Fix WvW population - EASY FIX!!

I have had it with always being outnumbered, so many years now, why is this not fixed yet?

Here is my fix:

There are 3 sides. No side on any one map can ever have 3 players more or 3 less than any other side on the current map, going off the side with the lowest on the map. Simple!

So if one side(we'll call A ) on one map only has 3 people on it, the 2 other sides can only get 6 players onto the map, unless side A get up to 6, then the other 2 can get up to 9. and so on. If it drops to 1 and there are still 6 on the other sides. No one can join until players leave and it drops back to the no more or less than 3 threshold.

This should also help to spread the player population over more servers too. As there is no point on having everyone on just 1 server, if there is no one on the other 2, because they will never get into a map. Spread the players over all the servers, you can still get big 40 vs 40 vs 40 games. But they will stay fair, and will never go 5 vs 40 vs 20. as the game would force 5 vs 8 vs 8.If people want to play, they will be forced to spread the player base over all the servers.

U know that some people enjoy outnumbered ?

So you want to build another wall to prevent players to get into a map?

Queues in high populated servers are already a massive wall for players. The Queues will even be worse if you need to wait for the enemy team to first get its number into a map.

I'm overall for that kind of "dynamic map cap" suggestion. It'd damper all the night capping issues, make things easier with ounumbered, and also give blobs a harder time to get in. Which is also the reason why I'm quite confident it'll never happen.

Anyway, I think your suggestion should also come with a flat amount of players that can come in, before the dynamic cap enters. Like "However low A population is, B and C will still be able to get 5 ppl in". Also, I think the queues may be an issue, eventhough players can switch servers (which is not a bad thing in itself), it's never an easy thing to do (price, switching with friends, etc.)

we have the que system. the devs can use it so that players will have equal players.

worth trying.

example. if 10 players q. other server 10 ppl que too. once all is ready. map loads.

do the same - go 100 q per side.

in this sense, merge servers into 3 factions.

let wvw maps be instance based similar to eotm, with time limit and let sieges be available via upgrade. so suppliesnwill be important. after each skirmish, scores are totaled.

wvw 24/7 problem solved.

@Silverstone.4539 said:I have had it with always being outnumbered, so many years now, why is this not fixed yet?

Here is my fix:

There are 3 sides. No side on any one map can ever have 3 players more or 3 less than any other side on the current map, going off the side with the lowest on the map. Simple!

So if one side(we'll call A ) on one map only has 3 people on it, the 2 other sides can only get 6 players onto the map, unless side A get up to 6, then the other 2 can get up to 9. and so on. If it drops to 1 and there are still 6 on the other sides. No one can join until players leave and it drops back to the no more or less than 3 threshold.

This should also help to spread the player population over more servers too. As there is no point on having everyone on just 1 server, if there is no one on the other 2, because they will never get into a map. Spread the players over all the servers, you can still get big 40 vs 40 vs 40 games. But they will stay fair, and will never go 5 vs 40 vs 20. as the game would force 5 vs 8 vs 8.If people want to play, they will be forced to spread the player base over all the servers.

Isn't that basically EotM?

In a freeform enviroment, this is a very bad idea.

Its really quite simple:Activity on one side encourages activity on the other side. Activity feeds conflict - even when outmanned. Requesting reinforcements in order to move forward is a part of the battle. Nothing is ever going to be "fair". This turn the giant hamster wheel that is WvW.

We already know what happens when you try to interrupt the natural flow of WvW with artificial limitations and gimmicks leading to lower populations on a map. We get DBL.

If something is needed to "fix" WvW, look at fixing the scoring system instead. Anet already kittened it up by making it tier based and giving the dominating server more points.

dbl isnt so bad. we got lots of fights there. we need a mindset change. so many players dont even try anymore. u.u;;

I don't think Anet has ever commented on the idea of a variable map cap with the exception that they fear that:

1. It could be gamed by a side that dominates a map and then quickly empties the map.
2. After emptying a map, there could be hostility to anyone wanting to go on that map. (This is the idea killer for Anet)

So if one server is really hard into ppt. And you attack their homeborder and they have only 3 guys on map. And all their towers/keeps are sieged up. How should the attacking server take a t3 keep if 3 ppl defend? Btw keep is fully sieged up. And what happens if a 2 server have 60 guys on map. Then you have fights and one server is going to face roll the other server. Then ppl rq like they do in this game usually and you have suddenly only 30 vs 60 on map. Then 30 ppl have to leave the map to balance it again? No thanks! This System is way to easy to exploit and would favour the nightcap server even more if they upgrade all their stuff in the night and no one playing during the day. If you want 5v5 fights go for spvp. Also you would banish guild members from raiding with their own guild...... So pls no this is not a good change.

