Sanctum of Rall
Population Very High yet Event Empty
1 2
I’m not sure you understand how the servers work. Each world server can only contain a finite amount of players (say 10,000). If the server is full or close to it, that means it has close to the maximum number of players allowed.
Going on, not all players on your specific server might want to do a particular event. So if there’s 10,000 people living on your server, and they all want to do Queensdale, or SPvP, or even WvW, then you have the following choices:
1) Transfer to another server that has similar interests as you
or
2) Convince people on your server to have similar interests as you
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Most people guest on popular servers so no point to merge anything. Firts anet must erase guest option from game.
Most people are probably just guesting. The overflow are doing much better compare to some of the home server.
I think technology for single shard with district kind of like that in GW1 is a good idea. But I’m not sure how difficult it is to implement. And server transfer is one of the way Anet makes money. I’m not sure Anet would do that.
They should have not put servers assigned to the whole game world but assign servers to each zone. If a zone is over populated it will create overflows. if not all people will join the same zone up until its population is maxed.
Most people guest on popular servers so no point to merge anything. Firts anet must erase guest option from game.
So out of touch!!! Guesting works great, going into overflow—not a problem since you can be successful. It really has no impact on the the server. On ET there is barely enough people showing up to fill a lane let alone five, commanders aren’t even showing up (5 times in a row including prime time in the evening). Why should I be excluded from being having a chance of being successful with an event because a server has given up?
Been guesting the last two days, and even though haven’t won yet (up to 3 chains), got lots of codes/ multiple chest openings in the lair, lots of fun, loot etc.
In GW2, server(Deso, Vizu, Sfr, Dr) = WvW.
PvE server = NA, EU. Only 2, with some subserver, but you can choose 2per day + your WvW.
Accept this and all become easiest.
I’m not sure you understand how the servers work. Each world server can only contain a finite amount of players (say 10,000). If the server is full or close to it, that means it has close to the maximum number of players allowed.
Going on, not all players on your specific server might want to do a particular event. So if there’s 10,000 people living on your server, and they all want to do Queensdale, or SPvP, or even WvW, then you have the following choices:
1) Transfer to another server that has similar interests as you
or
2) Convince people on your server to have similar interests as you
Youre missing the point. Theres no reason to separate players on to different servers in terms of PVE. Overflows are proof of that. Merge the normal channels as well, problem solved.
Sanctum of Rall
I’m not sure you understand how the servers work. Each world server can only contain a finite amount of players (say 10,000). If the server is full or close to it, that means it has close to the maximum number of players allowed.
Going on, not all players on your specific server might want to do a particular event. So if there’s 10,000 people living on your server, and they all want to do Queensdale, or SPvP, or even WvW, then you have the following choices:
1) Transfer to another server that has similar interests as you
or
2) Convince people on your server to have similar interests as you
Youre missing the point. Theres no reason to separate players on to different servers in terms of PVE. Overflows are proof of that. Merge the normal channels as well, problem solved.
No. Each server has it’s own map. It makes no sense to have shared maps, because then it causes more problems when you have 100,000 people trying to get into the same map that only holds 150.
If one server decides to PvE less, then you have to make the decision to leave, or gather people to do PvE with you. That’s how you solve your problem.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
I’m not sure you understand how the servers work. Each world server can only contain a finite amount of players (say 10,000). If the server is full or close to it, that means it has close to the maximum number of players allowed.
Going on, not all players on your specific server might want to do a particular event. So if there’s 10,000 people living on your server, and they all want to do Queensdale, or SPvP, or even WvW, then you have the following choices:
1) Transfer to another server that has similar interests as you
or
2) Convince people on your server to have similar interests as you
Youre missing the point. Theres no reason to separate players on to different servers in terms of PVE. Overflows are proof of that. Merge the normal channels as well, problem solved.
No. Each server has it’s own map. It makes no sense to have shared maps, because then it causes more problems when you have 100,000 people trying to get into the same map that only holds 150.
If one server decides to PvE less, then you have to make the decision to leave, or gather people to do PvE with you. That’s how you solve your problem.
Why is that a problem? Keep creating layers. It doesn’t matter what server someone came from. Its all ONE server.
Sanctum of Rall
People are guesting other servers. People won’t do Tequatl on their own server they guest another more popular server todown Tequatl. Very bad attitude imo.
I’m not sure you understand how the servers work. Each world server can only contain a finite amount of players (say 10,000). If the server is full or close to it, that means it has close to the maximum number of players allowed.
Going on, not all players on your specific server might want to do a particular event. So if there’s 10,000 people living on your server, and they all want to do Queensdale, or SPvP, or even WvW, then you have the following choices:
1) Transfer to another server that has similar interests as you
or
2) Convince people on your server to have similar interests as you
Youre missing the point. Theres no reason to separate players on to different servers in terms of PVE. Overflows are proof of that. Merge the normal channels as well, problem solved.
No. Each server has it’s own map. It makes no sense to have shared maps, because then it causes more problems when you have 100,000 people trying to get into the same map that only holds 150.
If one server decides to PvE less, then you have to make the decision to leave, or gather people to do PvE with you. That’s how you solve your problem.
Why is that a problem? Keep creating layers.
