Guild Wars 2

Daish has seen the WvW population go up since the restart what about u guys?

Daish.6139:

Mif.3471:

Unfortunately OP, since I’ve only posted once in this thread, that means you should only be allowed to post three times.

But since you’ve already posted 14 times, you’ll have to wait until I reach my 5th post until you can post again.

Personally I don’t see how limiting people based on the participation of others is fair, but it is by your logic so I guess you’ll understand.

because there is no game if the other teams dose not think they can win…………

the game ends
nothing to do
no pvp
nothing

Guild Wars 2 WvW idea slowly dies

Most people don’t care about this issue yet. They still have to get fully geared. In a month or two, when PvP has nothing to do with getting geared, they will change their view 180 degrees.

WvW is going to be hurt unless they do this its the only option Daish can see working

It’s very easy to dismiss the issues of the underpopulated servers when you are on one of the overpopulated ones. You have to understand, there are 6-9 servers in north America alone which are entirely unable of competing in wvw due to population imbalances. The primary symptom of this is the ‘night capping’ debate.

There absolutely needs to be some system to even the playing field. As it stands now whoever can keep their battlegrounds full longer wins. It is as simple as that. No skill no tactics just butts in chairs basking in the blue glow of their LCD screens well in to the night.

Give it some time for the ranking system to work. It will eventually balance out by timezones. you can’t arbitrarily limit a servers pop that want’s to play WvW simply because the other server doesn’t give a crap. If you do then everyone will transfer to the top servers and we will have 6 hour queues.

If the matches are very close in score guess what the timezones are balanced and one server doesn’t have an advantage therefore the rankings won’t swing as much one way or the other.

Syphen.1980:

Give it some time for the ranking system to work. It will eventually balance out by timezones. you can’t arbitrarily limit a servers pop that want’s to play WvW simply because the other server doesn’t give a crap. If you do then everyone will transfer to the top servers and we will have 6 hour queues.

If the matches are very close in score guess what the timezones are balanced and one server doesn’t have an advantage therefore the rankings won’t swing as much one way or the other.

Some people don’t want to wait or don’t have faith in the balancing system. My server has been kicked in the junk twice in the last two weeks by servers with obvious Oceanic players. I play wvw everyday, it’s why I play this game. However, everyday is Groundhog’s day because my server has to muscle the orbs away AGAIN like we always do during primetime (when the majority of all servers are on playing) and yet lose them AGAIN while we are asleep.

I can see wvw participation dwindling little by little because of this. I don’t know if it’s from people transferring to different servers, losing interest in wvw, losing interest in the game, or just waiting for yet another week to see if we get matched up properly. All of those reasons suck though for those of us willing pony up every night in the name of our server. Sure the fights are fun for a while, but after while you get tired of constantly swimming upstream. Specially when you know that you are going to lose everything you gained when you wake up.

Both sides have really good points and arguments but let me just say something. I play on Ferguson’s Crossing, we are completely getting steamrolled by Northern Shiverpeaks. Yes, they are probably a bit more organized then we are and have some big and influential guilds, but what it comes down to in the end is numbers, and if you are getting outnumbered heavily (like 10:1), no amount of planning and strategy is really going to help you.

Granted, you have got to give time for the server matching system to get a better idea where all the servers are at, then the match-up system will self-normalize hopefully preventing these very lopsided WvW battles. FC literally has no big, influential guilds and a very low population and is that our fault?

However, something definitely needs to be done with shear amount of zerging and nightcapping that is going on. It really is unfair that stuff like that happens that are really out of our control.

What is the main reason why not alot of people on the lower population server do not want to WvW? I think the answer is quite obvious, they are zerging and nightcapping. Being outnumbered 10 or 20:1 at all times really makes WvW redundant and discouraging for people because it isn’t their fault that things are this way and you really don’t have much hope in fighting that. And once you do gain some territory, it is also very discouraging to see all that work lost due to nightcapping.