@Silverstone.4539 said:Fix WvW population - EASY FIX!!

You misspelled "Bad".

I should not be forced into a queue because WvW is unpopular on your server. Particularly if the third server has players. let the two fight, do not force them down to your level. You should strive to live up to theirs.

worst idea ever lol

@BassHunteR.7246 said:worst idea ever lol

No, the worst idea ever was 'New' Coke. The OP idea would be number 2.

The OP must never have been on a map that wasn't outnumbered but still couldn't muster a solid defense against 10 attackers. Numbers are never the whole story.

Besides which, by restricting all populations based on the lowest in a given map, the game would introduce queuing for two worlds on every map. That doesn't seem like fun.

TLDR: Dynamic map cap

I don't like dynamic map capping

• Limit strategy movement like map jumping
• Give defender advantage due to EWP; Attackers that join the map will have to run from spawn while defenders can immediately port in via EWP
• Punishing guilds that didn't stack but just happen to be against a empty server
• Encourage stacking on 3 servers since by stacking, you are essentially ensuring that your timezone will always have people on map thus able to enter the map without encountering map queue.
• People pays 1.8k gems just to be stuck in a map queue due to opponent being smaller. It is essentially a scam.
• Inaccurate population representation; WvW population algorithm is calculated base on the people IN wvw itself. By keeping people on queue due to other emptier server, populations status therefore will become inaccurate
• Inaccurate matchmaking; You will need specific amount of people capture something, to PPT. However this dynamic capping will prevent the more populated servers to hit that number to capture something elsewhere the opponents can possibility hug AC to stop any forms of PPT. Thus, populated servers will not able to match against one another.
• Doesn't account for AFKers

Better is to have people automatically join teams with least population. Wvw metaserver. Anet could setup one or two test matches with metaservers. Not all needs familiar server, just 2 hours fun in any team.

@Pelto.9364 said:Better is to have people automatically join teams with least population. Wvw metaserver. Anet could setup one or two test matches with metaservers. Not all needs familiar server, just 2 hours fun in any team.

Separate and distinct servers allows for coordinated voice communication and organized guild/map strategies, but also allows huge population disparities.

Metaservers allow for equalized populations, but no organized voice communication or guilds.

Organized WvW is more fun than unorganized WvW.

I do agree that something needs to be done with the constant outnumbered issues, especially against dedicated world servers. Although i don't agree that restricting other world's population if one world has low population would be the solution, as there is different timezones etc, why there might be variation on population.

I'd like to see some sort of incremental buffs and advantages, like more effective sieges and stronger walls / lord while fighting outnumbered, rather than limit other worlds population.

I can't even count the number of times we have taken SMC while outnumbered. If I had to guess, I would say it's probably close to 30 by now. It's far more fun to take it with a roughly even fight, or a 3 way take (which is the best). But, it happens.

@Rumba.3174 said:So you want to build another wall to prevent players to get into a map?

Queues in high populated servers are already a massive wall for players. The Queues will even be worse if you need to wait for the enemy team to first get its number into a map.

No, I want to fix the wall that the player base has made for its self but all jumping on to a few severs and leaving the rest out to dry.This would force some of the big guilds to spread over all the servers, and would give the smaller ones on lower pop servers more of fair game.

the high Queue times on high populated servers is self created. This is a way to save you people from yourselves and to insure everyone gets a fair game.

@Silverstone.4539 said:No, I want to fix the wall that the player base has made for its self but all jumping on to a few severs and leaving the rest out to dry.This would force some of the big guilds to spread over all the servers, and would give the smaller ones on lower pop servers more of fair game.Anet have already tried to fix the server population by linking servers.If it was the right thing to do is still much disputed. For me personally linking is bad. It’s better if they scrap few server so that all servers are decent populated, and due to scrapping few server they should save some cost. That they then can spend on better servers to avoid those server lags.

Splitting the guilds sort of defeats it purpose of being a guild.

