Server Criterias

Dear Anet,there is a link or an official page where we can see how is calculate a server Full or in a different way ?Why you do not create a page where every server can check the status in a transparent way , according your official criteria ?Thanks

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World#List_of_worlds

PS that list is produced from the official API, which you can read about here:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/API:2/worlds

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World#List_of_worlds

Came here to post this same thing lol

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:Dear Anet,there is a link or an official page where we can see how is calculate a server Full or in a different way ?Why you do not create a page where every server can check the status in a transparent way , according your official criteria ?Thanks

wish there was a graph charts showing it too. =)

Keep in mind that the terminology is outdated, based on criteria used in the early years of the game. It is no longer about total population and instead the main factor is the relative population; ANet adjust the status so that it's possible to set up links with each "team" of comparable size. If one world gets too big (or too small), then it's not possible to make that up by linking worlds, without leaving too few someplace else, or too many.

These days, we should think of the terms as follows:

• Closed (jargon: "full"), meaning ANet has disallowed transfers.
• About to be closed/recently closed (jargon: "very high"), meaning ANet is discouraging transfers without preventing them outright. Might be too big for a link.
• Big enough (jargon: "high"), meaning it's a decent size for match-ups. Probably not too big to get a link.
• Everything else (jargon: "medium"), meaning easy enough to link up with other worlds.

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:Dear Anet,there is a link or an official page where we can see how is calculate a server Full or in a different way ?Why you do not create a page where every server can check the status in a transparent way , according your official criteria ?Thanks

That would likely crush all of the memes though.

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:Dear Anet,there is a link or an official page where we can see how is calculate a server Full or in a different way ?Why you do not create a page where every server can check the status in a transparent way , according your official criteria ?Thanks

a hamster chews nut. =)

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:Keep in mind that the terminology is outdated, based on criteria used in the early years of the game. It is no longer about total population and instead the main factor is the relative population; ANet adjust the status so that it's possible to set up links with each "team" of comparable size. If one world gets too big (or too small), then it's not possible to make that up by linking worlds, without leaving too few someplace else, or too many.

These days, we should think of the terms as follows:

• Closed (jargon: "full"), meaning ANet has disallowed transfers.
• About to be closed/recently closed (jargon: "very high"), meaning ANet is discouraging transfers without preventing them outright. Might be too big for a link.
• Big enough (jargon: "high"), meaning it's a decent size for match-ups. Probably not too big to get a link.
• Everything else (jargon: "medium"), meaning easy enough to link up with other worlds.

I might make one small correction to your terminology: under very high I have not seen a very high server NOT linked. In fact, many ‘full’ servers get links, but may not be open.

Here's your graph, now what good is there in seeing a graph or a threshold? so you can complain why is your server still closed? trying to see how much can fit into the next bandwagon? trying to figure out how long or how many would need to not play to get servers under the threshold? or how long or how much before the lock reacts to player transfers before closing?No point for them to give away any information so players can think up ways to cheat the system.

@"XenesisII.1540" said:Here's your graph, now what good is there in seeing a graph or a threshold? so you can complain why is your server still closed? trying to see how much can fit into the next bandwagon? trying to figure out how long or how many would need to not play to get servers under the threshold? or how long or how much before the lock reacts to player transfers before closing?No point for them to give away any information so players can think up ways to cheat the system.

I completely agree with your reasoning not to show an updated graph.

And also would note the one you linked is... what.. two years old now? ?

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@"XenesisII.1540" said:Here's your graph, now what good is there in seeing a graph or a threshold? so you can complain why is your server still closed? trying to see how much can fit into the next bandwagon? trying to figure out how long or how many would need to not play to get servers under the threshold? or how long or how much before the lock reacts to player transfers before closing?No point for them to give away any information so players can think up ways to cheat the system.

I completely agree with your reasoning not to show an updated graph.

And again what would be the point of showing a graph whether it's two years old or yesterdays?No reason for anet to release this information so players can go back to conning the system.

