Guild Wars 2

So what is up with all these new “medium” servers ? And what happened to all the High servers ? Could we get back an even ground of Med > high > Very high and not just Med > Very high ?
There are all these servers who are ranked medium but actually are atleast high… And i’m not talking about WvW population only, I’ve seen the PvE population and i still wonder why’re they still medium (i’m looking at your SFR).
I’m actually in t8 EU so I’ve never fought them, but i’ve guested there many times and they have more than 5 times our people…

If I got it right, GW2 has a total of over 3mio players, and it has 51 server.
This results in an average population of around 60’000 people per server. At any point in time no more than 600 people (i.e 1% of total population) fit into WvW.

These few WvW-player don’t have much influence on the classification of a server as high or medium populated.

Server capacity was recently increased, there was a dev post a day or two ago about it.

@ Dayra i was talking about PvE population not WvW since I don’t actually know what their Wvw population was.
@Rugger there’s only Medium and Very high population servers atm, that’s just not right….

Server population measures the current number of people logged in, not the total who can call the server their home. At prime time, all but 3 or so NA servers are very high population because that’s when most people play. At less common times, most servers are medium because the bulk of the population is in bed or at work.

I’m certain a similar situation exists for the EU servers, although their prime time may be a bit more spread out because of how geographically spread out the players tend to be there.

Dayra.7405:

If I got it right, GW2 has a total of over 3mio players, and it has 51 server.
This results in an average population of around 60’000 people per server. At any point in time no more than 600 people (i.e 1% of total population) fit into WvW.

These few WvW-player don’t have much influence on the classification of a server as high or medium populated.

600 at a time over 24 hours. Say 2 hour windows means 7200 WvW players in a day. But that population counter might be accts, not actively logged in, so add inactive accts to get even more WvW players.

Ideally we need to stack all the WVW people onto a few servers as possible without causing long queues, to make WVW more balanced.

One of the devs said recently they raised the cap because of the sale of the game over the weekend, expecting more folks to come in looking for homes. That’s all it is.

well my issue is, why are there no High servers ?! There’s only Med and Very high population…
Atleast in EU it is.

Dayra.7405:

If I got it right, GW2 has a total of over 3mio players, and it has 51 server.
This results in an average population of around 60’000 people per server. At any point in time no more than 600 people (i.e 1% of total population) fit into WvW.

These few WvW-player don’t have much influence on the classification of a server as high or medium populated.

ur math is way off,
GW2 sold 3 million copies, it does not mean 3 million players,

2 months after Gw2 realeased, they got their highest “concurrent players” at 400k
which means the people who regualrly log in to play.

But who is counting for world population?
Only the ones that are currently online or everyone registered for a server or anything in between?

Dayra.7405:

But who is counting for world population?
Only the ones that are currently online or everyone registered for a server or anything in between?

People online at the time.

Repeat viewings of servers population table by repeat clicking, unclicking, and re-clicking again of servers population button had shown that servers population table is in a constant flux. From one instance to the next the highest population server can and does switched to be the lowest. This dramatic change of population a server go through in a very short time would indicate that internet instability affect many people and mass disconnection does regularly and periodically happened.

salluks.6017:

Dayra.7405:

If I got it right, GW2 has a total of over 3mio players, and it has 51 server.
This results in an average population of around 60’000 people per server. At any point in time no more than 600 people (i.e 1% of total population) fit into WvW.

These few WvW-player don’t have much influence on the classification of a server as high or medium populated.

ur math is way off,
GW2 sold 3 million copies, it does not mean 3 million players,

2 months after Gw2 realeased, they got their highest “concurrent players” at 400k
which means the people who regualrly log in to play.

That’s not even remotely close to what “concurrent players” means. Concurrent players means “players logged in at the same time.” They literally had 400k people playing at the same time.

Avariz.8241:

Repeat viewings of servers population table by repeat clicking, unclicking, and re-clicking again of servers population button had shown that servers population table is in a constant flux. From one instance to the next the highest population server can and does switched to be the lowest. This dramatic change of population a server go through in a very short time would indicate that internet instability affect many people and mass disconnection does regularly and periodically happened.

Or people just have differing schedules, and the population differences between servers aren’t nearly as significant as some people try to make them out to be. Jumping from “number of people logged in at once changes a lot” to “there must be mass disconnections” is quite the ridiculous leap.

Avariz.8241:

Repeat viewings of servers population table by repeat clicking, unclicking, and re-clicking again of servers population button had shown that servers population table is in a constant flux. From one instance to the next the highest population server can and does switched to be the lowest. This dramatic change of population a server go through in a very short time would indicate that internet instability affect many people and mass disconnection does regularly and periodically happened.

They’re listed randomly not by amount of people. Vabbi and FoW have by far the lowest amount of people and are also listed randomly.

Syeria.4812:

Avariz.8241:

Repeat viewings of servers population table by repeat clicking, unclicking, and re-clicking again of servers population button had shown that servers population table is in a constant flux. From one instance to the next the highest population server can and does switched to be the lowest. This dramatic change of population a server go through in a very short time would indicate that internet instability affect many people and mass disconnection does regularly and periodically happened.