That’s what Overflows are for. I think you don’t realize that the basis of your whole idea is already implemented.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Just get rid of PvE servers. Make every map an overflow. Once one map fills up, spawn another and so on. The division of PvE servers has become a problem and as player numbers dwindle and content becomes less popular, this problem is going to get bigger and bigger. Already a lot of players have no chance at Tequatl, the wurm or even marionette without guesting. It’s funny, some servers can’t fill their home map yet other servers are spawning overflows that are filling up.
Now that world events are becoming less and less viable on many servers, more and more people are guesting to popular servers, further reinforcing the privilege of populated servers and making the problem worse for home servers.
Someone suggested something to solve this problem (on this forum somewhere).
The idea of an ‘underflow’ is worth looking into. I bet that at any given time, there are not too many players in Harathi Hinterlands. An ‘underflow server’ would route player in maps with X players or less, into an UF server until it hits around 50-100 (not the 150 or more). This way you would get relatively full maps at all times.
The same could be done for cities. It could give them the life that they much need (and let you meet people you otherwise would never see)!
I like the Underflow idea, but making doing away with world specific maps would create havoc for guilds that like to do PvE together.
I’m not sure you understand how the servers work. Each world server can only contain a finite amount of players (say 10,000). If the server is full or close to it, that means it has close to the maximum number of players allowed.
Going on, not all players on your specific server might want to do a particular event. So if there’s 10,000 people living on your server, and they all want to do Queensdale, or SPvP, or even WvW, then you have the following choices:
1) Transfer to another server that has similar interests as you
or
2) Convince people on your server to have similar interests as you
Youre missing the point. Theres no reason to separate players on to different servers in terms of PVE. Overflows are proof of that. Merge the normal channels as well, problem solved.
No. Each server has it’s own map. It makes no sense to have shared maps, because then it causes more problems when you have 100,000 people trying to get into the same map that only holds 150.
If one server decides to PvE less, then you have to make the decision to leave, or gather people to do PvE with you. That’s how you solve your problem.
Why is that a problem? Keep creating layers.
That’s what Overflows are for. I think you don’t realize that the basis of your whole idea is already implemented.
That’s what I said! Its already implemented, so now copy that mechanic onto non overflows. Put everyone from every server onto one map. And when that fills up, create a new map. And when that fills up, create a new map.
Sanctum of Rall
I like the Underflow idea, but making doing away with world specific maps would create havoc for guilds that like to do PvE together.
People in groups or guilds would automatically go on the same layer as their group or guild. That’s how other games do it.
Sanctum of Rall
I’m not sure you understand how the servers work. Each world server can only contain a finite amount of players (say 10,000). If the server is full or close to it, that means it has close to the maximum number of players allowed.
Going on, not all players on your specific server might want to do a particular event. So if there’s 10,000 people living on your server, and they all want to do Queensdale, or SPvP, or even WvW, then you have the following choices:
1) Transfer to another server that has similar interests as you
or
2) Convince people on your server to have similar interests as you
Youre missing the point. Theres no reason to separate players on to different servers in terms of PVE. Overflows are proof of that. Merge the normal channels as well, problem solved.
No. Each server has it’s own map. It makes no sense to have shared maps, because then it causes more problems when you have 100,000 people trying to get into the same map that only holds 150.
If one server decides to PvE less, then you have to make the decision to leave, or gather people to do PvE with you. That’s how you solve your problem.
Why is that a problem? Keep creating layers.
That’s what Overflows are for. I think you don’t realize that the basis of your whole idea is already implemented.
That’s what I said! Its already implemented, so now copy that mechanic onto non overflows. Put everyone from every server onto one map. And when that fills up, create a new map. And when that fills up, create a new map.
No. Each map only has space for a finite amount of players. By having every server go into the same map, you basically have 100,000 people trying to get into a map that holds 150. This creates problems, as players might not ever be able to play with their friends or guildies.
People in groups or guilds would automatically go on the same layer as their group or guild. That’s how other games do it.
Also no. If a map reaches the 150 player maximum, how would their group get in? Kick a solo player out? This idea creates more problems, and fixes none.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
(edited by Smooth Penguin.5294)
Most people are probably just guesting. The overflow are doing much better compare to some of the home server.
I think technology for single shard with district kind of like that in GW1 is a good idea. But I’m not sure how difficult it is to implement. And server transfer is one of the way Anet makes money. I’m not sure Anet would do that.
GW 2 has this. Most people who suggest the GW 1 system are under the impression that it is vastly different in GW 2. It really isn’t.
In GW 1 you had a set of named districts. These districts had a capacity that when reached a copy of them was created that also had a capacity. When that capacity was reached another copy was created. Players could not switch to a district that was full, they could only switch to another named district (or one of its copies) that isn’t.
In GW 2 you have a set of named zones in worlds. These zones have a capacity that when reached a copy of them is created that also has a capacity called overflows. When that capacity is reached another copy is created. Players can not switch to a zone that is full, they can only switch to another named zone in a world (or one of its copies) that isn’t.
The only difference between the setups is interface. In GW 1 it was painless to switch to an overflow district or other named district. In GW 2 to switch to another named zone you have to log out, guest (which you’re limited in doing), and then log in. If you want to switch to a specific overflow you need to know someone in that overflow, and “Join in” their overflow. Arena Net borrowed their district technology from GW and applied it to zones. They just changed a few rules on managing them.
