Map population cap changes?

[c space cowboy.2764]

I know the trolls of full servers and blob guilds will probably come out in force, but lets try to keep this civil.

 

Lower population map caps to 30-40 players per map.

 

Doing this will cause queues like mad, but it will fix two main issues in wvw right now.

 

The main one is it will fix server stacking as guilds will get tired of waiting in queues and swap servers. So it will spread out the population of wvw.

 

It will also help alleviate the lag caused by three team blobs of 70 or whatever the cap is now. Its obvious the servers cannot handle this load.

 

The down side, if anet wanted to do this and not drive players away they would have to give players a free xfer.

 

[Ubi.4136]

They need to do a ton of things, and there is no easy fix. That said, it would be worth a try for a month. Lower the map cap to 40 (maybe even 50) per map, It would certainly help with the 60+ ktrain blobs, a little.

[Strider Pj.2193]

I like it. But why a free transfer? If people paid to stack a server, and it is too oppressive, they need to pay to leave.

[Blocki.4931]

They should try doing that. Lower the squad cap while you're at it

[Sovereign.1093]

no. :/ blob is love blob is life. can you imagine if a good group of 30 camps a map and you have newbies in there. you will lose everything.

 

now a good group of 80 is rare. probably in bg only ^_^

[lare.5129]

this is no any issue.

If they join as big group and part stuck- it is ok.

Ofc we can make to show "how much free places exist", but this is very cool info for spy, and will be mosty used for opposite side, that for biq squads.

No so much squads exist at all, so there is no any point to keep vision on it.

Now most people have small 3-12 groups

[starlinvf.1358]

I don't understand why roamers don't focus on getting a Roaming specific game mode/map, rather then coopting the existing ones that never benefited it correctly to begin with. All lowering the map cap does is make the zerg smaller, and pushes even more incentive to blob with what little's left, because of siege dynamics. EotM was specially made for ignoring PPT defense, and yet fight guilds avoid it like leprosy.

 

Theres a much deeper problem in how structures factor in to the game mode that creates all these tertiary issues that the community incorrectly fixates on. Siege weapons, scoring, the capture process, the fact that fortifications don't hinder enemy movement, the entire logistics system thats basically roamer Whack-a-mole, and where the only advantage to splitting up teams is distraction.

 

The only way to accomplish what you think you "might" by reducing the pop cap, is only going to happen when the difficulty of taking/defending Structures is inversely proportional to the number of players on assault or defense. Something that is mathematically impossible with how this game handles things like damage and target caps.

 

Its only when taking structures is more mechanical then numerical, will teams actually have real incentive to split up for success.

[Tao.5096]

Lack of functional EotM in place to mitigate queues will make WvW a luxury and will make many more people quit.

Unless they'll make "channels" for each borderland, which is unlikely.

 

What's more, I don't understand why guilds do not GvG in Obsidian Sanctum, but do it in borderlands and make people who actually WvW suffer.

 

We already have WvW suffer from map-cap - not sure what is now, but couple of years ago it was over 100, then it dropped to like 80 due to server lags caused by new Stability mechanic.

 

Also, WvW quests are in most cases a chore.

Veteran Slayer has 15 minutes of respawn timer - should be 5 minutes at most.

Capture a Keep - this one is a roulette. In my opinion it should be changed to Capture or Defend a Keep.

Same thing could be done with Towers, but they are much easier to conquer.

 

And so on, and so on.

 

Honestly, there is a ton of stuff to work on in regard of WvW, and it's hard to see any good changes.

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Tao.5096" said:

> Lack of functional EotM in place to mitigate queues will make WvW a luxury and will make many more people quit.

> Unless they'll make "channels" for each borderland, which is unlikely.

>

> What's more, I don't understand why guilds do not GvG in Obsidian Sanctum, but do it in borderlands and make people who actually WvW suffer.

>

> We already have WvW suffer from map-cap - not sure what is now, but couple of years ago it was over 100, then it dropped to like 80 due to server lags caused by new Stability mechanic.

>

> Also, WvW quests are in most cases a chore.

> Veteran Slayer has 15 minutes of respawn timer - should be 5 minutes at most.

> Capture a Keep - this one is a roulette. In my opinion it should be changed to Capture or Defend a Keep.

> Same thing could be done with Towers, but they are much easier to conquer.

>

> And so on, and so on.

>

> Honestly, there is a ton of stuff to work on in regard of WvW, and it's hard to see any good changes.

