Why does Stormbluff Isle server say FULL? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Why does Stormbluff Isle server say FULL?

Ronin.4501Ronin.4501 Member ✭✭

Our server has been largely devoid of players for a few months now. Outside of double XP weekend our server rarely has any maps queued outside of EBG (and EBG typically only has a queue for reset and maybe Saturday night). The only time our server seems to have numbers is during NA primetime, when we're lucky to have numbers equal to the other servers on home BL and EBG. In fact our server seemed to go from being medium population to full around the same time a few guilds transferred OFF of SBI. What gives Anet?

Ronin V/Skhaar/Vicious Blacktongue/etc.
Questionable Integrity [Sin]
Stormbluff Isle
Mithril Invader

Comments

  • It's not WvW player based only. You got yourself a full server of PVE players or the WvW guys just stopped playing but didn't transfer or not enough transferred off to drop you down to very full or w/e the next lower tier is.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ronin.4501 said:
    Our server has been largely devoid of players for a few months now. Outside of double XP weekend our server rarely has any maps queued outside of EBG (and EBG typically only has a queue for reset and maybe Saturday night). The only time our server seems to have numbers is during NA primetime, when we're lucky to have numbers equal to the other servers on home BL and EBG. In fact our server seemed to go from being medium population to full around the same time a few guilds transferred OFF of SBI. What gives Anet?

    The algorithm for ‘full’ status is not responsive. It likely is that the guilds that came to your server made your status full just in time for the algorithm to kick in. Add that to the influx of people for the mount and you are locked for a couple of weeks. It’ll change.

    The delay is to prevent groups from hibernating as easily as they could in the past.

  • Ronin.4501Ronin.4501 Member ✭✭
    edited March 16, 2019

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:
    It's not WvW player based only. You got yourself a full server of PVE players or the WvW guys just stopped playing but didn't transfer or not enough transferred off to
    drop you down to very full or w/e the next lower tier is.

    That wouldn't make much sense given that outside of WvW, server homes are irrelevant given that PvE maps are now part of the mega-servers.

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    The algorithm for ‘full’ status is not responsive. It likely is that the guilds that came to your server made your status full just in time for the algorithm to kick in. Add that to the influx of people for the mount and you are locked for a couple of weeks. It’ll change.

    The delay is to prevent groups from hibernating as easily as they could in the past.

    Thank you Strider. This response seems far more logical. It's really a shame that the linkings seem so unbalanced these days with players both flooding to stack a server just after relinks or attempting to manipulate participation prior to relinks. It would be nice if Anet could alter their algorithm to monitor player activity in the middle weeks during the server linking period rather than the overall period to cut down on manipulation. Or simply do away with the algorithm altogether and manually monitor participation.

    Ah, such is life in the competitive game mode of a MMO. The kitten stepchild if you will.

    *EDIT Where you see kitten, think type of sword ;)

    Ronin V/Skhaar/Vicious Blacktongue/etc.
    Questionable Integrity [Sin]
    Stormbluff Isle
    Mithril Invader

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ronin.4501 said:

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:
    It's not WvW player based only. You got yourself a full server of PVE players or the WvW guys just stopped playing but didn't transfer or not enough transferred off to
    drop you down to very full or w/e the next lower tier is.

    That wouldn't make much sense given that outside of WvW, server homes are irrelevant given that PvE maps are now part of the mega-servers.

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    The algorithm for ‘full’ status is not responsive. It likely is that the guilds that came to your server made your status full just in time for the algorithm to kick in. Add that to the influx of people for the mount and you are locked for a couple of weeks. It’ll change.

    The delay is to prevent groups from hibernating as easily as they could in the past.

    Thank you Strider. This response seems far more logical. It's really a shame that the linkings seem so unbalanced these days with players both flooding to stack a server just after relinks or attempting to manipulate participation prior to relinks. It would be nice if Anet could alter their algorithm to monitor player activity in the middles weeks during the server linking period rather than the overall period to cut down on manipulation.

    You are welcome

    Or simply do away with the algorithm altogether and manually monitor participation.

    That would be a workload that many that have played this game would be skeptical that they would put into what has been called a ‘niche’ despite being one of the original three ‘modes’ advertised.

    Ah, such is life in the competitive game mode of a MMO. The kitten stepchild if you will.

    Exactly. 😉

    *EDIT Where you see kitten, think type of sword ;)

    .

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 16, 2019

    It's cuz half the queue is afk at spawn, and another chunk is "scouting" (aka havinvg 10 people sit at a camp and calling for zerg backup against 3 attackers).

    And there are definitely players with you. They just happen to either 1.) die in 0.5 seconds because they're running God knows what, 2.) or they just flat out run when they see opposing players. Certainly you've fought many fights where you thought it was a 4v4 but it's really a 1v4.

    Also lag.