One possibly fix that might please people is listing the overflows, assigning each a visible identifier, and letting people join them through a menu. However, this list might be huge considering GW 2’s population and might need a search function. Even then, will it really help solve the problems players are having with grouping for empty events? Creating underflows might be a better solution though that has its own problems… such as who’s version of the zone do you copy the state of (if you even bother copying the state).
(edited by SirMoogie.9263)
Most people are probably just guesting. The overflow are doing much better compare to some of the home server.
I think technology for single shard with district kind of like that in GW1 is a good idea. But I’m not sure how difficult it is to implement. And server transfer is one of the way Anet makes money. I’m not sure Anet would do that.
GW 2 has this. Most people who suggest the GW 1 system are under the impression that it is vastly different in GW 2. It really isn’t.
In GW 1 you had a set of named districts. These districts had a capacity that when reached a copy of them was created that also had a capacity. When that capacity was reached another copy was created. Players could not switch to a district that was full, they could only switch to another named district (or one of its copies) that isn’t.
In GW 2 you have a set of named zones in worlds. These zones have a capacity that when reached a copy of them is created that also has a capacity called overflows. When that capacity is reached another copy is created. Players can not switch to a zone that is full, they can only switch to another named zone in a world (or one of its copies) that isn’t.
The only difference between the setups is interface. In GW 1 it was painless to switch to an overflow district or other named district. In GW 2 to switch to another named zone you have to log out, guest (which you’re limited in doing), and then log in. If you want to switch to a specific overflow you need to know someone in that overflow, and “Join in” their overflow. Arena Net borrowed their district technology from GW and applied it to zones. They just changed a few rules on managing them.
One possibly fix that might please people is listing the overflows, assigning each a visible identifier, and letting people join them through a menu. However, this list might be huge considering GW 2’s population and might need a search function. Even then, will it really help solve the problems players are having with grouping for empty events? Creating underflows might be a better solution though that has its own problems… such as who’s version of the zone do you copy the state of (if you even bother copying the state).
I’m not familiar with how the system worked in GW1 but from what you’re describing it sounds like the copies of the districts were specific to the respective main server, which the overflows in GW2 currently aren’t. I think the biggest problem with the current system is that overflows are international. We’ve been organizing wurm runs on Elona Reach for days on overflows now (to keep people who are afk-ing from blocking server spots and to incentivise people to join TeamSpeak, if only for a taxi), but a soon as you are on an overflow, you will inevitably get at least 10 people from different servers, who don’t neccesarily speak your language, don’t understand what they’re supposed to do and consequently cause the event to fail.
I think it would help tremendously if the overflows were at least regionalized. It doesn’t neccesarily have to be one overflow for one main server, but if you have a German, Spanish or French speaking main server, there should be some mechanism to ensure that the overflows get filled with people speaking the same language. Otherwise all attempts at organizing these events are in vain.
I’m not familiar with how the system worked in GW1 but from what you’re describing it sounds like the copies of the districts were specific to the respective main server,
Guild Wars didn’t have servers. It automatically placed you in a district based on your territory. For example there was an “American – English Active District” district. You were free to switch to another district, such as “Europe – English District 1” (if it wasn’t full). If a district filled up it would create another district, such as “American – English District 2”. These were not specific to a territory as anyone could go where they please.
In GW 2 we have worlds, but they function essentially the same as the named districts.1 You can think of a GW 2 world’s zone as the named districts and the overflows as the (unnamed) copies of those districts. The major difference is that GW 2 takes a conservative approach in creating the additional copies. Rather than create a copy for each world’s zone when it fills up, it creates a shared copy that all full world’s zone redirects players to when they enter the zone. My guess is they do that to save computational resources. It’s much easier to have one copy of a zone around than, say, 15… especially when those 15 are being under utilized.
1 – Except now there are two main data centers, soon to be three with Guild Wars 2’s launch in China, that prevent North American players from playing with European players
I think the biggest problem with the current system is that overflows are international.
They aren’t international. They are shared among all worlds that are part of the same regional data center. So, all European world’s can share the same overflow, but an North American world can never share the same overflow with a European world.
We’ve been organizing wurm runs on Elona Reach for days on overflows now (to keep people who are afk-ing from blocking server spots and to incentivise people to join TeamSpeak, if only for a taxi), but a soon as you are on an overflow, you will inevitably get at least 10 people from different servers, who don’t necessarily speak your language, don’t understand what they’re supposed to do and consequently cause the event to fail.
You can have this problem in ANY type of zone (overflow or non-overflow). Any world on the European data center can guest to any other world on the European data center. The language focuses on European services are guidelines, AFAIK, not restrictions on who can guest where. Being in a group on non-overflow does not confer understanding of the events, you can get people who don’t know the encounter in an overflow or out of one.
When GW 2 launched many people with international guilds were upset enough as is that they didn’t allow North American players to play with European players. Placing further restrictions on guesting and overflow creation would not go over well with some European guilds. It also won’t fix many of the problems you’re raising, save the language barrier one you raise; which it can only improve not completely fix.
They could possibly change the overflow creation rules to only place people from the same language focus worlds into the same overflows (or at least prioritize doing so), but I’m not so sure that’s an easy change nor one they have the technical capability of implementing at this point. I wouldn’t restrict players from guesting or transferring to those worlds/overflows though.
I’m not sure you understand how the servers work. Each world server can only contain a finite amount of players (say 10,000). If the server is full or close to it, that means it has close to the maximum number of players allowed.
