Guild Wars 2

Population caps.

Whatever server has the fewest amount of people on then no other server can exceed it. That would help with a lot of the time differences and ‘night’ capping of things. Scoring in the place is already so screwed up that if one server totally dominates on population they build a huge lead that is basically insurmountable.

It would also maybe entice people to leave the over crowded servers and move to the less populated ones. Because it would make their queues even longer.

Right now SBI has more than a few people on, but HoD still has way more, and JQ has almost none. Results… There are maybe 8 red spots on all 4 maps, 12-15 blue and the rest are green. If people move to another map to help out the HoD masses just go there as well.

While it always isnt about a zerg it is when they outnumber you 2 to 1 or more. And that buff you get is completely useless its a slap in the face to PvP.

But then again the whole WvW concept is, at least the rewards, because nothing you do there gives any benefits in there. It is all PvE buffs.

SBI took back the whole of our defensive map and had it upgraded and supplied and within 20 minutes 2 large HoD zergs came in and turned the map green, people were so disgusted they logged out. I am sure JQ left long before that since they were eliminated earlier.

So if SBI truly is the ‘second best server’ then we might as well not even log into WvW because we are not even close to being competitive with HoD as it stands right now, at least on a 24/7 basis. It isnt because HoD is so much better, it is just they have so many more people. They are better yes, but the numbers just make it exponentially worse.

But at least if the populations were capped and there weren’t hordes of them running around it might actually start to get competitive. If there are 100 JQ in there then there shouldnt be more than 100 SBI or HoD. That’s just the way it should be. Unless some massively meaningful buffs are implemented. But those would be harder than simply putting a counter in place.

Instant new strategy: “We’re losing! Quick, about 50 of you quit WvW so we can force their people out of the game!”

…except it wouldn’t work like that. Because they’re not going to randomly kick people from the higher-population side when your numbers drop. And what will happen is that people will just stay in WvW constantly, to prevent the cap from being lowered. Thus, nobody will ever be able to get in, except those who are already in.

You’ve created a situation that replaces long waits with the absolute impossibility of getting into WvWvW.

The specific system you mention is a decaying system :IE that it can only get fewer and fewer players into WVW. even in general, you are saying that any work that large organized alliances to organize a 24/7 presence should be negated. Why?

Or the other bad side of the coin. The low pop server = Everyone that wants to play WvW can. The high pop server = most people that wanna play WvW can’t.

mcl.9240:

Instant new strategy: “We’re losing! Quick, about 50 of you quit WvW so we can force their people out of the game!”

…except it wouldn’t work like that. Because they’re not going to randomly kick people from the higher-population side when your numbers drop. And what will happen is that people will just stay in WvW constantly, to prevent the cap from being lowered. Thus, nobody will ever be able to get in, except those who are already in.

You’ve created a situation that replaces long waits with the absolute impossibility of getting into WvWvW.

huh?

that is impossible if the sides were even to begin with. If the low side has 4 or 5 people leave then no one from the other servers gets in until the numbers are even again. So if Everyone has 200 people in there, 10 people leave from one server it is then 200-200-190, not ‘balanced’ but certainly not what is going on now. If no one logs in on the low server it stays 190-x-x until someone else logs in. If 50 people log out thats their own stupidity, but its still 200-200-150 or whatever.

If AFKing becomes an major issue then you just put something in that eliminates it it isnt like every other MMO doesnt have something in place that makes sure people are active in there and not just leeching.

Plus if people stay in now no one else gets in either, its called a queue. There is already a max limit on the numbers of players allowed, but it is now shared by all servers. So if the cap is 800 people one server could have 799 one could have 1 and one could have 0. Or one could have all 800 I suppose. The trick is to have a cap and control the server numbers. I know guys who sit in queues dont like it but move I guess.