To all the people saying that, well, get organized and get some guilds for the night crew. First of all, these lower population servers barely have any large guilds to begin with, second of all, there is no way for us to control who can and cant be on at particular times. Guilds cannot control who can and cant be on either as it depends on the person whether they have work in the early morning or w/e.

Imposing a population limit is difficult and complex but it definitely can be done, and it must be done according to the server match ups and the population of each of the servers. For example, a server is not allowed to outnumber the lowest server by more then 2.5:1. But this restriction is only applied after a minimum amount of WvW players is reached on the lowest server. This prevents these so called 1v1v1 WvW scenarios that dumb people keep on talking about.

Also make this server cap flexible and dynamic depending on the time of day. Anet needs to analyze the statistics of all the servers to see when it is the most active and change it in a way to make things more even and not just making it boil down to a numbers game.

Most of the issues we see right now however though is because this game is relatively new and the server matchup system needs to figure out where servers rank relative to each other (kind of like the ELO concept), it needs a much larger statistical sample of how servers do against each other.

But some sort of dynamic server cap system needs to be implemented in case these zergs happen at certain times of the day. Success should not be determined by the shear numbers you have, but by strategic planning, tactics, etc.

Another problem is, of course people will want to transfer from the lower population servers where they are getting steamrolled and of course people will not want to join the lower population servers because of it. Thus creating a repeated cycle of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. A lot of people would rather not work from the ground up but would rather build upon something that has already been built 1000 ft high. This kind of mentality doesn’t really help things much at all.

Though queue times and population imbalances will probably balance itself over time, if you don’t like queue times, try your hand on a different server where there are never queue times? Of course people won’t do that though, for multiple reasons.

Overall, most of these problems can be remedied with time. Slowly, the lower population servers should be able to match the numbers of the higher population servers, how long is a different question and provided that people don’t leave a server that is losing mostly due to zerging and nightcapping. As that happens, slowly big guilds will emerge and organization will soon after. Then the server will learn to organize itself. I see potential in Ferguson’s, we just do not have the large guilds of 100+ members or overall server population to coordinate with other guilds.

I also co-sign the outmanned buff giving some sort of stat advantage. The orbs aren’t terribly overpowered.

albotelho.2931:

So if a server have 100 PvPers and the other server has only 5… only 10 people would be able to enter WvW!? Sorry I dont think it would be good.

I use your own words, if your server does not have enough people that PvP just transfer.

Limits are needed, but one server may not pay the price of other server having few PvPers.

Solution:
1-Arena net do something.
2-Lower servers transfere for the bigguer ones (problem solved for me and my friends), but we just made that queue a little worst so your argument is invalide cause you are not seeing the all problem

the Solution is for anet to do Daish’s idea

Roargathor.2743:

Go back to WOW daish…

One. More. Day.

Stay strong

It’ll be a funny day in Daish World when his ‘logic’ is enforced by ANet and the two servers fighting against the server Daish is on team up 100v50 and roflstomp him to prove a point.

It’s actually a pretty valid idea, WvW isn’t fun for anyone if it’s just zerg overrun from one side.

You need to create a balance between ‘allow as many to play as possible’, and ’don’t allow one side to be stacked unfairly’.

What has happened is that many guilds and people have moved to successful worlds, further stacking those worlds, and making many competitions boil down to who has the biggest number of zergs.

This isn’t tactical. It’s not world vs world. It’s my zerg is bigger than your zerg kittenol, come join us if you want to win!

You don’t want to block people out too unfairly, so you need to have an absolute minimum, that the limits can never go below. Chances are it’d never get that low, but it’s better to have that limit than to not, and avoids fears that no one can play.
Say something like 50 is the absolutely bare minimum that a world pop can be capped to.

Then to raise that limit, you make it a proportion of the total number of opposing players, as was suggested by Daish. Add the two together for example.

Why is that okay?

