Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Full Server not so full


NaramSin.2693

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Jayden Reese.9542 said:

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:I do believe ANET should verify that their threshold system it's not bugged. It cannot be that a server like GH moved from medium to very high so jumping of two tiers and PS remain still full. Please do a check.

You get the full is the highest right? So you could have a full w 40k hours and a server w 50k hours would be labled the same so if the 50k server loses 8k hours it is still full. The threshold isn't broken you are just so far above or now the one's left play more you still stay full.

I still prefer to get an answer by ANET . Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:I do believe ANET should verify that their threshold system it's not bugged. It cannot be that a server like GH moved from medium to very high so jumping of two tiers and PS remain still full. Please do a check.

You get the full is the highest right? So you could have a full w 40k hours and a server w 50k hours would be labled the same so if the 50k server loses 8k hours it is still full. The threshold isn't broken you are just so far above or now the one's left play more you still stay full.

I still prefer to get an answer by ANET . Thanks

Maybe ask on Reddit then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has been suggested before by other players (which in no way means it’s accurate) is maybe they established a threshold based on particular legacy servers. That was thrown out secondary to BG remaining full despite guilds leaving and other servers becoming full on NA.

They have the ability to manually set that threshold where they choose. They also have the ability to keep a server closed even if they drop below the threshold.

They won’t tell us where servers are. The closest to that was a nebulous graph that depicted play hours of servers with no names attached.

In my (understandably far from official) opinion, they have picked an NA and an EU server that, for now, will be the threshold for full. So if those servers drop, they will likely stay full, and others will appear full that may not have actually gained a populace.

It would be a logical option, therefore appearing to have servers gain population while keeping the servers who believe that, for example, BG killed the mode happy keeping them closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Duca di Ebonhawke.1045 said:I do believe ANET should verify that their threshold system it's not bugged. It cannot be that a server like GH moved from medium to very high so jumping of two tiers and PS remain still full. Please do a check.

You get the full is the highest right? So you could have a full w 40k hours and a server w 50k hours would be labled the same so if the 50k server loses 8k hours it is still full. The threshold isn't broken you are just so far above or now the one's left play more you still stay full.

I still prefer to get an answer by ANET . Thanks

Maybe ask on Reddit then?

And I am not trying to be a young cat, but there is not a single Anet response on any thread on this page that wasn’t a started be an Anet Tag. And exactly One on the second page of this forum.

You just aren’t likely to get a response here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friday is reset and a lot of people will play from reset through the weekend, it's been like that since day one, it's not something to use to measure population as even the lowest servers can have full queues on reset.

There are players who only play during these times and not through the rest of the week. There are guilds who play on certain days for certain hours. Not everyone plays every single day, some people may play 1-2 hours a day, some may do 8-12 hours. Just imagine every one of those 8-12 hours people take up the same time of 4-6 other 1-2 hours a day people. So you look around and see your server is rated full but you don't see as much people as you think, maybe your server has a lot of long hour players, maybe you have off hours players, maybe there's tagless commanders running around with a guild sometimes and you don't see them, there's lots to be missed in wvw.

The system isn't perfect, but it's better than just counting heads on a server, which we had before when every single account on a server were counted and screwed up numbers when servers way below others in wvw population would get locked. We could probably go back to just counting heads by just tagging players that play a minimum amount of hours in wvw, but I don't think you'll like that result either as pug populations and low play times could screw up those numbers for some servers again.

And NO Anet should not reveal how the system works, because like everything else players will just sit there analyzing it to try and game the system to their advantage, just like they did back in the day slipping people in through the full servers by waiting for the drops during off hours.

Now lastly let me point out a very simple example.Weekly stats, which are obviously low ball guestimated.----- Piken 26,500 hours----- BG 25,900 hours----- Gandara 24,200 hours----- Full status 24,000 hours----- Very High 22,000 hours

If both gandara and piken lose 60 players with the average of 2 hours raiding for 3 days on the week = 360 hours. From the example Gandara would fall down between full and very high, but Piken would still be full, just because an equal amount of people leave doesn't mean they would both fall under the threshold. Full status is the last line of measurement and servers can be way above it. Gandara has been riding that line in the last month, oct 28 full, nov 4 very high, nov 11 full, nov 19 full, nov 25 very high, dec 3 very high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hallonknopp.6532 said:

@"gebrechen.5643" said:Is that the same Piken Square, that went from tier 4 with no link into tier 1 and dropped now to tier 2? Not sure what the problem is.

