WvW Gandara

[Fallen.1268]

Hi, this is a suggestion. Gandara is having a bit of problem because we are never able to come out on top against other servers as gandara is a dead server despite being full. When I first joined 5-6 years ago it was a active server but since most of the old players are not playing anymore gandara has become at a bit of a disadvantage. Would making gandara be able to merge with other servers possible. As we are always facing servers that are merged.

It is kind of annoying never having anyone to play with and also losing.

[Thron Stal.9367]

unfortantely... your post is on def ears, same and NA

[Xenesis.6389]

The explanations/advice/suggestions also fall on deaf ears so there's no point in discussions.

[RisingDawn.5796]

Gandara is far from dead though, especially when they get a link, since hardly anyone transfers out of there anyway, including some of their large Guild who I've seen raid with 30+ at times and many other loyal players.  

They just are less active with no link, especially with one less Guild; who are on a break atm, but hardly anyone moves to Very high server anyway.. besides a certain Guild starting with O.

Edited December 19, 2022 by CrimsonOneThree.5682

[SFShinigami.1572]

Gandara will forever be stuck in this loop until Gandarans realize that their playing patterns are what is keeping them in this loop that Gandara will forever be stuck in by their playing patterns.

[nthmetal.9652]

On 12/15/2022 at 12:40 AM, SFShinigami.1572 said:

Gandara will forever be stuck in this loop until Gandarans realize that their playing patterns are what is keeping them in this loop that Gandara will forever be stuck in by their playing patterns.

If only that were true, it would mean our playing patterns are having an impact on the decisions made from linkup period to linkup period. Yet, except for the time we had a link this year, we were permatuck in T5 - the only reason we're not in T5 RIGHT NOW is, because after the beta we got randomly sorted into T3.

However it keeps looking more and more as though activity is not really represented in WvW population anymore. Since this summer, we've had an important public comm go on break, another one might be lost forever (who know. Forever is a long time, people come back to the game all the time), and it shows. The last few weekends before and after reset even during the weekend we were most of the daytime without any public tag. Same goes even more for most weekdays, hell even closed tags are usually only present from 20-22 CET each day.

Yes, I do realize we have Cormac, but even with him we cannot keep up. Maybe after 2am until the next morning, but please don't tell me that THIS is what keeps our population numbers up. That would be even worse, than activity having no influence at all, because it would actively discourage people from playing.

Yet we stay closed. And usually linkless, too, maybe in reaction to our last "strike", where most players reduced their WvW and GW2 activity for 3 weeks.

Campflippers and roamers can't counter the activity on other servers.

I even fear for the population balance of alliances, if this is the future model: If activity hardly matters anymore, it's purely put on the weight of the alliance-forming guilds to ensure they have mostly active members. Putting this pressure purely into player hands is likely not a good idea, as it can breed a toxic environment, where people are pressured into online-time, or get kicked from guilds in order to ensure the performance of an alliance. Is this really the model we wanna go for?

Edited December 17, 2022 by nthmetal.9652

[SFShinigami.1572]

Gandara is essentially a wvw clown car, (not in a pejorative sense) constantly packing more and more accounts in.  When they get no link, activity plummets, but people don't leave.  Eventually they get an open window and more accounts come in.  If they get a link suddenly they explode in activity again and push themselves back into the range to be forever without a link and full.  The only thing that will change this is if people leave, but they don't because they don't want to lose their slot on Gandara.  Some probably even make second accounts on other servers to play when Gandara is unlinked/not weekend.

 

Keep in mind, this isn't inherently JUST a Gandara problem, its just most visible there. EU kind of has this weird rotating cycle of servers people transfer between constantly in search of the best place to play.  The only real fix to this problem is to randomize populations, but thats also unacceptable because people spent money and effort to find places and people they like to play with.

 

This is also somewhat the problem with Mag.  People got tired of carrying so they went to mag where they could be collectively carried, and theres no unlink system on NA to encourage population shifts the way they happen on EU.

[Chaba.5410]

6 hours ago, nthmetal.9652 said:

Yes, I do realize we have Cormac, but even with him we cannot keep up. Maybe after 2am until the next morning, but please don't tell me that THIS is what keeps our population numbers up. That would be even worse, than activity having no influence at all, because it would actively discourage people from playing.

