Guild Wars 2

Yo, i don t want to complain or anything i do understand Anet is doing a lot of work towards WvW, much more in the last couple of months than what i ever saw in the past 3 years so this is great really, a huge step forward, and i thank you guys for that, what i would like to ask is that if it is possible to give a lil attention to the server status and the way it adjust. We got a API verification for teamspeak and we can monitor quite easily how many players swap servers and where they are going and if we can do that i m sure Anet can do the same or even more, you surely noticed how many players changed server in the past two weeks, leaving my server (SFR) almost empty but still with a server status FULL which do not allow us to gain back the players who left.

It is possible to reduce the delay that takes the Server Status to update?

To sum up, out of prime time we are always outnumbered by about x3. during prime time we manage to do something but if we do guild raids most of their guilds are x2 of us, if we manage to get 1 blob on ebg or hb they have 2 blobs, 1 on ebg and another on some borderland. This is what is happening since 3 weeks, ofc always with a Full server stauts, which i truly doubt about.

Waiting an official answer we thank you for your time.

Anet will never divulge the official server population status on any server, as this would show how imbalanced they are towards certain servers in WvW.
Of course, would come the %pop only do PvE so therefore have low WvW %pop even though the servers appear to be full.

Top servers are being purposefully capped to help spread out the population into the lower linked servers. Once unlinked, I believe the hope is that the lower tiers will see a much better parity for action-based WvW.

Opening up the higher tier servers would defeat this attempt to fix an issue everyone’s been screaming about for three years — stacked T1 NA servers.

Over in EU it’s a bit different (well except for SFR :p), where players have spread themselves out and not stacked any one server — although that appears to be changing, too sadly.

This initiative is to push NA players into different servers because they were unwilling to destack themselves, and still cried on the forums about it.

Jayne.9251:

Top servers are being purposefully capped to help spread out the population into the lower linked servers. Once unlinked, I believe the hope is that the lower tiers will see a much better parity for action-based WvW.

Opening up the higher tier servers would defeat this attempt to fix an issue everyone’s been screaming about for three years — stacked T1 NA servers.

Over in EU it’s a bit different (well except for SFR :p), where players have spread themselves out and not stacked any one server — although that appears to be changing, too sadly.

This initiative is to push NA players into different servers because they were unwilling to destack themselves, and still cried on the forums about it.

I don’t think it was done intentionally. I believe the API for host server calculated both the host and the guest server population. This happen because of the server linking and I believe their design approach is to make one of the servers responsible for the overall population and that is the host server.

Furthermore, your last statement is not logical. This does not encourage T1s players destacking in any way. It encourage players to destack and stack on specific server even more than before. Why? There were two barriers to stacking which are server status and the accompanied cost. Now, those barriers are weakened with the 500 gem guest server. Guilds will now then stack on that guest servers which is why you see some guest servers raised to High. If you put together what I said in the previous paragraph and this logic, you will then understand that some servers population have dropped, however, do you know which servers dropped? Certainly isn’t the T1 servers. It never for one bit encourage T1s to destack simply because people are moving their guest server to further stack on it.

A server may seem empty, but they may actually be full. Players may quit playing for a while after being demoralized, especially the more casual player base. If a server is full of casual players, the population size does not matter. They may log in at reset but after realizing they can’t pve k train, theyll simply leave and it will seem as if the server is empty. No matter how much you move around the population, you can’t change that.

@Skyshroud: It’s completely logical: Anet can unlink the pairings once the other lower servers are more populated.

And yes, I think it’s an intentional fix to a long term issue where players refused to fix it themselves.

Jayne.9251:

It’s completely logical: Anet can unlink the pairings once the other lower servers are more populated.

And yes, I think it’s an intentional fix to a long term issue where players refused to fix it themselves.

Your entire idea of destacking is by betting that T1s players will move out, but no, they are not going any where. Right now, it is simply the non-T1s players shfiting around. It didn’t change the T1s situation a single bit.

Also, you gives too much credit to anet. Since launch, my observation on anet tells me that their long term plan isn’t that long term.

Are the lower tiered servers, paired with the high ones, not getting a population boost? You’re saying people reporting guild movement to lower tiers aren’t being truthful?

Jayne.9251:

@Skyshroud: It’s completely logical: Anet can unlink the pairings once the other lower servers are more populated.

And yes, I think it’s an intentional fix to a long term issue where players refused to fix it themselves.

You really believe the servers are going to be unlinked, again? I really doubt if that will happen. Sure, the pairings might change, but I doubt if we’ll ever see servers unlinked, again.

Jayne.9251:

Are the lower tiered servers, paired with the high ones, not getting a population boost? You’re saying people reporting guild movement to lower tiers aren’t being truthful?

