Guild Wars 2

And I don’t mean like the current 80 man limit (that might as well be a 500 man limit for most servers, since we rarely cap it out anyways). Perhaps lock off a map so that no server can have more than 10 players more than any other server. Maybe that way people will start to leave servers that are outrageously outnumbering other servers. Otherwise, why would they ever leave if they always win?

My favourite game mode has been ruined due to population imbalance for the last 2 months, and it’s going to end up making me quit the game. Fix your kitten, Anet! Stop neglecting WvW. kitten , siegerazer’s rams can’t even use their #2 skill. Zero attention is being paid to WvW. ZERO!

/rant

If T3 on NA dies, every GW2 forum would have less spam topics about it. So yes, let it die.

Its not a bad idea though. Have different map caps for the different leagues.

Gold high map cap.
Silver medium map cap.
Bronze low map cap.

This sounds like a bad idea. Say one team owns an entire boarderland, they can then just ALL leave that map and force any opposing team to only be able to use 10 people to assault the map, SEVERELY limiting how well that team can assault more than 1 objective, and the moment the team owning it notices something has flipped they can port 20 people in 3 min later, wipe the opposition, and claim their objective. there tons of other application a limit like this would make, say your team is assaulting an objective with 35 people, and there is only 4 defenders all with arrow carts and there rest of the opposing team cant make to save their objective, so they all just leave the map, forcing your army to only 14 people against 4 arrowcarts

I don’t know, 10 on 20 sounds more doable than 5 on 50. I don’t think a hard 10-person max advantage is the way to go, but I do think that WvW participation numbers should count for more than they do in matchmaking.

Anet should make transferring to lower-tier servers than the server your’e currently on free, while transferring to higher-tier servers should be twice as expensive as it is now. That would be a good start I think.

LucosTheDutch.4819:

Anet should make transferring to lower-tier servers than the server your’e currently on free, while transferring to higher-tier servers should be twice as expensive as it is now. That would be a good start I think.

This.

have fun getting stomped week after week by the t2 server that rolls low

Curo.2483:

And I don’t mean like the current 80 man limit (that might as well be a 500 man limit for most servers, since we rarely cap it out anyways). Perhaps lock off a map so that no server can have more than 10 players more than any other server. Maybe that way people will start to leave servers that are outrageously outnumbering other servers. Otherwise, why would they ever leave if they always win?

My favourite game mode has been ruined due to population imbalance for the last 2 months, and it’s going to end up making me quit the game. Fix your kitten, Anet! Stop neglecting WvW. kitten , siegerazer’s rams can’t even use their #2 skill. Zero attention is being paid to WvW. ZERO!

/rant

People many times forget that SERVER means, better latency for user, (ping), or game response and i did pick my server for only one reason, and that’s best response time.

But on other hand i agree with this guy, i would make server overflow difference, example:

server A = 62 players
server B = 40 players
server C = 54 players

maximum players per server = (minimum1+minimum2)/2 * 130%

Let’s calculate this example… Server A is the CAP/MAXIMUM of what current limit is, maximum cap can be rised if other server get more players. In this case, our servers forgive 30% more population to an average of both servers. So lets do some math.

Let’s say MAP has TOP LIMIT of 600 players:

Minimum 1 = 40 players = B
Minimum 2 = 54 players = C
MAXIMUM = 62 players = A

maximum = (40 + 54) * 130% = 61,1
Solution is floored up to 62 players from result 61,1.

What does that mean? Maximum number of players per server is currently 62 players.
186 players in total for all 3 servers on one MAP. Server A cannot have more players until server A or B rises numbers of players in WvW map.

To fix side effects of lack or overflow of people on one map, we can set top and low interval of limit:
LOW LIMIT = 30 players per server
TOP LIMIT = 200 players per server

In worst case scenario we will have:
A = 30
B = 1
C = 30
MAXIMUM = 30. because 30 low limit, and maximum was calculated on 20.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Simple solution and fair for all, where servers with bigger population would be matched more often together.

LucosTheDutch.4819:

Anet should make transferring to lower-tier servers than the server your’e currently on free, while transferring to higher-tier servers should be twice as expensive as it is now. That would be a good start I think.

You didn’t stop to think about how your proposal could be easily manipulated by the servers?

Curo.2483:

And I don’t mean like the current 80 man limit (that might as well be a 500 man limit for most servers, since we rarely cap it out anyways). Perhaps lock off a map so that no server can have more than 10 players more than any other server. Maybe that way people will start to leave servers that are outrageously outnumbering other servers. Otherwise, why would they ever leave if they always win?

My favourite game mode has been ruined due to population imbalance for the last 2 months, and it’s going to end up making me quit the game. Fix your kitten, Anet! Stop neglecting WvW. kitten , siegerazer’s rams can’t even use their #2 skill. Zero attention is being paid to WvW. ZERO!