Some of us started on these servers and the followers who came over to gravy train made it worse anyway. Thats why I said in other thread to put everyone back on their original servers start a 72 hours match up period with a pop cap and go from there.

because right now I would say the percentage of people that actually enjoy WvW is less than 50% probably even less than 25%, and I doubt you would find anyone that doesnt have some sort of complaint about it.

Icehockeyplyr.4723:

Or the other bad side of the coin. The low pop server = Everyone that wants to play WvW can. The high pop server = most people that wanna play WvW can’t.

then people would have to move I guess, most moved to high population servers already just to coat tail them. If all servers ended up with roughly the same number of players this wouldnt be an issue.

besides after awhile and with a scoring system that worked it would all come out in the end.

Other than a severe lack of teamwork at times and the current bug regarding queue ordering, I really have no major complaints about WvWvW. Could things be better? Sure. They could also be a lot worse. I trust ArenaNet to suss out the problems in time.

So there you go: You just found someone who really has no complaint about it.

kitanas.3596:

The specific system you mention is a decaying system :IE that it can only get fewer and fewer players into WVW. even in general, you are saying that any work that large organized alliances to organize a 24/7 presence should be negated. Why?

Probably because nobody wants to get steamrolled by an enormous zerg constantly.

Players shouldn’t get removed from the battlegrounds, but there definitely should be a player cap based on the lowest server’s population. They don’t have to be exactly even, but another server shouldn’t be able to field more than 10-25% more players than others.

Was going to explain why this was a bad idea, then read the posts before mine and was pleased to see I do not have to.

shortcake.8659:

kitanas.3596:

The specific system you mention is a decaying system :IE that it can only get fewer and fewer players into WVW. even in general, you are saying that any work that large organized alliances to organize a 24/7 presence should be negated. Why?

Probably because nobody wants to get steamrolled by an enormous zerg constantly.

Players shouldn’t get removed from the battlegrounds, but there definitely should be a player cap based on the lowest server’s population. They don’t have to be exactly even, but another server shouldn’t be able to field more than 10-25% more players than others.

Ok, let’s explore this idea:

Servers A and B each have 100 people in WvWvW.

Over the span of an hour, 50 people in server A leave WvWvW (let’s say it’s a US server on the east coast). In the meantime, everyone on B (let’s say it’s a west coast server) stays in.

Now you’ve got 50 vs 100. Since you’ve put this system in place, B knows they now outnumber A, and nobody in B is going to leave; they want to hold that advantage. They spend the evening taking 90%+ of the maps.

Now, folks on A start to wake up. They log in, get into WvWvW, see it’s hopeless, and leave. Some of the 50 in A also see it’s pointless, and leave as well. Now it’s more like 30-100.

The only thing you’re doing is making it THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT that the server with the higher number of players do everything they can to stay in WvWvW as long as possible to exploit the number advantage. They know if they log, the cap gets lowered.

You’re taking a situation that occurs sometimes and pretty much guaranteeing it’ll always happen. People will go out of their way to protect that advantage and keep the cap high, rather than log out and hope they’re still in the lead when they come back, like they do now.

In other words, this amplifies the very situation you’re complaining about.

shortcake.8659:

kitanas.3596:

The specific system you mention is a decaying system :IE that it can only get fewer and fewer players into WVW. even in general, you are saying that any work that large organized alliances to organize a 24/7 presence should be negated. Why?

Probably because nobody wants to get steamrolled by an enormous zerg constantly.

Players shouldn’t get removed from the battlegrounds, but there definitely should be a player cap based on the lowest server’s population. They don’t have to be exactly even, but another server shouldn’t be able to field more than 10-25% more players than others.

But why should their orginazation and planning be negated by having them brought down to your level, instead of you building up to their level(by recruiting/organizing a night crew)?

mcl.9240:

shortcake.8659:

kitanas.3596:

The specific system you mention is a decaying system :IE that it can only get fewer and fewer players into WVW. even in general, you are saying that any work that large organized alliances to organize a 24/7 presence should be negated. Why?