Probably not, or maybe you read the tiers upside down so tier 5 is tier 1 for you and tier 4 is tier 2 (where PS is located now).

Yeah, right?

http://gw2stats.com/servers/history/8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gebrechen.5643 said:

@gebrechen.5643 said:Is that the same Piken Square, that went from tier 4 with no link into tier 1 and dropped now to tier 2? Not sure what the problem is.

Probably not, or maybe you read the tiers upside down so tier 5 is tier 1 for you and tier 4 is tier 2 (where PS is located now).

Yeah, right?

Eh... rank is not tier. Rank is rank and how that is calculated and used in anyway I welcome you to explain. Tier is which match up a server is in and PS is in tier 4 (out of 5).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@hallonknopp.6532 said:

@gebrechen.5643 said:Is that the same Piken Square, that went from tier 4 with no link into tier 1 and dropped now to tier 2? Not sure what the problem is.

Probably not, or maybe you read the tiers upside down so tier 5 is tier 1 for you and tier 4 is tier 2 (where PS is located now).

Yeah, right?

Eh... rank is not tier. Rank is rank and how that is calculated and used in anyway I welcome you to explain. Tier is which match up a server is in and PS is in tier 4 (out of 5).

It is now, Piken still is one of the fullest servers EU. Just because some people don't play, doesn't mean you need a link or life support, or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@gebrechen.5643 said:

@gebrechen.5643 said:Is that the same Piken Square, that went from tier 4 with no link into tier 1 and dropped now to tier 2? Not sure what the problem is.

Probably not, or maybe you read the tiers upside down so tier 5 is tier 1 for you and tier 4 is tier 2 (where PS is located now).

Yeah, right?

Eh... rank is not tier. Rank is rank and how that is calculated and used in anyway I welcome you to explain. Tier is which match up a server is in and PS is in tier 4 (out of 5).

It is now, Piken still is one of the fullest servers EU. Just because some people don't play, doesn't mean you need a link or life support, or something.

Based on what data do you tell it is one of the fullest ? We have even no queue at the friday reset or just a small one in one border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@XECOR.2814 said:

@Len.1879 said:

@"Duca di Ebonhawke.1045" said:Based on what data do you tell it is one of the fullest ? We have even no queue at the friday reset or just a small one in one border.

YFYAZgg.png

You should get an award for this. Like 200iq. Man never seem someone so smart before. /s

Not sure what you are being facetious about. That's exactly what was being asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the ANET explanation isn't useful at all, they talk about an "algorithm" and "Thresholds" but noting specific (must be a really secret algorithm...), so since new kiss map rised 2 levels (from medium to very high) just after they went there I still find strange the original server, piken, still its' "Full" with so few people doing WvW actively it will be linked soon i think :) and it will be clear that the so called "algorithm" it's just a never resolved usual bugged stuff :)

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.

The “Full” threshold is slightly different than the other ones because it doesn’t have an upper limit. So some servers can be just slightly above the threshold and marked “Full”, and some other servers might be well over it, and also marked “Full”, even though their populations aren’t really balanced.

The intent is that since you can’t join or transfer to a “Full” server, their populations are going to diminish over time, until eventually they reach “Very High” again. At this point, all “Full” servers are going to be balanced. This won’t be right away, though, since we’re not kicking anyone out of their servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my opinion, ANEt should ask for help in this question, i'm sure here in the forum many people could help them to find a better and easier system to manage WvW population so let people enjoy the game

@Mouldie.2851 said:Who demanded anything??????? It was just a post stating what i'd like to see. A system where 50-60 players leave PS and go to GH. GH goes very high the next count but PS, even tho it lost 50-60, stays full. Something is going seriously wrong with the system used to calculate all this and it's unfair that the players are suffering for it, not being able to play with friends as they are on different servers and can't move because a server is full for 12 months, even when so many players leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...