Because if a world really doesn’t want to wvw, if they’re so disorganised they can’t get 25 people on, then the other two will still be able to field 50 and steamroll them. It will not allow trash worlds to avoid getting stomped by any other world.

It also means if both other worlds are fielding larger sides, then the non-competing world gets stomped even harder because their caps get raised because they’re fighting each other. So a single world WILL still get roflstomped if they’re not competing.

The only situation it stops is when one world is massively stacked to the point neither of the other worlds stand a chance, they can’t even try to come back because it’s hard to muster a group you know before going in there’s 200 on the other side waited to stomp your 20-30 people.
What’s worse, is that when these situations carry on long enough, people lose faith in the balance and give up on wvw completely, making it even harder to try and rally a force to fight back.

Such a limit would pretty much only come into play after one world has already stomped the other two enough to discourage people playing. At that point wvw has lost its point, it’s no longer a competition.

At that point, all it does is gives the losing side a fighting chance to at least rally, and maybe with a good rally they can take back a few points and make things interesting again, and get others involved again.

The really key point is though, that if they do rally, as soon as others get interested and participating again they’re almost certain to breach that limit in no time and raise the cap for the opposition. If both worlds rally the other world will essentially be uncapped.

This doesn’t limit players, it limits excessive world stacking.
With a minimum on the cap (ie, cap can never drop below 50 p/world) this idea would help WvW quite a lot I think.

Phidaissi.5160:

Such a limit would pretty much only come into play after one world has already stomped the other two enough to discourage people playing. At that point wvw has lost its point, it’s no longer a competition.

This is not true at all. Limits have been used in other games, and it just doesn’t wind up working out as well as you claim. It is even worse when there is advantage to be had in the game by not playing in order to preserve an advantage earned earlier in the match, which clearly would be the case in GW2.

It is almost always bad game design to discourage people from playing a game when they want to play. When developers start telling players “stop playing our game” the players usually listen, and that’s bad for business.

Not at all, that’s why you have a minimum.

If one world somehow uniformly all logged out to try and limit the others from taking their points it’d run into two problems with my adjustment.

1. The other sides could still field 50 each, which is more than enough to roll the points all back in no time if there’s no resistance.

2. The third world in the competition would need to be complicit as well, because if there’s some of them playing the cap would raise pretty fast.

Like I said, you want a limit that almost never would actually come into play (otherwise it would cause the problems you fear).

You keep claiming it will almost never come into play, but then why even implement it? Most games had a threshold before their limits kicked in, yet they still caused more problems than they fixed. That’s because the primary thing that gets “fixed” by these limits is too many people wanting to play on one side (or two for GW2), but too many people wanting to play a game is a good thing that should be encouraged instead of “fixed” by discouraging players from playing the game.

Limiting the number of players is a bad idea.
The only thing ANet can do is keep creating incentive and possibility for small groups.

Just because the enemy runs a zerg, does not mean you need to run a zerg as well. There’s much to do for smaller groups of organized people still. So while the zones aren’t as large as I would have liked to see, there are still stuff for them to do.

Sure you can rarely defend an (unupgraded) tower/keep against a large dedicated zerg (although you can try with decent placed siege), but you can still do WvW.

But start wanting an additional population limit enforced, I think will case away as many as you want to ‘save’ with it.
I don’t play WvW to have it act like sPvP.

Like always this will be abused and it aint realy fair for servers who have a big pvp community.
IF they get matched versus a medium populated server then their queue times fo 6 hours would increase to 12 hours.

It solve’s nothing.

Transfer to a WvW server that has an alliance and good WvW guilds is the only solution at this moment.

I sugest taking the oppertunity and move out to while the transfer are still free.

Richard.8207 its possible for it to never come into play if the servers are balanced

but if the servers are unbalanced there is NO GAME ANYWAY 100vs10 is NOT A GAME

do you understand how boring it is for the other team to lose their morale and stop trying the game is over at that point

I’m being camped at the spawn this very moment and let me tell you it is so much fun playing against a group that has ten times our numbers and a row of ballistae aimed at us! They even have people guarding the sides so we can’t sneak out and take supply camps.