Probably because nobody wants to get steamrolled by an enormous zerg constantly.

Players shouldn’t get removed from the battlegrounds, but there definitely should be a player cap based on the lowest server’s population. They don’t have to be exactly even, but another server shouldn’t be able to field more than 10-25% more players than others.

Ok, let’s explore this idea:

Servers A and B each have 100 people in WvWvW.

Over the span of an hour, 50 people in server A leave WvWvW (let’s say it’s a US server on the east coast). In the meantime, everyone on B (let’s say it’s a west coast server) stays in.

Now you’ve got 50 vs 100. Since you’ve put this system in place, B knows they now outnumber A, and nobody in B is going to leave; they want to hold that advantage. They spend the evening taking 90%+ of the maps.

Now, folks on A start to wake up. They log in, get into WvWvW, see it’s hopeless, and leave. Some of the 50 in A also see it’s pointless, and leave as well. Now it’s more like 30-100.

The only thing you’re doing is making it THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT that the server with the higher number of players do everything they can to stay in WvWvW as long as possible to exploit the number advantage. They know if they log, the cap gets lowered.

You’re taking a situation that occurs sometimes and pretty much guaranteeing it’ll always happen. People will go out of their way to protect that advantage and keep the cap high, rather than log out and hope they’re still in the lead when they come back, like they do now.

In other words, this amplifies the very situation you’re complaining about.

bad logic, you assume no one logs in to replace those 50 or that 50 people are going to randomly leave. But even if they do the caps should be high enough to insure even a decent amount leaving isnt going to sway it that much.

I think I figured 900 on the border maps and 250 or so in EB. So to get a full 900 people in the borderlands everyone would need 300. If the lowest server had 250 then the population would be 750. it doesnt have to be exact but close.

The point is the higher pops can never increase, if the lower one does then they can always fill back up, there are THREE sides in there afterall. It isnt like everyone knows Side A and B are maxed and side C might be a little undermanned.

But like I have said repeatedly servers with that much of a discrepancy shouldnt be matched up anyway. And they wouldnt be after they got a decent ranking system in place.

Please choose: Either you’re losing due to a massive enemy zerg due to population imbalance, or the population difference is only 25-50. You can’t argue the former, and then attempt to counter those who think it’s a bad idea by asserting the latter.

mcl.9240:

Please choose: Either you’re losing due to a massive enemy zerg due to population imbalance, or the population difference is only 25-50. You can’t argue the former, and then attempt to counter those who think it’s a bad idea by asserting the latter.

there isnt a massive imbalance all the time, but I would say more than 12 hours a day, and that is in the top tier NA map with HoD, SBI and JQ servers. When you have one server, HoD with more people in there than the other two combined it is definitely an unfair advantage. If people don’t think otherwise theyre deluded.

So if the top 3 servers are seeing this issue I can only imagine what some of the mid and lower range ones are seeing. We already see complaints from the Euro servers about them getting trounced when their server is not populated.

The things that people have described here as issues that would arise already arise. If HoD has an advantage during ‘off peak’ hours then how can they not have one when the peak hours come around? Especially if they have people queued up all day waiting. SBI has no queues in the mornings and early afternoon west coast time. We get right in. But eventually a queue does arise and it isnt because it is full of SBI players, but because HoD or maybe JQ players are now also waiting. So if SBI and JQ are still nder manned but they start having a queue and HoD also has players in the queue people are (supposedly) let in in order. So if more HoD players are in the queue in front of JQ or SBI theywill get in. Doing exactly what people say my suggestion would do, make a bad balance already more imbalanced.

But as long as there is always a cap and always a set amount the servers can be apart and queues are handled per server then there wont ever be a massive imbalance nor will there be one, even if a lot of people suddenly log off.

The only time there might be an ‘extreme’ difference is if for some reason a guild or massive group all logs off simultaneously and there are no people trying to get into WvW, then there might be an imbalance for awhile, but only until that world starts getting players to join the fight again. It wouldnt be a perpetual thing like it is now.