Going on, not all players on your specific server might want to do a particular event. So if there’s 10,000 people living on your server, and they all want to do Queensdale, or SPvP, or even WvW, then you have the following choices:
1) Transfer to another server that has similar interests as you
or
2) Convince people on your server to have similar interests as you
Youre missing the point. Theres no reason to separate players on to different servers in terms of PVE. Overflows are proof of that. Merge the normal channels as well, problem solved.
No. Each server has it’s own map. It makes no sense to have shared maps, because then it causes more problems when you have 100,000 people trying to get into the same map that only holds 150.
If one server decides to PvE less, then you have to make the decision to leave, or gather people to do PvE with you. That’s how you solve your problem.
Why is that a problem? Keep creating layers.
That’s what Overflows are for. I think you don’t realize that the basis of your whole idea is already implemented.
That’s what I said! Its already implemented, so now copy that mechanic onto non overflows. Put everyone from every server onto one map. And when that fills up, create a new map. And when that fills up, create a new map.
No. Each map only has space for a finite amount of players. By having every server go into the same map, you basically have 100,000 people trying to get into a map that holds 150. This creates problems, as players might not ever be able to play with their friends or guildies.
People in groups or guilds would automatically go on the same layer as their group or guild. That’s how other games do it.
Also no. If a map reaches the 150 player maximum, how would their group get in? Kick a solo player out? This idea creates more problems, and fixes none.
Then come up with a solution of your own to deal with 5 servers having 10 people each a normal flow who cant see each other and therefore fail an event independently. All Im seeing is excuses from you.
Merging those 50 people onto one flow so they can help each other seems like common sense.
Sanctum of Rall
I’m not sure you understand how the servers work. Each world server can only contain a finite amount of players (say 10,000). If the server is full or close to it, that means it has close to the maximum number of players allowed.
Going on, not all players on your specific server might want to do a particular event. So if there’s 10,000 people living on your server, and they all want to do Queensdale, or SPvP, or even WvW, then you have the following choices:
1) Transfer to another server that has similar interests as you
or
2) Convince people on your server to have similar interests as you
Youre missing the point. Theres no reason to separate players on to different servers in terms of PVE. Overflows are proof of that. Merge the normal channels as well, problem solved.
No. Each server has it’s own map. It makes no sense to have shared maps, because then it causes more problems when you have 100,000 people trying to get into the same map that only holds 150.
If one server decides to PvE less, then you have to make the decision to leave, or gather people to do PvE with you. That’s how you solve your problem.
Why is that a problem? Keep creating layers.
That’s what Overflows are for. I think you don’t realize that the basis of your whole idea is already implemented.
That’s what I said! Its already implemented, so now copy that mechanic onto non overflows. Put everyone from every server onto one map. And when that fills up, create a new map. And when that fills up, create a new map.
No. Each map only has space for a finite amount of players. By having every server go into the same map, you basically have 100,000 people trying to get into a map that holds 150. This creates problems, as players might not ever be able to play with their friends or guildies.
People in groups or guilds would automatically go on the same layer as their group or guild. That’s how other games do it.
Also no. If a map reaches the 150 player maximum, how would their group get in? Kick a solo player out? This idea creates more problems, and fixes none.
Then come up with a solution of your own to deal with 5 servers having 10 people each a normal flow who cant see each other and therefore fail an event independently. All Im seeing is excuses from you.
Merging those 50 people onto one flow so they can help each other seems like common sense.
You still don’t get it. You CANNOT expect to merge servers into a single map, and expect that to fix anything. As I said, you are CREATING PROBLEMS with this idea. In my posts above, I laid out the problems clear as day. You have a situation where maps have a finite amount of space. Meaning, there’s a limit. If multiple guilds from multiple servers decide to play on the same map, and end up reaching the maximum amount of people allowed, the excess is pushed into an Overflow faster than if it were just a single server.
There’s nothing wrong with the current setup. The issues you’re dealing with isn’t one for Anet to fix, but rather the players on your server to decide on. If they don’t want to PvE with you, I’m sorry. Transfer out or guest somewhere else.
If you still don’t understand this, let me use a real world example. Justin Bieber is coming to your town to do a concert. You really really really want to go see him, but because no one else buys tickets, he cancels the concert. On the flip side, the city next to yours sells out, and he decides to have his concert there. Question: Do you blame Bieber for canceling his concert? Or do you blame your neighbors for not having the same interest in music as you?
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
(edited by Smooth Penguin.5294)
Then come up with a solution of your own to deal with 5 servers having 10 people each a normal flow who cant see each other and therefore fail an event independently. All Im seeing is excuses from you.
Merging those 50 people onto one flow so they can help each other seems like common sense.
Arena Net seems to at the very least have this on their mind. In the recent CDI Colin made specific mention of underflow worlds.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/3468774
(edited by SirMoogie.9263)
Then come up with a solution of your own to deal with 5 servers having 10 people each a normal flow who cant see each other and therefore fail an event independently. All Im seeing is excuses from you.
Merging those 50 people onto one flow so they can help each other seems like common sense.
Arena Net seems to at the very least have this on their mind. In the recent CDI Colin made specific mention of underflow worlds.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/CDI-Character-Progression-Horizontal/3468774
While he makes mention of Underflows, you have to consider the problems I stated. You merge people from different servers into a single map, you have the positive outcome of a more populated map. But when more people log in on off-hours, and they want to play with their friends in the same map, you get the problem of trying to fit more people into a map that’s full of people from multiple servers.
