Guild Wars 2

One of the biggest gripes about WvW has always been population. With the large population of some servers being stacked against the smaller populations of other servers, there are often blow out matches. This is a much bigger problem on NA than on EU.

I had some thoughts on the concept.

Rather than the existing 120 (IIRC) player per side per map cap as it is now. Reduce the map cap to, say, 40 for the sake of discussion. Now, when one shard is completely filled by all three sides a new shard is created kinda like the megaservers. Now, one might think “but then the first players on to the new shard have the advantage of numbers”. To address that, the shard would fill up in equal numbers based on the lowest number of players in the queue.

For example: there are 10 players in server A queue, 20 in B and 50 in C for EBG. So 10 players from all three servers would be allowed entry to the new shard, while the 10 and 40 remaining from B and C would stay in the queue until more players arrive from A. Once the 40 players per side cap is reached a new shard is created and the process repeats up to a maximum of, say, 3 shards for the sake of argument. Furthermore, this only works if there are a minimum 5 players in each queue else the shard doesn’t open

There are hopes that HoT may bring some new scoring scheme but this is doubtful. I won’t speculate and instead will stick with PPT. Each shard contributes points as normal except the points awarded would depend on the number of shards open. So with only 1 shard full of players, it would tick as normal, but with 2 shards open the points are halved and if all 3 are open then it is reduced by a third. Rather than be a blanket permanent reduction by a third, I felt a scaling points system would be fairer so that all player’s contribution would be equally distributed. A system with more shards would reduce it proportionately.

There are a couple of points that I think this system addresses.
1. Server wvw population bloat: Some servers are massively loaded with players while others are barren. By having, a cap on number of shards available with a tight restriction on numbers, guilds that can field quite good sized groups on their own will have to think about whether to relocate or not. This would be beneficial to the lower tier servers

2. Frame drops: Anyone who plays in the big fights knows of the drag on graphics, particularly older machines, that huge zerg fights (>50 players per side) have. With a cap of 40 (or maybe less?) players per side, this might be addressed.

3. Coverage: A big grip is coverage by OCX and SEA. As I haven’t played on NA I have no idea what sized groups are being fielded, so it’s a guess that a 40 player cap is suitable.

4. Tactical play: Big zerg fights are fun no doubt but it also be repetitive. With a full map of 40 (or whatever) players a side, commanders are forced to think about how to deploy their players. How many scouts? How many havoc groups? How big for the main body?

Rather than a solution, it’s more of a thought exercise

There are quite a few problems with the concept you brought up. The full focus of this type of change would be ppt oriented w/o consideration for the types of styles that people like to play as many people that play WvW don’t play for points.

Yes, server population disparities are a major problem and while lowering population caps sound nice at first, they ignore the reason some people play the game. There are people in T1 that probably love massive fights (not in T1 but have a guildy that enjoyes them w/ alt in T1). But even w/o that, population caps make it hard for guilds to all their members out, the members that they want to play the game with.

How will the system recognize people when reviewing numbers. Will players with the same guild tag somehow get priority over others? Or will guilds be split with half their numbers on one map and half on another.

What if you are trying to organize fights between your group and another. Or what if you want to zerg bust? Taking a skilled group of 25-30 to attack a group of 50+? Running over a group of 40 with that many is too easy.

And in response to saying that it would cause guilds to move, some aren’t able to do to the focus that they want. GvG focused guilds can’t leave their tier due to the kind of competition that they want. That doesn’t mean they should be ignored or that they should suffer trying to find a way to get their guild onto the same instanced map. Or in the same respect, that a commander should try to lead an even numbered fight against say a gvg guild or zerg busting guild, due to map constraints. Or pity the map that doesn’t have a tag…

I love being in T8. During Primetime, when I play most often, the tempo is good for a small havoc group, and a single guild can really make a difference. Not too much blobbing, and you get to know the other players.

The down side though is that you can encounter this if you decide to play early morning EST;