Guild Wars 2

The thread in the subject line

So what was the outcome of this? There was a lot of conversation around this but I have not seen anything tangible from this beyond the Sneak Attack event (which doesn’t actually address solving population imbalance, only treating the symptoms of it).

Has there been any off-forum conversation from ANet (videos, blog posts, Twitter, etc.) on this topic? Any updates? I’d love to hear how ANet is researching the problem, not just empty reassurance they’re “working on it.” If they’ve done this, can you please share the info?

Thanks.

There are no real updates yet. The devs got the info they wanted and they went back to their lairs to discuss it with no promises of anything being done.

Given the complexity and scope of things talked about I wouldn’t expect anything to change, if it changes, before the fall 2015 feature patch.

At this stage it’s probably considered “in development” and they won’t be allowed to talk about it so don’t expect much in the way of a dev response.

Unfortunately there is not a viable solution to fix the population imbalance. The most we can hope for is an adequate handicap to the lesser populated servers of a match up.

Torsailr.8456:

At this stage it’s probably considered “in development” and they won’t be allowed to talk about it so don’t expect much in the way of a dev response.

I absolutely HATE this about ANet.

^ A reason I protested the game for 6 months. I like your ideas though robot. Its cool you have been posting them.

The solution is easy:

bool CanIEnterWvW(int myServerPop, int Op1ServerPop, int Op2ServerPop)
{
if (myServerPop <= MinEntry)
return TRUE;
if( (myServerPop < (Op1ServerPop + AFEWMORE) &&
(myServerPop < )Op2ServerPop + AFEWMORE))
return TRUE;

return FALSE
}

That is the function in C code that fixes the problem. If queue times become long then people transfer to the lower WvW pop servers…and it all spreads out.

For this to have taken so long is really hard to understand.

Thanks

Eotm and its overflows don’t have balanced sides as it is, I think it is working as intended – with transfers you can’t stop certain servers being over populated compared to others, unless there is incentive for the players to spread out.

I think anet should change the whole server thing.
The game should dish out guilds to servers every week at reset.
Example: Every week you can choose your wvw guild what will define your server for the next week.
Guilds could make some warscore what determinates a ladder. First guild go first server, second go second… If there is x servers the x+1th guild go again to the first server. I think there are way more potent guilds as much servers we need.

McWolfy.5924:

The game should dish out guilds to servers every week at reset.

Seeing your signature and all the transferring you have done, I understand why you’d say something like that..

However, there are quite some people that have a bond with their home server.. So dishing them out to other servers each week will result in those no longer feeling as involved, and eventually refrain from playing WvW..

Tribio.8531:

McWolfy.5924:

The game should dish out guilds to servers every week at reset.

Seeing your signature and all the transferring you have done, I understand why you’d say something like that..

However, there are quite some people that have a bond with their home server.. So dishing them out to other servers each week will result in those no longer feeling as involved, and eventually refrain from playing WvW..

I think more people stop playing because the pop imbalance and stacking/bandwagoning servers. And i think the server pride will change to guild pride (so much my guild is in top100 wow ladder)

No matter what if anything at all they do now, it is too little, too late. The ship has left the harbor ….

Tongku.5326:

No matter what if anything at all they do now, it is too little, too late. The ship has left the harbor ….

As a Tier 2 server player who had 20+ queue on all four of the WvW maps in the evening all week, I do not think you know what your talking about.

Skeletor.9360:

The solution is easy:

(…)

That is the function in C code that fixes the problem. If queue times become long then people transfer to the lower WvW pop servers…and it all spreads out.

For this to have taken so long is really hard to understand.

Thanks

EDIT: After a second look I realized both solutions are the same as it has been brought to my attention. Leaving the rest of my post for the sake of argument.

You could have a lowest limit of 15, for example, just so no one server can lock everyone out of one map, as if that was even possible.
Then after that have the limit dynamically increased or reduced depending the side with the lowest presence +5, for example.

Server A has 27 people in?
Limit for servers B and C is 32.

Server B suddenly goes away in mass leaving only 18 people behind?
New cap for the map is 23, server C might still have 32 people in at this point, but no on else will be allowed in even when they start going away until they dip bellow the limit.

Server A disappears leaving only 4 behind? Map limit of 15 for the others.

Is there room to exploit this? Frankly no, if you think you can control everyone in a server you have another thing coming, people do as they please, try to boycott telling everyone not to go there and see what that gets you.

With a dynamic population cap you would effectively be fighting with even numbers all the time, which is ultimately what people want, except the ones that play around the fact they can outnumber the enemy 3, 4 or 5 to 1 and call that “winning”.

Dean Calaway.9718:

A much better solution than that would be dynamic limits on the maps that would climb up and down according to the server with the least presence.

I +10000 this idea..

A dynamic map limitation seems fine until server A decides to rage quit because they are losing, now servers B and C have to suffer and are unable to play.

Instead of trying to fix the imbalance which there is no viable solution for we need an adequate handicap for the servers which have a lesser population.

Crius.5487:

Instead of trying to fix the imbalance which there is no viable solution for we need an adequate handicap for the servers which have a lesser population.

There’s no such thing.

The only real solution is reduced map caps coupled with free transfers to encourage guilds to spread out more. But that will never happen either because Anet values people’s $ over people’s enjoyment of their game.

Dean Calaway.9718:

Skeletor.9360:

The solution is easy:

(…)

That is the function in C code that fixes the problem. If queue times become long then people transfer to the lower WvW pop servers…and it all spreads out.

For this to have taken so long is really hard to understand.

Thanks

That is a VERY bad solution.
Not only people don’t wanna spend the 800 gems on transfers, there is also the server pride to consider, you know, for the people that don’t just jump on the most packet server to outnumber the enemy 3 to 1 and “win”?

A much better solution than that would be dynamic limits on the maps that would climb up and down according to the server with the least presence.

You could have a lowest limit of 15, for example, just so no one server can lock everyone out of one map, as if that was even possible.
Then after that have the limit dynamically increased or reduced depending the side with the lowest presence +5, for example.

Server A has 27 people in?
Limit for servers B and C is 32.

Server B suddenly goes away in mass leaving only 18 people behind?
New cap for the map is 23, server C might still have 32 people in at this point, but no on else will be allowed in even when they start going away until they dip bellow the limit.

Server A disappears leaving only 4 behind? Map limit of 15 for the others.

Is there room to exploit this? Frankly no, if you think you can control everyone in a server you have another thing coming, people do as they please, try to boycott telling everyone not to go there and see what that gets you.

With a dynamic population cap you would effectively be fighting with even numbers all the time, which is ultimately what people want, except the ones that play around the fact they can outnumber the enemy 3, 4 or 5 to 1 and call that “winning”.

Huh? You call the quoted solution “very bad,” then go on to suggest a solution that is the exact same thing as the “very bad” one?

wait for the 1st tiers to become like the others, situation will balance itself.