How do you prioritize who can get in the Underflow? Is it first come, first serve? Do you kick solo players so that parties or guilds can be together? At what point does the Underflow stop pulling from different servers? If a single server has enough people on the same map, are they kicked back to main? What if the Underflow is filled to max capacity, do the left overs get pushed into a new, empty Underflow?
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
The first problem is that the server population is based on number of characters created, not on number of players currently logged in. My server, Devona’s Rest, can’t muster more than 25 players for anything (not even the Queensdale Champ train). I’d be surprised if Lion’s Arch ever peaks above 40 players at any given time. Yet it is listed as a “Very High” population server. The server originally had a lot of players, but is now dead thanks to the addition of the ability to transfer to other servers.
Anyone who has ever played an MMO knows how this works, as players leave the server voluntarily, the ones who are left behind are forced to make a decision:
1. Do I pay MORE money just to play the game I already paid for with other people (as intended)?
2. Do I stop playing since there is no one left to play with?
3. Do I continue to log in for an hour a day, play around for a bit, then log out because no one is online?
No matter how these questions are answered, the result is less people online which causes more people to ask these questions. It’s a downward spiral.
Personally, I think it is incredibly unreasonable for ArenaNet to charge people to move from a dead server to a live one. At a bare minimum, they should offer free transfers from the least active servers to some medium ones. Failing that, merging servers should be their top priority in order to keep the game from dying.
Server: Devona’s Rest
I like your idea urzen, but it just isn’t compatible with the current system. The wvw relies on the servers being setup that way and it breaks if you sink them.
Though like SirMoogie says they’re thinking about basically the same idea just a softer implementation. Hopefully they’ll implement it as i’m hearing more and more new players saying there’s practically no one playing the game.
what we need is the option to move from our home server if the event is empty to an overflow server if they are available. i dont want to have to guess a server to guest to in hopes they are doing the event when i can just go directly to an overflow where i know i will find people there to do the event i want to do
Moving servers is addressing the “symptom” and not the “problem”. The problem is events like the Wurm and Tequatl and giving massive chests of wealth to the winners of WvW. These things make players want to be on the “winning” server and not fight it out on their own server so they transfer (and then come onto the forum and tell everyone else to do the same thing since it worked for them).
The Problem needs to be addressed. There was a huge CDI about WvW population balance and ways to get people to transfer back to the lower pop servers, but then new events like the Wurm come out that starts it all over again.
To put it simply, Events need to be scalable to be accomplished by ANY server and not just the Elite few. Rewards should not be granted to the server that can muster the most people for a given event but should be based upon over-all challenge of the event. If anything, greater reward should be given to those people that succeed on an event with LESS people instead of more. After-all, what is harder…defeating an event with a 150 person zerg who all just spam #1 at the same spot? Or defeating the same event with 50 well-organized people who each contribute by utilizing blast fields and finishers to maximize their damage and equal 150 people?
And Thus, these events should be able to be accomplished by both. And note, I am saying the event should be easier with 150 people, and harder with less (but still doable). If you start making the rewards greater for the lower amount, you will start seeing people grabbing their guilds and guesting to low-pop servers to do events with less people, you will also see transfers to the low pop servers of entire guilds to get these rewards (the opposite of what is happening)….until eventually everything will even out.
While he makes mention of Underflows, you have to consider the problems I stated. You merge people from different servers into a single map, you have the positive outcome of a more populated map. But when more people log in on off-hours, and they want to play with their friends in the same map, you get the problem of trying to fit more people into a map that’s full of people from multiple servers.
I can see the problem, but I think it’s solvable. One method they could take is to treat world choice as only mattering for WvW match ups. In this scenario if a player enters Queensdale they get placed into “Queensdale – 1” with other players until it reaches capacity. Once it reaches capacity “Queensdale – 2” is created and players are placed into that. If players wish to join another underflow because their friends are there they can join in. There would no longer be a copy of each zone for each server (i.e., “Queensdale – Fort Aspenwood”) . In this situation zones now operate much more closely to their GW counterpart, districts and guesting is irrelevant.
Another route they could take is arbitrarily defining a zone as underflow based on capacity (e.g., a zone is under capacity when it has 10 or less players). Upon a zone reaching this state a player entering it gets a prompt asking if they wish to move to the underflow for the zone. As underflows reach max capacity new ones are created like above. If the player’s home server’s copy of a zone goes above the underflow limit, the players get a notification that their zone is now populating and they can re-enter it. Players can always go back to main at their choosing.
Neither of these methods precludes people from playing with who they want and both solve the problems you raise.
The first problem is that the server population is based on number of characters created, not on number of players currently logged in. My server, Devona’s Rest, can’t muster more than 25 players for anything (not even the Queensdale Champ train). I’d be surprised if Lion’s Arch ever peaks above 40 players at any given time. Yet it is listed as a “Very High” population server. The server originally had a lot of players, but is now dead thanks to the addition of the ability to transfer to other servers.
Anyone who has ever played an MMO knows how this works, as players leave the server voluntarily, the ones who are left behind are forced to make a decision:
1. Do I pay MORE money just to play the game I already paid for with other people (as intended)?
2. Do I stop playing since there is no one left to play with?
3. Do I continue to log in for an hour a day, play around for a bit, then log out because no one is online?No matter how these questions are answered, the result is less people online which causes more people to ask these questions. It’s a downward spiral.