 

well... you can only gvg for so long and if your team is losing, then, not many in yours can have that outlook of keeping the fight.

 

some ppl are fragile, you know.

 

so in wvw, you fight, you avoid, you take camps.

 

=)

 

but if anet makes my dueling in towns or safezones a thing, then this is problem solved.

 

no downstate, no hard res, just x v x within an area and until 1 team wins.

 

if a v b and a wins 3 x, b will probably be sad. in an eotm arena. now if it becomes 7 x. b would be so sad. and what if b cant win? just keep bashing head on wall?

 

inhouse versus like that is best kep done once a week so both parties can stratregize and gear properly.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > @"Tao.5096" said:

> > Lack of functional EotM in place to mitigate queues will make WvW a luxury and will make many more people quit.

> > Unless they'll make "channels" for each borderland, which is unlikely.

> >

> > What's more, I don't understand why guilds do not GvG in Obsidian Sanctum, but do it in borderlands and make people who actually WvW suffer.

> >

> > We already have WvW suffer from map-cap - not sure what is now, but couple of years ago it was over 100, then it dropped to like 80 due to server lags caused by new Stability mechanic.

> >

> > Also, WvW quests are in most cases a chore.

> > Veteran Slayer has 15 minutes of respawn timer - should be 5 minutes at most.

> > Capture a Keep - this one is a roulette. In my opinion it should be changed to Capture or Defend a Keep.

> > Same thing could be done with Towers, but they are much easier to conquer.

> >

> > And so on, and so on.

> >

> > Honestly, there is a ton of stuff to work on in regard of WvW, and it's hard to see any good changes.

>

> well... you can only gvg for so long and if your team is losing, then, not many in yours can have that outlook of keeping the fight.

>

> some ppl are fragile, you know.

>

> so in wvw, you fight, you avoid, you take camps.

>

> =)

>

> but if anet makes my dueling in towns or safezones a thing, then this is problem solved.

>

> no downstate, no hard res, just x v x within an area and until 1 team wins.

>

> if a v b and a wins 3 x, b will probably be sad. in an eotm arena. now if it becomes 7 x. b would be so sad. and what if b cant win? just keep bashing head on wall?

>

> inhouse versus like that is best kep done once a week so both parties can stratregize and gear properly.

 

There have been over 10 threads in the PvE section where it is roundly criticized. There are also, per developer statements, multiple back end issues which, reportedly, make this extremely resource intensive.

 

The answer from the general community is that we have Obsidean Sanctum, sPvP, guild hall arenas, EOTM arena etc etc.

 

Short answer is it won’t happen.

 

Long answer is, it won’t happen for years..

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

The only thing this would do is hurt those who play prime time, as they would have to wait in a queue to get into the map they want to play, or any map at all.

 

You seem to think that these T1 servers are there because of pure numbers, but they are not. People assume that servers like BG are queued all the time on all the maps, when even on reset, only EBG will be and in many cases, in prime time the other servers outnumber BG. What BG has is COVERAGE, meaning your change in caps would further HELP BG, as it would be sure they would never be out numbered in prime time like they can be now, and it would mean their 24/7 coverage would be even more effective as that off hour coverage is often pretty small, it's just that the other servers are totally dead in those time zones.

[TheGrimm.5624]

That's part of the point of the alliances, have Anet divide up the servers to rebalance. The two problems are there are still options for transfers and there are a kind of free server transfer while a person changes guilds. There were notes on how to limit that but we can only hope they are considering those factors moving forward while they plan on how people will try and game the system.

 

This shouldn't be a roamer versus zerg thing. You need both. Zergs should be taking out bigger objectives and roamers should be skirmishers softening up future targets and slowing down reinforcements. Changes to the downed state and changes in rezzing would only further to reinforce the value in both all the more. The reason PPT shouldn't be reduced, and potentially increased the higher the tier, is that it should be the other driving factor to have people split up more. One blob can't be everywhere and if they are they will lose everything they are not at if the other side breaks into smaller forces.

 

As far as server stacking if we don't get alliances then server transfer costs should be increased, though retain a lower cost to move to a lower population server. Lower population should be calculated based off the total population of both linked servers, not just the one though. That or potentially adding in an increasing cost factor based on transfers over time. That could negatively impact a new single player exploring and looking for a legit new home so the calculation would also need to factor in something like WvW rank to get a better cost number.