I don’t know….which part….of my english….is hard to understand.

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

@Skyshroud: It’s completely logical: Anet can unlink the pairings once the other lower servers are more populated.

And yes, I think it’s an intentional fix to a long term issue where players refused to fix it themselves.

You really believe the servers are going to be unlinked, again? I really doubt if that will happen. Sure, the pairings might change, but I doubt if we’ll ever see servers unlinked, again.

depends on the poll. right now it doesn’t meet the 75% threshold (but close) to retain linking.

we have no queues on any maps, filling about 1.5 maps including eb in primetime and are “full”.. well yeah. dunno what they did but it certainly didnt involve counting.

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

@Skyshroud: It’s completely logical: Anet can unlink the pairings once the other lower servers are more populated.

And yes, I think it’s an intentional fix to a long term issue where players refused to fix it themselves.

You really believe the servers are going to be unlinked, again? I really doubt if that will happen. Sure, the pairings might change, but I doubt if we’ll ever see servers unlinked, again.

Mate look at the poll before posting that we are close to the old Situation.

I read this post and i found it funny somehow.

How did you reach the conclusion that sfr is empty ?

You are sfr community leader but somehow forgot to mention that you’ve got enough people to cover two maps but seems you want to stack sfr same as what happened to piken.

if you don’t have much queues then maybe you lack public commanders.

Keep status closed, we don’t need another server to get stacked again.

Silberfederling.9302:

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

@Skyshroud: It’s completely logical: Anet can unlink the pairings once the other lower servers are more populated.

And yes, I think it’s an intentional fix to a long term issue where players refused to fix it themselves.

You really believe the servers are going to be unlinked, again? I really doubt if that will happen. Sure, the pairings might change, but I doubt if we’ll ever see servers unlinked, again.

Mate look at the poll before posting that we are close to the old Situation.

Anet said in the poll that they’re looking for 75%. That is a fairly ambiguous statement. The poll is at 74.1%, .9% short of what “they’re looking for”.

You really think that .9% is going to cause the servers to get unlinked?

I don’t. Heck, I think the poll could only be at 65%, and we would still see linking continue. They’re wanting to know if they’re on the right track with that poll,(they say that in the poll) and an overwhelming majority have said yes.

I just don’t see unlinking happening. Hopefully there are some tweaks to it, but I don’t see Anet reverting back to the way it was.

74.9% and climbing, was 73.8% half a day ago.

@Jayne, I could be wrong but are you assuming that the recent transfers to lower tier servers are going to stay put if there is an unlinking? I would guess the opposite as the gameplay will be more a roaming style than a blob style. That said, the full servers will prevent these transfers from relocating again, and thus cause them to quit for the time being.

Jayne.9251:

@Skyshroud: It’s completely logical: Anet can unlink the pairings once the other lower servers are more populated.

And then they’ll stack the next server in the matchup with the larger server they want to stay with (players have already said this is what they’ll do), I can make the gold required for the transfer in 1 night. The fact is the server linking as it is currently implemented makes it far easier to stack than before which I’m sure was not the intention but could easily have been foreseen. And anet as is their wont are moving as slow as molasses in fixing the situation, heck they won’t even acknowledge it as an issue.

Swedemon.4670:

74.9% and climbing, was 73.8% half a day ago.

@Jayne, I could be wrong but are you assuming that the recent transfers to lower tier servers are going to stay put if there is an unlinking? I would guess the opposite as the gameplay will be more a roaming style than a blob style. That said, the full servers will prevent these transfers from relocating again, and thus cause them to quit for the time being.

Likely not. It’s not the way of the bandwagoner.

But.

If T1 servers remain locked, and servers are unlinked and then relinked to other low pop servers, there’s hope that this will facilitate the population parity everyone’s been begging for, for years.

Add a steep xfer cost of say $50, and people might be more inclined to push their server up, and bring competitiveness and anti-stacking gameplay. You can still grind the $50 in game play for gems, but it’s going to make you think twice about server hopping, particularly with a large guild.

And if they do? More money for Anet to invest in WvW … Finally making our game mode competitive and viable to the pve market shop crowd.

Jayne.9251:

And if they do? More money for Anet to invest in WvW … Finally making our game mode competitive and viable to the pve market shop crowd.

Budgeting doesn’t work like that.

morrolan.9608:

Jayne.9251:

And if they do? More money for Anet to invest in WvW … Finally making our game mode competitive and viable to the pve market shop crowd.

Budgeting doesn’t work like that.

Yeah I know, but if there’s a reliable revenue stream from the hoppers, then justification for source fund diversion can be made.

Jayne.9251 just don’t get the part about non T1 shifting themselves. It doesn’t matter if the rest are shifting around, as long the T1 population remain where they are, it doesn’t change the reality of things.