Personally, I think it is incredibly unreasonable for ArenaNet to charge people to move from a dead server to a live one. At a bare minimum, they should offer free transfers from the least active servers to some medium ones. Failing that, merging servers should be their top priority in order to keep the game from dying.
But then you get the question of “fairness”. If two servers are “high population”, but one PvEs more and one WvWs more, which measurement are you using to determine the free transfers? If you’re trying to satisfy PvE players, WvW will complain, and vice versa. Why should Anet offer the service for only one type of player?
Example: Offering the free transfer option to servers with low active PvE players, but has active WvW players, only invites bandwagoning to more successful WvW League servers. Those WvW players will take advantage of the transfer to go to a Tier 1 server, thus creating more problems for servers like Black Gate, who have queues hours long.
Going back on this, you make mention that you feel less people online is like a downward spiral. What if the servers are highly populated, but a majority of the players log in on an opposite time zone than you? If you live in North America, what’s to say the server you’re on has more Australians?
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
But then you get the question of “fairness”. If two servers are “high population”, but one PvEs more and one WvWs more, which measurement are you using to determine the free transfers? If you’re trying to satisfy PvE players, WvW will complain, and vice versa. Why should Anet offer the service for only one type of player?
Example: Offering the free transfer option to servers with low active PvE players, but has active WvW players, only invites bandwagoning to more successful WvW League servers. Those WvW players will take advantage of the transfer to go to a Tier 1 server, thus creating more problems for servers like Black Gate, who have queues hours long.
Going back on this, you make mention that you feel less people online is like a downward spiral. What if the servers are highly populated, but a majority of the players log in on an opposite time zone than you? If you live in North America, what’s to say the server you’re on has more Australians?
High pop servers wouldn’t get free transfers, only low pop servers. That’s the only fair way to do it because that’s the only objective criteria available. They also won’t be able to transfer to a high pop server for free, only to a medium pop. If you’re really concerned about WvW Tiers, then you could specify that you can’t use a free transfer to go to a Tier 1 server.
I don’t have feelings, I have data. Devona’s Rest is dead at any time of day. We peak in population during the hours of 7-9 EST. For reference, here is our WvW ranking:
https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/na/wvw
Dead last since November.
Fact is, some servers are dying because ArenaNet opened enough to handle LAUNCH level active player volume. Now that those peaks are long gone, it is time for them to consolidate the dying servers before they lose players who want to play but can’t.
Server: Devona’s Rest
But then you get the question of “fairness”. If two servers are “high population”, but one PvEs more and one WvWs more, which measurement are you using to determine the free transfers? If you’re trying to satisfy PvE players, WvW will complain, and vice versa. Why should Anet offer the service for only one type of player?
Example: Offering the free transfer option to servers with low active PvE players, but has active WvW players, only invites bandwagoning to more successful WvW League servers. Those WvW players will take advantage of the transfer to go to a Tier 1 server, thus creating more problems for servers like Black Gate, who have queues hours long.
Going back on this, you make mention that you feel less people online is like a downward spiral. What if the servers are highly populated, but a majority of the players log in on an opposite time zone than you? If you live in North America, what’s to say the server you’re on has more Australians?
High pop servers wouldn’t get free transfers, only low pop servers. That’s the only fair way to do it because that’s the only objective criteria available. They also won’t be able to transfer to a high pop server for free, only to a medium pop. If you’re really concerned about WvW Tiers, then you could specify that you can’t use a free transfer to go to a Tier 1 server.
I don’t have feelings, I have data. Devona’s Rest is dead at any time of day. We peak in population during the hours of 7-9 EST. For reference, here is our WvW ranking:
https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/na/wvw
Dead last since November.Fact is, some servers are dying because ArenaNet opened enough to handle LAUNCH level active player volume. Now that those peaks are long gone, it is time for them to consolidate the dying servers before they lose players who want to play but can’t.
Forgive me on this, but I’m at work and can’t check in game populations ATM. But I thought all servers were “High” or “Very High” population currently. Now as for your rank in WvW, that’s not a clear indication for the general health of your server overall. It could just mean that your server has players who care to PvE more than WvW.
Take a step back and think about this situation. If a low population server was given free transfer to leave, wouldn’t that be an invitation to kill off the server? An alternate to this would be to offer “Very High” or “Full” servers a free transfer downward. But this brings more problems, because if you keep allowing players to transfer for free, it changes the dynamics of each Tier.
As an example, look at rise and fall of Kaineng. They rose quickly, then imploded due to server transfers. This could happen to Devona’s Rest too if there were free transfers, and I don’t think this type of stability issues is something Anet encourages. Part of the cost/fee for transferring is to provide Anet with Gem income. But that’s secondary to keeping the cost/fee high enough to discourage server hopping. If you want to move, there’s a price you have to pay. Then, you have real consequences for the decision you and/or your guild makes. If you can afford to pay the Gems, then by all means do so. But a majority of players (I assume) would hesitate to transfer unless there’s a very good reason to.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Forgive me on this, but I’m at work and can’t check in game populations ATM. But I thought all servers were “High” or “Very High” population currently. Now as for your rank in WvW, that’s not a clear indication for the general health of your server overall. It could just mean that your server has players who care to PvE more than WvW.