Eurosdown.6072:

I’m being camped at the spawn this very moment and let me tell you it is so much fun playing against a group that has ten times our numbers and a row of ballistae aimed at us! They even have people guarding the sides so we can’t sneak out and take supply camps.

Is this on all 4 maps? Can you build some long range siege (catapult or trebuchet) that is outside of their ballistas’ range? If not – is it true for all ways out in all 4 maps? Have you tried with a bigger group?

Daish.6139:

Richard.8207 its possible for it to never come into play if the servers are balanced

but if the servers are unbalanced there is NO GAME ANYWAY 100vs10 is NOT A GAME

do you understand how boring it is for the other team to lose their morale and stop trying the game is over at that point

Your arguments are how so many games have made the mistake of shipping limiter code. Reality for almost every game that has done this has been terrible. Add to that the implementations of these limits are usually done in such a way that bugs are really hard to find and you wind up blocking more people than you intend for months before you realize it was a bug instead of the code locking people out like it was designed to do. I sincerely hope ArenaNet learns from the mistakes of others.

There are other solutions to the problem, and they are better solutions. Even the bad solutions of a stat buff to the underpowered side and AI players are better than preventing players from playing.

But you don’t even need a bad solution since there is a good solution that actually works amazingly often for social games. For GW2, you can start with providing information about how many players from each server are on each map. That will actually help players coordinate their efforts to at least have one fun map, then maybe two once the population increases, etc. But you can even go a step further and provide an incentive for people to join the side that needs more troops. You could provide free siege equipment, free repairs, just plain gold, mini-pets, or whatever you want. While I hate to bring up the largest MMO, it is a good example since the way they finally fixed the tank shortage (same issue with 3 different groups of players that need to balance: dps, healers, tanks) was to just bribe tanks with bags of goodies. Encouraging more people to play is always better than preventing people from playing.

Here is what really needs to happen while transfers are still free:

There are 4 heavy WvW servers. HOD, SBI, ET, and JQ. All are full to bursting and don’t need more WvW guilds as far as I can tell.

So we have Tier 1 with 3 servers and Tier 2 with 1 heavy WvW against two that are mid-range. This is bad for all concerned.

We need guilds to coordinate and consolidate on two more servers so we can have 2 full tiers of heavy WvW servers.

If possible, consolidations to create a third tier would be great, too.

Corvindi.5734:

Here is what really needs to happen while transfers are still free:

There are 4 heavy WvW servers. HOD, SBI, ET, and JQ. All are full to bursting and don’t need more WvW guilds as far as I can tell.

So we have Tier 1 with 3 servers and Tier 2 with 1 heavy WvW against two that are mid-range. This is bad for all concerned.

We need guilds to coordinate and consolidate on two more servers so we can have 2 full tiers of heavy WvW servers.

If possible, consolidations to create a third tier would be great, too.

IoJ seems to be gaining traction since they already had a solid Oceanic presence, and building up an NA presence is way easier. NS might also already have a solid presence at all hours, but we just can’t tell until they work their way up to a much higher tier.

ET actually has a huge problem in lack of PvE players. If they keep only attracting WvW players, they are going to wind up with a truly obscene queue before hitting the population cap.

Depends im on Stormbluff , the penalty in some sort will be nice for the pve heros ,i know lot of people that are only carebears and only do pve nothing more .i hate that kind of people always.

The cap waiting time , is some anoying for me sometimes ,on other point we always do pvp the people i alredy know. Still i will say only if you want to make your server more pvp wvwvw start for yourself , help other , try to teach all to be a good teamplay company, no matter level or age based.

If you are loosing , just reagroup , rush the camps that make little points but big differrence on suply. Try your best always and the people will learn slowie but you will have fun later.