@Silverstone.4539 said:the high Queue times on high populated servers is self created. This is a way to save you people from yourselves and to insure everyone gets a fair game.

Yes it’s popular based. But forcing players to join a map that they original don’t want to due to you can’t enter it, is going to cause queues elsewhere. Since they can't go to a map they want to they will pick the next best one, thus taking some else’s place and so the circle continues. It’s an evil and bad circle of players not really doing want they wanted.

I haven't read every reply to this so forgive me if someone brought it up. One problem with this idea is when people leave a map, particularly those on the lowest population map. Ex. 3 out of 6 people leave and now the other worlds who were at 9 people now have 3 people kicked from the map? Which 3 get kicked? How easy would it be to troll the other worlds, especially if they are taking an objective? "Ok everyone, We're going to lose this keep so everyone logout and the other world will be kicked out as well, minus 2 people left to take the keep." I appreciate the suggestion though as I agree, constant outnumbers and persists double teaming does suck. I'd rather see system enforced alliances when one world is grossly outnumbered by the other two. Ex. G HAS 50 players B 40 and R 20, the system could then for a period of time, force B and R to be friendly to each other such that they can only attack G. This is a simplified example of course but with more development of the idea using other factors that decide when a system enforced alliances occurs, then this could be at least an interesting way to address the issue.

@Silverstone.4539 said:I have had it with always being outnumbered, so many years now, why is this not fixed yet?

Here is my fix:

There are 3 sides. No side on any one map can ever have 3 players more or 3 less than any other side on the current map, going off the side with the lowest on the map. Simple!

So if one side(we'll call A ) on one map only has 3 people on it, the 2 other sides can only get 6 players onto the map, unless side A get up to 6, then the other 2 can get up to 9. and so on. If it drops to 1 and there are still 6 on the other sides. No one can join until players leave and it drops back to the no more or less than 3 threshold.

This should also help to spread the player population over more servers too. As there is no point on having everyone on just 1 server, if there is no one on the other 2, because they will never get into a map. Spread the players over all the servers, you can still get big 40 vs 40 vs 40 games. But they will stay fair, and will never go 5 vs 40 vs 20. as the game would force 5 vs 8 vs 8.If people want to play, they will be forced to spread the player base over all the servers.

So in other words you are advocating for megaservers but where servers are completely out of the equation....leading to completely random team each time you join.....

Cause that is the only way this can work as described without creating very very long wait times for every bl. Infact why even connect the 4 borderlands to the same imaginary servers then? Lets save on wait times and make it a true jump in and play mode where choose a map and you jump right in.

A new system would have to be created to accommodate guilds. for example queing as a guild before a run and then a new world being created once enough guilds have qued into the system. so more wait times, and youd have to try to be on at specific times with the entire guild in order to get all your people in. rip late joiners. and alot of the time depending on how large you que you will be more likely to win if your side has the fewest solo joiners.....cause if the enemy doesnt run the same size they will be a number of small groups with no history of communication much less the ability or desire to do so.

a new indexing like in pvp for custom games would have to be created. So you have a listing of the games that exist and what is currently joinable. Of course an autojoin is to be pushed on everyone but for guilds its important to have an idea if someone can que in a timely manner to join your game if they disconnect or arrive later on. Heck we can even piggyback it off the existing pvp system and use the pvp lobby

Did you even think your own idea out before you wrote it down? Cause the only player I see this as good for is the pver who just wants to sit in a zerg all day and grind some skins. Cause those players dont care about communicating and developing communities. They just want mindless jumpin and play modes with instant respawn and lots of rewards coming their way each time they press a button to attack. sounds alot like modern day modless cod.

i can see the teamspeaks already......team a team b team c.... and the numbers just keep on piling. Everyone wanting to be as close the A team as possible cause the lower letters will be the fringe games that are created when everything else is filled, and naturally are unfilled the soonest when population dies. The ts will Just be random rooms you jump between all the time you play. like first day of classes each time you login.

This is what a workable version of what you proposed would look like.

But hey, I am going to personally thumbup your idea and label it helpful. Cause this is a good opportunity to educate people to learn to think for themselves. Oh look at that, you cant thumb and label something helpful! even i am learning something out of this

ugh, I never said anyone got kicked. if the sides get too unbalanced because one side loses a lot of people. it just means more people can't join the bigger sides until all the sides balance out again.

So if one server boycots WvW for a day, all other servers in the match can't play either?