far would be increase current Objective Guild Auras boons based on number of enemies/defenders around the objective. Yes, you would still probably run over the defenders with much larger force but it would be more difficult and take longer. But same time, in next objective, numbers could be opposite.

Not at all.. what is does is ensure the two largest sides are at most +20.

What is also does is ensure ‘ramp ups’ are not 100v20v0 – and ramp ups happen more evenly between all the three sides.

I see the value in the idea. Of course there would have to be a minimum to allow for people to join. 20 or so. And there would have to be a level of differential tolerance to be fair. For example, having 5 extra players wouldn’t throw off the fight completely to one side.

I can tell you why Anet may not like this idea though. Because it would reduce the total number of players in WvW, which would increase gripe from the Queued players. And the only way to fix the gripe would be to open multiple instances of each borderland and weigh the score of each map based on total population – and that just seems like a lot of extra work for development.

The limiter seems easier to implement…
It’s fine with 3 BLs+EB to keep this rather than open multiple borderlands .
If you are exceeding que for a particular time you can play in EoTM.

EoTM is for overflows .

What this does accelerate is the balancing out of populations on servers more quickly – which is a good thing within a tier match up.
It would also mean a server which can map que all BLs for a weekend vs 2 servers which cannot – would be stuck with a longer que to get in.

The numbers they are fighting against would promote skilled play more rather than “my blob is bigger than your blob” which we currently have going on a lot.