Tzash.5748:

So you have an artificial population cap like the OP suggests. I can see the following happening:
1) Dominant side is better organised and keeps beating the two weaker sides regardless of the cap.
2) The weaker side players keep leaving WvW because they aren’t winning.
3) The cap gets lower and lower until there is no-one in WvW at all.

In my experience thus far, the top 5 or 6 dominant servers are not there because of any particular organization skill, but because of sheer zerg size. When our little 10 man guild group can kill 20 of them, it only goes to show that it’s not organization or some superhuman skill but purely zerging.

Soooo….

It seems the problem here is your server has a bunch of whiny carebear kids who get their little feelings hurt by losing and would rather give up then put up a fight….

And we wonder whats wrong with the country these days.

Anyway, to those thinking that WvW will die because of the “kiddies” who get butthurt when someone beats them, it works like this.

WvW will only die on those servers with said kiddies since they don’t like to lose, and obviously give up at the simple appearance of losing, they will all go to the bottom, where WvW will not be very active. Those of us who live on manly servers, and would rather right to the death rather then roll over and take it will continue to be middle, maybe losing to servers with larger pops, but having fun because it’s a good fight, rather than not getting to play because of said “kiddies”. And then those that reside on high pops will continue to sit in ques most of their game time until they wise up and get over their pride and move to lower pops so they can actually play, thus spreading out the balance.

Seriously – just standby. Eventually people will get tired of sitting in ques and will move. Giving up because your outnumbered is not going to make your server one of the ones they choose, so get out there and fight.

Adaneshade.2409:

In my experience thus far, the top 5 or 6 dominant servers are not there because of any particular organization skill, but because of sheer zerg size. When our little 10 man guild group can kill 20 of them, it only goes to show that it’s not organization or some superhuman skill but purely zerging.

It actually is organization, but definitely not skill at one’s class, gear, or ability to win against equal numbers on the open field. The fact that HoD, SBI, and others can get the random people not in an organized guild to join a zerg or other group that is doing something tactically wise makes all the difference. HoD and SBI also do a lot of work building and maintaining siege equipment and have mostly trained the pug/random/whatever players to always keep supplies and take only from depots, while lower tier servers often actually let the siege weapons just disappear from expiration and just use a lot fewer siege in any given assault or defense.

If you want to see the difference in how the games are played, go to a lower tier and check the supply levels of every depot, tower, etc. and then check the supply levels on HoD or SBI. The supply levels on HoD and SBI aren’t at zero because we just build stuff and destroy it for fun. Or go to every contested point on the map and notice tons of stuff is constantly under treb fire on HoD’s matchup to drain supplies, while lower tiers generally only build a treb right before a specific assault. You’ll also notice top tiers have fights closer to objectives on average, while lower tiers are often fighting for control of grassy fields.

Richard.8207:

Daish.6139:

Richard.8207 its possible for it to never come into play if the servers are balanced

but if the servers are unbalanced there is NO GAME ANYWAY 100vs10 is NOT A GAME

do you understand how boring it is for the other team to lose their morale and stop trying the game is over at that point

Your arguments are how so many games have made the mistake of shipping limiter code. Reality for almost every game that has done this has been terrible. Add to that the implementations of these limits are usually done in such a way that bugs are really hard to find and you wind up blocking more people than you intend for months before you realize it was a bug instead of the code locking people out like it was designed to do. I sincerely hope ArenaNet learns from the mistakes of others.

There are other solutions to the problem, and they are better solutions. Even the bad solutions of a stat buff to the underpowered side and AI players are better than preventing players from playing.