Take a step back and think about this situation. If a low population server was given free transfer to leave, wouldn’t that be an invitation to kill off the server? An alternate to this would be to offer “Very High” or “Full” servers a free transfer downward. But this brings more problems, because if you keep allowing players to transfer for free, it changes the dynamics of each Tier.
As an example, look at rise and fall of Kaineng. They rose quickly, then imploded due to server transfers. This could happen to Devona’s Rest too if there were free transfers, and I don’t think this type of stability issues is something Anet encourages. Part of the cost/fee for transferring is to provide Anet with Gem income. But that’s secondary to keeping the cost/fee high enough to discourage server hopping. If you want to move, there’s a price you have to pay. Then, you have real consequences for the decision you and/or your guild makes. If you can afford to pay the Gems, then by all means do so. But a majority of players (I assume) would hesitate to transfer unless there’s a very good reason to.
Yes, we care much more about PvE than we do WvW. That’s why we have about 15-20 people doing the Marionette each time.
The fact is, this is a problem that ArenaNet needs to fix because they were the ones who broke the servers in the first place when they added paid transfers.
High pop servers are doing just fine, but the emigration has caused many servers to DIE. Dead servers lead to players quitting, which is something that needs to be fixed and fixed quickly… by ArenaNet… since they created the impetus for the problem and the means by which the problem has manifested.
Server: Devona’s Rest
I like your idea urzen, but it just isn’t compatible with the current system. The wvw relies on the servers being setup that way and it breaks if you sink them.
Though like SirMoogie says they’re thinking about basically the same idea just a softer implementation. Hopefully they’ll implement it as i’m hearing more and more new players saying there’s practically no one playing the game.
I don’t think it matters for WvW. You can still pick a team and identify as them. In fact, get rid of server names, and form guild alliances instead, then recruit. Doesn’t matter. Im not concerned with WvW. it has it owns problems.
Sanctum of Rall
Just tried wurm again, 15 people on, barely got through escorts, focused everyone on one wurm, still couldn’t do it. I wonder how many other servers had the exact same problem at the same time, who would have benefited from merging the instances....
Sanctum of Rall
The solution is simple, really.
Lets say i wanna do map completion in Queensdale FA. and it has less then 10 ppl on it.
The game then gives me a popup “this map appears to be empty, do you want to guest free of charge to EBay Yes/No?” or whatever server that has about 10ppl in the map.
And then as soon as the player number on EBay hits 25-30 players, the Guests that come in are stopped, and a new server is picked.
So that way, if a guild happens to do guild missions or w/e, they still have 120slots left to fill.
There, I fixed it.
i7-3770K, XFX HD7970, ASUS SABERTOOTH, G.Skill ARES 16 GB 1600
Vizier: 80 mesm-guard-ele-war
Fort Aspenwood
Vizier: 80 mesm-guard-ele-war
Fort Aspenwood
I think the biggest problem with the current system is that overflows are international.
They aren’t international. They are shared among all worlds that are part of the same regional data center. So, all European world’s can share the same overflow, but an North American world can never share the same overflow with a European world.
That’s exactly what international means. They are shared between (inter) nations. The term you mean is global, I think.
The solution is simple, really.
Lets say i wanna do map completion in Queensdale FA. and it has less then 10 ppl on it.
The game then gives me a popup “this map appears to be empty, do you want to guest free of charge to EBay Yes/No?” or whatever server that has about 10ppl in the map.
And then as soon as the player number on EBay hits 25-30 players, the Guests that come in are stopped, and a new server is picked.So that way, if a guild happens to do guild missions or w/e, they still have 120slots left to fill.
There, I fixed it.
Guesting already exists, and there’s no cost…
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
That’s exactly what international means. They are shared between (inter) nations. The term you mean is global, I think.
You are correct. Thanks
They need to do some sort of merging, like allowing players to join overflow maps even when their home map is not full. If you enter an event map and find it nearly empty, you shouldn’t have to figure out which servers are doing it and try to guest over there from the log-in screen, you should just be able to press a button somewhere on the minimap or the LFG tool or something that will automatically shift you towards the next open overflow, just as if you’d attempted to log on to your home server and it was full.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
They need to do some sort of merging, like allowing players to join overflow maps even when their home map is not full. If you enter an event map and find it nearly empty, you shouldn’t have to figure out which servers are doing it and try to guest over there from the log-in screen, you should just be able to press a button somewhere on the minimap or the LFG tool or something that will automatically shift you towards the next open overflow, just as if you’d attempted to log on to your home server and it was full.
Id rather it be done automatically. Anyone on any server who enters a zone all go on to same layer. When it fills up, create a new layer and do the same thing. Allow players to change layers, join their friends, guild, groups in other layers, etc. Same thing as other games already have. Other than WvW, servers are a useless distinction. Market is integrated. Dungeons are integrated, you can guest from layer to layer. Just take the final step and merge PVE altogether.
Sanctum of Rall
Id rather it be done automatically. Anyone on any server who enters a zone all go on to same layer. When it fills up, create a new layer and do the same thing. Allow players to change layers, join their friends, guild, groups in other layers, etc. Same thing as other games already have. Other than WvW, servers are a useless distinction. Market is integrated. Dungeons are integrated, you can guest from layer to layer. Just take the final step and merge PVE altogether.
I agree. Just make the maps function the same way that the cities worked in GW1. There really is no downside to that format.