  • Yup googled it was wrong. Seems it's an algorithm based mostly off hours played. Already seen GoM drop to med and JQ bumped to Very high in less then a month so Idk how often it is calculated. Was fun reading an actually match thread on reddit that didn't get insta-shut down tho.

  • L A T I O N.8923L A T I O N.8923 Member ✭✭✭

    The population balance is updated practicly twice a week
    After last month i have the Sense a server > @Ronin.4501 said:

    Our server has been largely devoid of players for a few months now. Outside of double XP weekend our server rarely has any maps queued outside of EBG (and EBG typically only has a queue for reset and maybe Saturday night). The only time our server seems to have numbers is during NA primetime, when we're lucky to have numbers equal to the other servers on home BL and EBG. In fact our server seemed to go from being medium population to full around the same time a few guilds transferred OFF of SBI. What gives Anet?

    I have no Idea what would offer a server to be full
    And to be fair: i have a Sense servers Will be marked full faster lately (also because of offtime coverage) basicly a shrinking playerbase and alot of transferring off servers (rip kaineng nov'18-feb'19)

  • ANet uses "full" status as a way to force people to join other worlds first, to make it easier to balance match ups. The ideal scenario is that all primary worlds have within 10% of the same population, which would be double any linked world (also all within 10% of each other). Thus each 'team' would be composed of 2/3 primary + 1/3 linked, give or take 10%.

    Unfortunately some primaries are far more than 10% bigger than others. When the gap is large enough, regardless of the numbers we see, ANet will close the bigger worlds.

    Obviously, this system never worked all that well. It didn't matter much for the first few years (for a variety of reasons): with strong enough population, the numbers didn't have to balance that well. This is among the many reasons why ANet is pushing hard for the Alliance system: with smaller units of organization, balance becomes much much easier.


    @Ronin.4501 said:
    Our server has been largely devoid of players for a few months now.

    None of us can possibly know the numbers. At best, we know what the numbers are within squads on the maps we join. We have a much more limited view of what's going on than ANet does.

    Outside of double XP weekend our server rarely has any maps queued outside of EBG (and EBG typically only has a queue for reset and maybe Saturday night).

    The "Full" status has nothing directly to do with queues; it's a mistake to consider it when second-guessing ANet's decisions about pop status or match ups.
    (Indirectly, of course, large queues are more likely with higher total pops. But, as noted above, it's relative pop that drives the "full" designation, not absolute numbers.)

    @Jayden Reese.9542 said:
    It's not WvW player based only.

    Actually, it's entirely WvW-based and has been for years
    (It only considered PvE numbers at launch and until some time after PvE maps stopped generating one instance per world).

    "Face the facts. Then act on them. It's ...the only doctrine I have to offer you, & it's harder than you'd think, because I swear humans seem hardwired to do anything but. Face the facts. Don't pray, don't wish, ...FACE THE FACTS. THEN act." — Quellcrist Falconer

  • Straegen.2938Straegen.2938 Member ✭✭✭

    We q'd all four maps last night during NA prime and frequently have a 20+ man q in EBG. SBI is full of players. Unfortunately it is full of a lot of fair-weather players that don't show up when things go south. It also has a huge number of players that simply are not very good WvW players. It has some excellent relatively small core guilds but the pugs are as bad as they are numerous.

  • Djamonja.6453Djamonja.6453 Member ✭✭✭
    1. Fort Aspenwood - Tier 2 NA 44401
    2. Blackgate - Tier 1 NA 42816
    3. Northern Shiverpeaks - Tier 4 NA 41771
    4. Yak's Bend - Tier 3 NA 40706
    5. Tarnished Coast - Tier 2 NA 38904
    6. Anvil Rock - Tier 1 NA 38537
    7. Sea of Sorrows - Tier 2 NA 38292
    8. Dragonbrand - Tier 4 NA 37699
    9. Henge of Denravi - Tier 3 NA 31461
    10. Ferguson's Crossing - Tier 1 NA 29346
    11. Stormbluff Isle - Tier 3 NA 28623
    12. Kaineng - Tier 4 NA 21415

    There's the activity for the NA servers for the current matchups. So yes, SBI is a bit smaller than the other links right now. This stuff changes from link to link because of people bandwagoning to advantageous server links.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Why do people complain about mid tier servers being full, is there a guild that so happens to want to transfer in the week it's full than the other 51 weeks it isn't?

    Server status is determined by the activity time of players in wvw (based on their own internal numbers not some popped out in a 3rd party website), also not just the number of players physically on your server, this was changed years ago.
    We had a big event of the mount release last week so a lot of pve players were in wvw boosting the activity time, there's now 9 servers listed as full when it was like 3 before the event.

    Relax, give it another week, the servers will probably be checked tomorrow and you'll probably be lowered since most of the pve players have gotten their mounts and left.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.