If anyone thinks there arent major imbalances in population in WvW then they arent paying attention or dont play enough to see them. But I suspect the people that dont want to see it are on the worlds that are dominating solely due to their massive population advantage. SBI did it, they became the second ranked server in NA because they were fighting empty maps for the first couple weeks while the rankings were being tabulated. While some people thought it was awesome, I knew it was going to be a problem.

I just want something close to a balanced system and right now what we have isnt even close.

I would rather see a total RNG system and just have 48 hour match up based on whatever 3 numbers an RNG spits out than what we have now. Because there are no actual rankings or even reasons behind the way it is set up now. Even if it was originally so many transfers and moves have been made that things arent close to being what they were when the rankings were made in the first place.

Even with the change to now 7 days instead of 14, it is still going to be a massive difference in points, it surely wont take 7 days to figure it out. But as it stands there isnt anyway certain servers arent going to dominate solely due to population, basically HoD could be put anywhere and they will always win because they always have dominating numbers. Not because they are better, but because they can throw people on the map 24/7.

Thought of this one actually. It’s a good idea.

World vs. World is currently Overpopulated World vs. Underpopulated World.

So, to sum up: You’re mad because HoD is really, really good at coordinating and is full of people who really enjoy WvWvW. Better at coordinating than your server, and has more people who want to WvWvW more often than on your server.

This is a game mechanic problem how, exactly?

At best, it’s a problem with the existence of free, instantaneous server transfers, and that’s about it.

no, actually when they are NOT dominant in numbers JQ and SBI at least hold their own if not gain a little bit. But that is a few and far between occurrence. But since HoD never has the fewest amount of people online they have a distinct advantage.

I think you would see a lot of difference in servers if the numbers were even all the time.

Coordination and tactics mean absolutely nothing when youre massively outnumbered. When 30 people cant defend a garrison because it is getting zerged by nearly 100 players there is a fundamental flaw in the game design. The fact that 100 players are allowed onto a map where the most one server can muster in their defense is maybe 45 is also a major flaw, but even if all 45 people who were on the map for SBI had come to the garrison it had zero chance of survival, no matter what sort of smartkitten comments people want to make.

An unwillingness to play or disinterest in playing WvWvW on a server (hence, you being massively outnumbered) is not a game mechanic problem.

mcl.9240:

An unwillingness to play or disinterest in playing WvWvW on a server (hence, you being massively outnumbered) is not a game mechanic problem.

you just dont get it so this is my last comment to you…

when the other server has so many people on and the other servers start to get people ready to join they cant because there is a queue. That one populated server who can have a queue 24/7 will ALWAYS have more people online…ALWAYS. So if HOD has a full team plus in WvW, and SBI and JQ start all trying to log in at around 4PM server time, they find queues. HoD will as well, but they have probably had them all day. BUT with the change that just happened, the only thing determining who gets in is time queued, so if there have been 50 guys in queue at HOD since 2PM they take precedent over guys on JQ or SBI that queued at 4PM. With no server cap then it is first come first server.

You all want to work it backwards with my suggestion, but you fail to understand or just choice to ignore that it is like that already, actually worse. Without any form of balancing formulas in the way WvW allows people in then the full servers will always have more people. SBI isnt exactly hurting for people, we are full most of the time, they just dont all PvP or bother with WvW. A lot of them have actually stopped going in because it isnt worth it. Which I think is going to be a more common theme going forward.

You don’t get it: people on your server not being interested in WvWvW is not a problem with WvWvW. It’s a people problem.

You don’t fix people problems with game mechanics. You don’t punish a server just because the people on that server are more interested in WvWvW than the people on your server.

You want more people in WvWvW? Do something to get people playing WvWvW. Don’t sit there and expect the powers that be to fix everything that you personally don’t like.