Server: Devona’s Rest
Id rather it be done automatically. Anyone on any server who enters a zone all go on to same layer. When it fills up, create a new layer and do the same thing. Allow players to change layers, join their friends, guild, groups in other layers, etc. Same thing as other games already have. Other than WvW, servers are a useless distinction. Market is integrated. Dungeons are integrated, you can guest from layer to layer. Just take the final step and merge PVE altogether.
I figured I’d quote myself, since my answer is relevant to your idea. You might have missed it above.
No. Each server has it’s own map. It makes no sense to have shared maps, because then it causes more problems when you have 100,000 people trying to get into the same map that only holds 150.
If one server decides to PvE less, then you have to make the decision to leave, or gather people to do PvE with you. That’s how you solve your problem.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Id rather it be done automatically. Anyone on any server who enters a zone all go on to same layer. When it fills up, create a new layer and do the same thing. Allow players to change layers, join their friends, guild, groups in other layers, etc. Same thing as other games already have. Other than WvW, servers are a useless distinction. Market is integrated. Dungeons are integrated, you can guest from layer to layer. Just take the final step and merge PVE altogether.
I agree. Just make the maps function the same way that the cities worked in GW1. There really is no downside to that format.
That’d be a cool feature.
Magumer Ranger
Id rather it be done automatically. Anyone on any server who enters a zone all go on to same layer. When it fills up, create a new layer and do the same thing. Allow players to change layers, join their friends, guild, groups in other layers, etc. Same thing as other games already have. Other than WvW, servers are a useless distinction. Market is integrated. Dungeons are integrated, you can guest from layer to layer. Just take the final step and merge PVE altogether.
I agree. Just make the maps function the same way that the cities worked in GW1. There really is no downside to that format.
That’d be a cool feature.
There were districts in GW1 because everyone played on the same server (technically). Once you left town, or switched maps, all those were instanced (on different servers). GW2 has to have separate servers, because this is a true MMORPG. Each map is an open world. When that maps is filled, a new one is created by means of our current Overflow system. If the map isn’t filled, you can guest to another server that has more population in your time zone. You get 2 guest passes per 24 hours. I suggest visiting Black Gate, since they have the most coverage around the clock.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
There were districts in GW1 because everyone played on the same server (technically). Once you left town, or switched maps, all those were instanced (on different servers). GW2 has to have separate servers, because this is a true MMORPG. Each map is an open world. When that maps is filled, a new one is created by means of our current Overflow system. If the map isn’t filled, you can guest to another server that has more population in your time zone. You get 2 guest passes per 24 hours. I suggest visiting Black Gate, since they have the most coverage around the clock.
Right, and that’s why they should just merge the maps cross server. Right now we, the players, are forced to manually merge ourselves via guesting. They need to look into automating the process since your “server” is only relevant to WvW and the Guild bank.
Server: Devona’s Rest
I hope they’re working on it, great idea.
Magumer Ranger
There were districts in GW1 because everyone played on the same server (technically). Once you left town, or switched maps, all those were instanced (on different servers). GW2 has to have separate servers, because this is a true MMORPG. Each map is an open world. When that maps is filled, a new one is created by means of our current Overflow system. If the map isn’t filled, you can guest to another server that has more population in your time zone. You get 2 guest passes per 24 hours. I suggest visiting Black Gate, since they have the most coverage around the clock.
Right, and that’s why they should just merge the maps cross server. Right now we, the players, are forced to manually merge ourselves via guesting. They need to look into automating the process since your “server” is only relevant to WvW and the Guild bank.
Again, you can’t just merge all servers into the same PvE map. You create a lot of issues with all players trying to congregate to the same map that holds 100 to 150 players max. If a large guild were to try and go to a map that’s already half filled, you get the same results, which is being pushed to Overflow. But there are a couple of differences here: 1) Merged PvE maps would more likely fill faster, leaving organized parties to have to be burdened with map separation more of often. 2) All that additional coding by the Devs would be a waste of time if people just kept getting kicked into Overflows once maps fill.
Let’s lay it out. Say they created Districts for Queensdale, and that there’s new content there. Guild X has 50 members trying to get into a map. As they log in, some are placed into QD1, some are in QD2, and the rest are in QD3. Because maps are merged across servers, you already have ten Queensdale Districts spawned within minutes. Members of Guild X wants to be put into the same map, so they attempt to taxi on each other, but all fail. Reason being, each map is already hard capped. Now Guild X has to leave the map to try and create an empty District. Again, since all servers are merged, people are flooding the map. There are now 25 QDs made, and Guild X members are still trying to get into the same map.
The situation above is extreme, but presents the problem at hand: Each map is filled quicker, reducing the chances of organized groups joining the same map. With the current system, the expansion of new “District” maps are slowed, since each server goes to their main first, and Overflows are generated only when the previous map is filled. Highly active servers push Overflows quicker yes, but less active servers never fill their mains.
By having merged PvE maps, you spread the problems of large, active servers to the low/medium ones. At least with the current system, organize guilds can guest to get away from their full maps, and solo players can guest to join those other server’s filled maps. It’s not the perfect solution, rather one that’s a bit inconvenient but works.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
The situation above is extreme
There used to be over 70 kamadan districts during wintersday/halloween finales in GW1. GW2 supposedly has a bigger population, so you should expect more.
Actions, not words.
Remember, remember, 15th of November
Remember, remember, 15th of November
1 2