@XenesisII.1540 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@XenesisII.1540 said:Here's your graph, now what good is there in seeing a graph or a threshold? so you can complain why is your server still closed? trying to see how much can fit into the next bandwagon? trying to figure out how long or how many would need to not play to get servers under the threshold? or how long or how much before the lock reacts to player transfers before closing?No point for them to give away any information so players can think up ways to cheat the system.

I completely agree with your reasoning not to show an updated graph.

But yet... you bring back a meme worthy graph.

But w/e showing updates wouldn’t solve anything.

And don't forget: It's player-hours during the match, not simply players that count.Since Piken was in T5 and now in T4 they play a lot more (first to get out of T5, now to stay out of T5) than in T3 (where they got crushed).

If you all play more hours per week, you increase your server status.

@"Jayden Reese.9542" said:It's just the Piken guy again. Why are we full? Anet opens every EU server. Piken drops to VH and transfers over 20 dudes. 2 weeks later algorithm catches up and they full again. That's y dude. It's kinda like YB NA is somehow or was full for forever. They probably don't have the hours they did back in the day but they stay full. I think there is a threshold system but if you stacked at some point they keep it locked even if you fall under the threshold for a short while maybe but that's speculation based on YB and i'm sure even BG would argue they aren't full either.

Because if you got 20 guys who play 20 hours a day, you're going to have more playhours than 40 guys who only play 3 hours a day. The "Full" status just means your server is at the top of the playhours compared to other servers, not that the number of playhours reaches some "back in the day" threshold.

YB isn't full at the moment btw, only BG, FA and SF are. I'm pretty sure whatever algorithm Anet uses to determine whether a server is full or not is based off total player hours divided by 24 (the total number of servers on NA). If your server has 5% of the total player hours, server is flagged Full, 4% -- Very High, 3% -- high, 2% -- Medium. Approximately anyway.

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:It's just the Piken guy again. Why are we full? Anet opens every EU server. Piken drops to VH and transfers over 20 dudes. 2 weeks later algorithm catches up and they full again. That's y dude. It's kinda like YB NA is somehow or was full for forever. They probably don't have the hours they did back in the day but they stay full. I think there is a threshold system but if you stacked at some point they keep it locked even if you fall under the threshold for a short while maybe but that's speculation based on YB and i'm sure even BG would argue they aren't full either.

It's not why are we full that by the way could be a right of every player to understand. It's more the interest in understanding and a normal transparency need.For example do they calculate for the population also the PVE players ? Someone says yes , other says not. If we as community know what are the criteria we can suggest also solution for balancing and have all more fun.

@Djamonja.6453 said:YB isn't full at the moment btw, only BG, FA and SF are. I'm pretty sure whatever algorithm Anet uses to determine whether a server is full or not is based off total player hours divided by 24 (the total number of servers on NA). If your server has 5% of the total player hours, server is flagged Full, 4% -- Very High, 3% -- high, 2% -- Medium. Approximately anyway.

Could be , but when we talk about total player hours divided by 24 , it is with PVE and PVP included or not ?

PvE and sPvP do not affect the server status of a world, as they have no bearing on whether or not a server should be full or not.

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:It's just the Piken guy again. Why are we full? Anet opens every EU server. Piken drops to VH and transfers over 20 dudes. 2 weeks later algorithm catches up and they full again. That's y dude. It's kinda like YB NA is somehow or was full for forever. They probably don't have the hours they did back in the day but they stay full. I think there is a threshold system but if you stacked at some point they keep it locked even if you fall under the threshold for a short while maybe but that's speculation based on YB and i'm sure even BG would argue they aren't full either.

Are you sure about ? That PVE population has no impact ? Where is written ? That's why I am asking the criteria because if we all know , we can look and suggest how to balance. Personally , I do believe they count the PVE population somehow.

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:It's just the Piken guy again. Why are we full? Anet opens every EU server. Piken drops to VH and transfers over 20 dudes. 2 weeks later algorithm catches up and they full again. That's y dude. It's kinda like YB NA is somehow or was full for forever. They probably don't have the hours they did back in the day but they stay full. I think there is a threshold system but if you stacked at some point they keep it locked even if you fall under the threshold for a short while maybe but that's speculation based on YB and i'm sure even BG would argue they aren't full either.