But you don’t even need a bad solution since there is a good solution that actually works amazingly often for social games. For GW2, you can start with providing information about how many players from each server are on each map. That will actually help players coordinate their efforts to at least have one fun map, then maybe two once the population increases, etc. But you can even go a step further and provide an incentive for people to join the side that needs more troops. You could provide free siege equipment, free repairs, just plain gold, mini-pets, or whatever you want. While I hate to bring up the largest MMO, it is a good example since the way they finally fixed the tank shortage (same issue with 3 different groups of players that need to balance: dps, healers, tanks) was to just bribe tanks with bags of goodies. Encouraging more people to play is always better than preventing people from playing.

nothing but dribble

players need to think they have a chance or they will leave and the population on the lower servers will be even less

you dont understand how humans think

and 10vs1 is not enjoyable for anyone unless they are a total tool the type of people who think hacking is enjoyable

I do believe that there needs to be some sort of logic in place that keeps the population levels of the servers close within a WvW instance. If not, one side always runs away with it and it becomes a constant leap frog match (aka hot potato). Which is never fun really.

watching WvW population drop fast now that some servers lose morale thinking they have no chance vs the others

at the restart the WvW population will peak every time then slowly sink though the week making more and more players give up on it -.-

Outmanned buff needs to give combative bonuses and EU servers should be done away with completely. There’s no significant change in latency between any server regardless of where you live, so why even have them?

Daish.6139:

the WvW Population needs to be balanced out or there is going to be alot of major issues

keep it simple since there are 3 teams no 1 team should out number the other 2 teams combined

say Red has 15 players and Blue has 20 players
Green should have a limit of 35 placed on them

this is not going to hurt the game if a player is interested in WvW they can transfer to another World

if a player enjoys WvW they do not want to end up in a 50v5 battle that is not enjoyable for anyone

This doesn’t make any sense at all, the limit that is important is already in place 250-350 players max per server can enter.

Latinkuro.9420:

Daish.6139:

the WvW Population needs to be balanced out or there is going to be alot of major issues

keep it simple since there are 3 teams no 1 team should out number the other 2 teams combined

say Red has 15 players and Blue has 20 players
Green should have a limit of 35 placed on them

this is not going to hurt the game if a player is interested in WvW they can transfer to another World

if a player enjoys WvW they do not want to end up in a 50v5 battle that is not enjoyable for anyone

This doesn’t make any sense at all, the limit that is important is already in place 250-350 players max per server can enter.

this is for low population servers this queue changes depending on population its not a max player limit its far under that

WvW is not about ‘everybody enjoying’ the game. Losing hurts and people will always say it’s unfair no matter what. Unless we just want to not have winners and hand out trophies for everyone who shows up, and not have ‘defeats’ but ‘time outs’ and force everyone to sing campfire songs in WvW, let’s just leave it as is and wait for it to sort itself out.

The interest will fade over time and reliable WvW numbers will eventually allow for balanced match ups.

It’s not about everyone having fun. Winners get to have fun, and good sport losers get to have fun. Whiners get nothing and like it.

hex.3218:

WvW is not about ‘everybody enjoying’ the game. Losing hurts and people will always say it’s unfair no matter what. Unless we just want to not have winners and hand out trophies for everyone who shows up, and not have ‘defeats’ but ‘time outs’ and force everyone to sing campfire songs in WvW, let’s just leave it as is and wait for it to sort itself out.

The interest will fade over time and reliable WvW numbers will eventually allow for balanced match ups.

It’s not about everyone having fun. Winners get to have fun, and good sport losers get to have fun. Whiners get nothing and like it.

you have no idea what your talking about

this has nothing to do with win if you win or not its about if you have a chance or not

Some ideas: randomly pair up NA and EU servers into a gigantic WWvWWvWW match to support relatively stable 24/7 WvW populations. Alternatively, restrict players to their Aussie/NA/EU regions (but people still want to be able to play with their friends, so this solution isn’t preferable). Another idea is to put in rotating caps on WvW. 2 of the 3 participating worlds must reach population caps in a particular zone before the cap increases to allow more players. For example, the cap starts at just 10 players. 2 of the 3 servers need to bring in 10 players each before this cap increases to 20 players. Then 2 of the 3 servers need to each have 20 players online in the zone before the cap increases to 30 players, etc.