/rant

Highlighted for hilarity – the last TWO months?! Change that to years and you’d be a bit closer. And while population is important, myself and one teammate just held a camp for an hour against ten people, and then the nearby paper tower for 45 min against the same bunch.

You’ll have to learn to deal, like everybody else does.

Curo.2483:

And I don’t mean like the current 80 man limit (that might as well be a 500 man limit for most servers, since we rarely cap it out anyways). Perhaps lock off a map so that no server can have more than 10 players more than any other server. Maybe that way people will start to leave servers that are outrageously outnumbering other servers. Otherwise, why would they ever leave if they always win?

What server are you on? Why should I be disallowed to log into a map on my server, simply to appease your wants? Servers populations are balanced based on the player bases actions.

How many recruitment threads have you made to bring players to join you?

Curo.2483:

My favourite game mode has been ruined due to population imbalance for the last 2 months, and it’s going to end up making me quit the game. Fix your kitten, Anet! Stop neglecting WvW. kitten , siegerazer’s rams can’t even use their #2 skill. Zero attention is being paid to WvW. ZERO!

/rant

Then quit the game. That is your choice.

How do you suggest Anet fixes this issue, when you won’t even take steps to do so yourself? Personally, I feel making complaint threads with no constructive feed back, is extremely irrational, when we know we have a expansion incoming, that may make significant changes.

LucosTheDutch.4819:

Anet should make transferring to lower-tier servers than the server your’e currently on free, while transferring to higher-tier servers should be twice as expensive as it is now. That would be a good start I think.

So basically if someone plays when WvWvW on their server is a dead zone they should have to pay out the nose to not have that kitteny experience? o.O

Khezekiah Bellamy.5016:

This sounds like a bad idea. Say one team owns an entire boarderland, they can then just ALL leave that map and force any opposing team to only be able to use 10 people to assault the map, SEVERELY limiting how well that team can assault more than 1 objective, and the moment the team owning it notices something has flipped they can port 20 people in 3 min later, wipe the opposition, and claim their objective. there tons of other application a limit like this would make, say your team is assaulting an objective with 35 people, and there is only 4 defenders all with arrow carts and there rest of the opposing team cant make to save their objective, so they all just leave the map, forcing your army to only 14 people against 4 arrowcarts

OMG…that is such a stupid arguement its hard to believe you made it. Hey everyone we want you to switch maps….yes we know you will do it…cause you see these 10 guys want to hold off those 20 guys….

Ever think that they could just go where the 4 guys are not and build siege to counter the siege…. OMG…its hard to spend the time replying to such stupidness.

gennyt.3428:

LucosTheDutch.4819:

Anet should make transferring to lower-tier servers than the server your’e currently on free, while transferring to higher-tier servers should be twice as expensive as it is now. That would be a good start I think.

So basically if someone plays when WvWvW on their server is a dead zone they should have to pay out the nose to not have that kitteny experience? o.O

Yes this is awesome…Punish the person who wrongly chose a low pop server and now wants the game that was promised to them. Either that or advertise the fact they are joining a low pop server….

“WARNING – the server you are about to create a character on is a low population WvW server. This means your WvW experience will be the stain on the bottom of a zergs boots.”

LOL….I love how people who complain about the complainers who don’t offer up solutions. The fact is that they just don’t want a solution because they are the beneficiaries of status quot.

Actually they should make transfering to lower server 50 bucks. The implement the queues. They’ll make a fortune as people will get tired of waiting in queue.

Glad we got the discussion going. To the person that asked: I’m on NSP. In case you weren’t aware, there is currently a situation where there are 4 servers in the tier above us, forcing one of them down into our matchup. There is nobody left to recruit, and changing my entire server’s population structure is a hell of a lot bigger of a task than balancing matchups. You ask why you should be disallowed to log into a map? Why should I be forced to fight overwhelming odds? Why can’t we develop a system that works for players on both ends?

To the poster who commented about only being able to assault an empty BL with 10 people – 10 vs 0 sounds like good odds to me. It would take time for the opposition to rally 20 people to react, at which time, you could rally 20 more yourself. The big issue is when they rally 50 people and we have nothing we can do because of population imbalance. Nonetheless, your point is taken. I’m just presenting a basic framework/idea for how the cap would work. There would be things like time delays, minimum player cutoffs, and other algorithms to determine the exact allowed population. I’m not a game balancer, so I don’t have exact numbers for you. I would just like to take a step in the right direction.

Curo.2483:

Glad we got the discussion going.

No offense dude, but this discussion has been happening on this forum since the start of the game and there’s still no resolution.

Don’t get your hopes up.

And don’t get me wrong, I agree 100% with you….this is the only competitive online game I have ever played that has NO autobalance.

But you’re preaching to the choir.