You can be positive about a fallacy also.

Just to clarify: the world isn’t flat, and the earth isn’t the center of the universe.

It’s play hours... it’s been stated multiple times by devs.

Of course, they could also be lying to us completely and the game may not really exist either.

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:It's just the Piken guy again. Why are we full? Anet opens every EU server. Piken drops to VH and transfers over 20 dudes. 2 weeks later algorithm catches up and they full again. That's y dude. It's kinda like YB NA is somehow or was full for forever. They probably don't have the hours they did back in the day but they stay full. I think there is a threshold system but if you stacked at some point they keep it locked even if you fall under the threshold for a short while maybe but that's speculation based on YB and i'm sure even BG would argue they aren't full either.

It has been said. look it up or just face the reality that the people you surround yourself with in wvw are just crap.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Population-Changes-Are-Coming/page/1https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Population-Changes-Are-Coming/page/4#post5324934https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Population-Changes-Are-Coming/page/5#post5326517

July 24th, 2015Fellow Warriors of the Mists,

World population is visible on the labels on the World Selection and Transfer screen. It determines whether you can transfer to a world and, if you can, how much the transfer will cost. These measures historically have been set based on aggregate population levels around all game modes. But because World versus World is the only game mode to which worlds apply these days, we have developed a better model that exclusively uses WvW data to determine population levels and transfer costs.

We will be rolling out the new model soon and some shifts in the population levels should be expected. We’ll continue to monitor the situation, and we’ll make all adjustments we deem necessary to improve the WvW experience. As always, your feedback is very welcome.

See you in the Mists,— Samuel

I won’t detail the way the new algorithm works, because I want to minimize the risk of people trying to game it. That being said, I am confident it is robust against such attempts. It’s not looking at a short period of time, and it’s looking at many aspects of the ways players are interacting with WvW to determine a server population.

A “Full” server is a server with a number of Active WvW Players (as defined by the algorithm) above a certain threshold. It has nothing to do with hardware limitations, or PvE players.

/shrug

@"XenesisII.1540" said:https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Population-Changes-Are-Coming/page/1https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Population-Changes-Are-Coming/page/4#post5324934https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Population-Changes-Are-Coming/page/5#post5326517

July 24th, 2015Fellow Warriors of the Mists,

World population is visible on the labels on the World Selection and Transfer screen. It determines whether you can transfer to a world and, if you can, how much the transfer will cost. These measures historically have been set based on aggregate population levels around all game modes. But because World versus World is the only game mode to which worlds apply these days, we have developed a better

model that exclusively uses WvW data to determine population levels and transfer costs.

We will be rolling out the new model soon and some shifts in the population levels should be expected. We’ll continue to monitor the situation, and we’ll make all adjustments we deem necessary to improve the WvW experience. As always, your feedback is very welcome.

See you in the Mists,— Samuel

I won’t detail the way the new algorithm works, because I want to minimize the risk of people trying to game it. That being said, I am confident it is robust against such attempts. It’s not looking at a short period of time, and it’s looking at many aspects of the ways players are interacting with WvW to determine a server population.

A “Full” server is a server with a number of Active WvW Players (as defined by the algorithm) above a certain threshold. It has nothing to do with hardware limitations, or PvE players.

You missed a later one. When they switch from player number to player hours:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Yaks-Bend/first#post6513382

"To clarify further this is the first week we are using this new algorithm. So some of the complaints that are being brought up were problems with the old algorithm. We use play hours to determine the size Rank gains is tracked for comparison purposes since they usually follow a similar curve, but isn’t actually used to determine the world size.We have simulated other algorithms to measure world size and ultimately found that player hours gave us more accurate results because we are mostly comparing active WvW play. The past algorithms weighed more heavily on individual players, so we ended up with situations where JQ was ‘Full’ because they had a lot of players, just not necessarily ones that played as much as Blackgate."

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:Dear Anet,there is a link or an official page where we can see how is calculate a server Full or in a different way ?Why you do not create a page where every server can check the status in a transparent way , according your official criteria ?Thanks

Or would be the graph meme of all memes.