I personally really like this last (possible) solution because then the Aussies might actually spread out to different servers instead of congregating on HoD and completely screwing up the top bracket for WvW like they are right now.

been playing most of this week 40vs90vs 30

we can hold stuff its enjoyable

but if the other server leaves and its a 90vs30 it becomes unplayable

Daish.6139:

Richard.8207:

Daish.6139:

Richard.8207 its possible for it to never come into play if the servers are balanced

but if the servers are unbalanced there is NO GAME ANYWAY 100vs10 is NOT A GAME

do you understand how boring it is for the other team to lose their morale and stop trying the game is over at that point

Your arguments are how so many games have made the mistake of shipping limiter code. Reality for almost every game that has done this has been terrible. Add to that the implementations of these limits are usually done in such a way that bugs are really hard to find and you wind up blocking more people than you intend for months before you realize it was a bug instead of the code locking people out like it was designed to do. I sincerely hope ArenaNet learns from the mistakes of others.

There are other solutions to the problem, and they are better solutions. Even the bad solutions of a stat buff to the underpowered side and AI players are better than preventing players from playing.

But you don’t even need a bad solution since there is a good solution that actually works amazingly often for social games. For GW2, you can start with providing information about how many players from each server are on each map. That will actually help players coordinate their efforts to at least have one fun map, then maybe two once the population increases, etc. But you can even go a step further and provide an incentive for people to join the side that needs more troops. You could provide free siege equipment, free repairs, just plain gold, mini-pets, or whatever you want. While I hate to bring up the largest MMO, it is a good example since the way they finally fixed the tank shortage (same issue with 3 different groups of players that need to balance: dps, healers, tanks) was to just bribe tanks with bags of goodies. Encouraging more people to play is always better than preventing people from playing.

nothing but dribble

players need to think they have a chance or they will leave and the population on the lower servers will be even less

you dont understand how humans think

and 10vs1 is not enjoyable for anyone unless they are a total tool the type of people who think hacking is enjoyable

But 1vs1 might be enjoyable for the one who used to be 10v1 but for the 9 others on the other side who are not allowed to join the game; they are as likely to quit as the others.

Many games like this have faced the same issues.
If all we get are equal warzones to face off in – essentially sPvP with another map size – then the open world PvP population will vanish once again and you have just another Warhammer on your hands. And this game’s sPvP maps aren’t interesting enough for that.

You basically cannot control the population limit to the degree that some want. The only thing you can do is give incentive to trying to play anyway. And that’s where underpopulated buffs comes into play; and where I would have liked to see larger WvW zones to better allow some to break out of the zerg and roam smaller group size as well.

Sure; being underpopulated will cause some to leave/reroll.
But being barred from playing will also cause people to leave.

The question is only who do you want to case way? Those who’ll play the game and currently wants to join it, or those who won’t play the game because they’re outnumbered?

They already have your money. You got what you paid for in a non sub game. No sub game has ever made great WvW why would a non sub game ace it?

The exploits will be with us for a long long time. They have no fixes. You have not even seen them comment on the issues being raised here. The latest patch had zip for WvW. Each day more and more people learn how to exploit. What amazes me is that any PvPer is surprised.

SOo… OP is saying if the other 2 servers gives up and field Zero players.

The server that wants to play can only field 0 player to win the game?

Daish.6139:

hex.3218:

WvW is not about ‘everybody enjoying’ the game. Losing hurts and people will always say it’s unfair no matter what. Unless we just want to not have winners and hand out trophies for everyone who shows up, and not have ‘defeats’ but ‘time outs’ and force everyone to sing campfire songs in WvW, let’s just leave it as is and wait for it to sort itself out.

The interest will fade over time and reliable WvW numbers will eventually allow for balanced match ups.