Or people just have differing schedules, and the population differences between servers aren’t nearly as significant as some people try to make them out to be. Jumping from “number of people logged in at once changes a lot” to “there must be mass disconnections” is quite the ridiculous leap.

You are correct. It is ridiculous of me not to have clarified in what I meant. There are no fluctuation in the server population standing among the medium population servers. Medium population servers stayed medium. There are no fluctuation in the server population standing among the high population servers. They remained high. However, among the very high population servers, their standing in the table is in a constant flux from moment to moment as shown when they are rechecked from one moment to the next by clicking, unclicking, and re-clicking the server population buttons. This is while they remain in the very high population servers category.

I am only referring to the NA table.

Ilesyt.7084:

Avariz.8241:

Repeat viewings of servers population table by repeat clicking, unclicking, and re-clicking again of servers population button had shown that servers population table is in a constant flux. From one instance to the next the highest population server can and does switched to be the lowest. This dramatic change of population a server go through in a very short time would indicate that internet instability affect many people and mass disconnection does regularly and periodically happened.

They’re listed randomly not by amount of people. Vabbi and FoW have by far the lowest amount of people and are also listed randomly.

Your explanation does account for the fluctuation in the NA very high population servers standing.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Server-Populations/first#post703192
It’s 4 months old, but unless i see a newer dev post stating anything along the lines of ‘server population reflects currently online players’, this should be considered false. The server population is based on grand total of people who chose that server as their homeworld, regardless of where they started originally (aka transferers count) or if they are currently online.
I even asked Eva via a pm to clarify it:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Server-Populations/first#post703192
Did you mean ‘concurrent active accounts RIGHT NOW’, as in people logged in and playing at this moment, or ‘active accounts which made this server their homeworld’, as in everyone who registered on server X and moved onto it, but isn’t necessarilly logged in at the time?
Thanks for clarification o/

Hello there, Drkn.
Maybe I did not explain myself correctly after all.
It is the second option of the one you expose.
Thanks for asking!

High and very high servers may simply have much more inactive players than the medium ones, be it post-cap-rising or earlier. The disparities between medium SFR and medium RoS may lie in the same – RoS may simply have more accounts with RoS as their homeworld which are currently not used at all.

drkn.3429:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Server-Populations/first#post703192
It’s 4 months old, but unless i see a newer dev post stating anything along the lines of ‘server population reflects currently online players’, this should be considered false. The server population is based on grand total of people who chose that server as their homeworld, regardless of where they started originally (aka transferers count) or if they are currently online.
I even asked Eva via a pm to clarify it:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Server-Populations/first#post703192
Did you mean ‘concurrent active accounts RIGHT NOW’, as in people logged in and playing at this moment, or ‘active accounts which made this server their homeworld’, as in everyone who registered on server X and moved onto it, but isn’t necessarilly logged in at the time?
Thanks for clarification o/

Hello there, Drkn.
Maybe I did not explain myself correctly after all.
It is the second option of the one you expose.
Thanks for asking!

High and very high servers may simply have much more inactive players than the medium ones, be it post-cap-rising or earlier. The disparities between medium SFR and medium RoS may lie in the same – RoS may simply have more accounts with RoS as their homeworld which are currently not used at all.

Players have repeatedly proven that server population designations are at least semi-dependent upon the number of currently logged in players. This has been proven by large guilds staging mass log-outs (prior to population capacity increases) in order to fit wvw transfer guilds in on their server.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Server-Populations/first#post703192

This even suggests that people that were not on-line since some month are still counting.
So the 3mio sold copies distributed over 51 server is correct, given that anyone that bough the game was online at least once to choose a server.

Thanks for finding and posting it, Syeria.

Another thing to remember is that the 3 million sold figure was reported on January 15. Factoring in the sales they’ve had in the 3 months since, they’re almost certainly closer to 4 million sales than 3 million at this point.

Players have repeatedly proven that server population designations are at least semi-dependent upon the number of currently logged in players. This has been proven by large guilds staging mass log-outs (prior to population capacity increases) in order to fit wvw transfer guilds in on their server.

Sorry, but there are many factors that may affect it, including dev manipulation (upping the cap), and i believe it’s silly to base on ‘players proving’ anything. Dev post or didn’t happen.
Eva’s post, although old, was pretty clear, and cleared up even further via pm. She might have been wrong, not aware of how it really works, but still – dev word > player ‘proof’.

drkn.3429:

Players have repeatedly proven that server population designations are at least semi-dependent upon the number of currently logged in players. This has been proven by large guilds staging mass log-outs (prior to population capacity increases) in order to fit wvw transfer guilds in on their server.

Sorry, but there are many factors that may affect it, including dev manipulation (upping the cap), and i believe it’s silly to base on ‘players proving’ anything. Dev post or didn’t happen.
Eva’s post, although old, was pretty clear, and cleared up even further via pm. She might have been wrong, not aware of how it really works, but still – dev word > player ‘proof’.

In other words, even though you’ve been proven wrong, you insist that you’re still right because you believe you are right. Brilliant.

No – i ask for any dev post at least hinting that you are right. Base on solid evidence rather than rumoured player proof.

@down: true. Still, a fancy red arena icon there to back it up :p

Not discrediting her claims, but correcting you usage of the word dev: Eva’s a community manager, not a dev.