It’s not about everyone having fun. Winners get to have fun, and good sport losers get to have fun. Whiners get nothing and like it.

you have no idea what your talking about

this has nothing to do with win if you win or not its about if you have a chance or not

This is why you lose. You don’t even think you have a chance. Pffft. Why should the game be altered to favor YOU?

my guild prefers when our server is losing actually. we like being outnumbered.

if we wanted to play wow clone fisher price world pvp lite we’d go do tol board in wow. we want wvw, classic mmo pvp style, unfair and without the hand holding.

while we certainly don’t like when our server wins because suddenly all the moaners are in there acting like the only reason we are winning is due to their veteran leadership, i’d rather have that than be coddled by devs for the shortcomings of my server or my enemy servers.

your still going to be out numbered even if they place this kind of limit on dirtyklingon.2918 its about having a chance instead of being spawn camped

WvW is extreamly unenjoyable now

all Daish is doing is trying to help the other low population server and turn it into a 2v1 vs the stronger server but we still lose

Daish.6139:

WvW is extreamly unenjoyable now

all Daish is doing is trying to help the other low population server and turn it into a 2v1 vs the stronger server but we still lose

pretty much.

outmanned buff in all 4 maps lols.

players keep moving to higher population servers Daish is not seeing anyone move to lower population servers

I have to agree with the logic that Daish is supporting. I don’t tend to agree with limiting the number of players playing but I do see this creating several key aspects:

1. Low pop servers (with a good pvp base) will start to compete vs good servers and rise in the Elo rankings. Any given server can be competitive.
2. Populations will start to disperse since, numbers, can’t win the day anymore.
3. The army sizes will be relative and thus creating more exciting pvp
4. No more 50 vs 20 scenarios. Its not fun for any side to just steam roll the opponent or we steam rolled. I play wvwvw to have epic battles, and lately, there just hasnt been any.
5. People will still queue for pvp, during peak times, low pop servers have a queue. If nobody is queuing, what are you doing on a high pop server anyways? Reinforcing, running supplies, stacking the deck until some unfortunate soul from lower pop server joins?? Sure thats fun for a whole 5 mins.

Right now, my server Anvil Rock, we have 1 server active during the day time w/ anywhere from 50-75 ppl. Borlis pass most likely has around that same amount. The cap wouldn’t effect NSP that substantially but would also prevent them from having total domination. Sometimes I wonder if its even fun for them since most of the time they own everything…what exactly are they doing…. Playing against weak competition doesn’t make you better.

People aren’t frustrated because they are losing. They are frustrated because they have no chance at winning and sometimes have no way to even play.

As astronomically impractical the solution mentioned in the OP is, it would work

People need to stop whining or quit playing. If W3 had balanced numbers in every tier the same people whining here would whine about something else. They’d whine that they need to limit the number of Guardians because they’re getting owned. They’d whine about Mez’s ability to port because it’s “unfair others can’t do it”. They’d whine that War’s hit hard and wear chainmail “why can’t we hit that hard”. They’d whine that Ele’s have a lot of AOE or they can switch to 4 different schools of magic.

Point is they’d find something to whine about and the OP seems like such a person. Stop the whining already, not everyone is going to agree with you or think that YOUR solution is the “right” solution. When a game does something I don’t like guess what I do……that’s right I stop playing. Why waste my time if I’m not having fun playing a game designed to have fun playing.

All the whining is the forums is just out of hand now. Games been out a month yet people expect INSTANT results. Do you realize how long the game has been in development? Things don’t happen overnight whiners.

Limits need to exist for the following reasons:

1. The game engine has limitations. Even if your pc is uber powerful, the engine itself isnt designed to handle more than a certain number of players at once. Which is why many have issues with players not rendering, or popping into view late, and so on.

2. The gameplay mechanics change dramatically depending on the number of players. Think of it like football. It was designed around each team having a certain number of players. Change that number by 1 or 2, and not a HUGE difference. Put 300 people on each team, and suddenly its not really football anymore. WvW isnt much different. When zergs get SO big, and are everywhere on the map, its just not the same gameplay anymore. Certain mechanics no longer work as designed. IE: Challenges no longer are challenging, important factors no longer are important… all due to the sheer number of people involved.