That's exactly what keeps your "population" numbers (reflected as playhours) up.  Why should you be rewarded for having the time that others don't to play longer hours?  If you're grinding hours like that, it's extremely unhealthy.  The WvW Tournaments that induced players to play long hours lead to permanent population drops according to the Anet devs at the time.  Abusive business practices in online games center around inducing players to grind hours.  Good on Anet for not encouraging that kind of practice.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[scureuil.4052]

I wonder if their way of calculating the unlucky loser of EU appariement, is not by looking at wich servers have the most peoples playing beetween 1AM and 3AM. Anet maybe think that If those servers have peoples at night, they surely are in great numbers during the rest of the day. 

At least, it could explain why Barush is always alone, and why GANDARA, who has some night time, is concerned too .

Since Anet don't want to give the numbers of players by server, we will never know

[neven.3785]

Long ago anet asked us if they should blow up the existing servers and make smaller pieces as alliances was worked on.  They said it was needed to balance the matchups better than the current size of the pieces, and unfortunately a large portion of the games player base spoke out against it.  Some of these players were the same folks who spoke out against the original linkings, because they liked karma training and roaming on empty maps in the lowest tiers, but a good portion who spoke out against it dont even play wvw much if at all.  Most who wanted competitive play were all for this but they were drowned out by neigh sayers who don't understand server identity died when  megaservers happened in pve-land

[nthmetal.9652]

Quote

Why should you be rewarded for having the time that others don't to play longer hours?  

Only, that in our current matchup, the enemies also had presence until at least 4am, so we're not even alone.

Furthermore, we're not talking about the being rewarded. Would we be rewarded, this time spent playing would have some kind of impact. Compare that with the actual performance, with the time we spent in T5. There is no reward whatsoever, instead it's more like the current game structure punishes us for playing. And do you really want a game structure, that punishes players for playing, providing activity and income for the company? That doesn't seem like a good business decision. 

At the moment we're not playing because of the game, but rather despite the game. And while that might last a long time, it won't last forever... 

[Xoranium.6481]

Just delete the server and have done. 

[Riba.3271]

I actually have a solution to this problem for Gandara to get a link without having to stop playing. it abuses how bad the linking system is:

• Step 1: Most of Gandara transfers away from Gandara or stops playing until Gandara gets a link
• Step 2: Once Gandara has a link Transfer to Gandaras link, not Gandara itself. Only 500 Gems and 1 week of pips, not a big loss for outmanning all enemy servers. You can play as much as you want without hurting Gandara, since your hours only affect the link population.
• Step 3: Once there is Relinking, Transfer to the link again. This way Gandara loyals get to play with Gandara, have a populated link and outman all other servers. They'll also leave enemy servers absolutely in ruins when they leave them or throw less popular servers unlinked instead. It is guaranteed tier 1, possibly even Rank 1.

 

Linking system system is so bad. It is ridiculous that for the good of your own server, you actually need to transfer away to the link.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Riba.3271

[subversiontwo.7501]

7 hours ago, scureuil.4052 said:

I wonder if their way of calculating the unlucky loser of EU appariement, is not by looking at wich servers have the most peoples playing beetween 1AM and 3AM. Anet maybe think that If those servers have peoples at night, they surely are in great numbers during the rest of the day. 

At least, it could explain why Barush is always alone, and why GANDARA, who has some night time, is concerned too .

Since Anet don't want to give the numbers of players by server, we will never know

For all we know, how they calculate things is not a mystery. There are plenty of posts from 2016 where Anet outlines how population calculation worked. It may have changed since, but since nothing has been said or clearly indicated, it is logical to assume that it still works in a similar way.

The posts suggests a play-hour threshold. We don't know exactly what it is, but lets assume that it is 10 hours per week. People who then play eg., friday and saturday evening from 21:00 to 02:00 hrs will count as population for the rest of the week even if they don't log in at all after that.

That's the system as described and nothing to the contrary has been said since. Some people on Gandara then choose to never listen and constantly speculate about unfair misgivings in the shadows. These same threads keep appearing here and the same discussions loop over on Gandara's discord every other month.

That also goes for this thread. I'd say that Shinigami swings and misses when it comes to how Gandara ended up where it is. The server has been locked so much over the past number of years that it hasn't seen much people transfering in. However, it has also not seen very much people transfering out either. That more so than anything else is the root cause of its status. It is a server that still has some notion of an intact community or at least quite alot of players who have played there for 10 years and still do. Other servers has seen more players either quit of transfer at some time.

When it comes to hours and patterns that is hard to change though. I've always seen it as if you lack motivated players in prime that is a you-problem and if you lack comparative players in off-hours that is an Anet-problem: With the exception of if your prime is not effective enough to carry against some coverage issues. Then that is still, arguably, a you-problem. The system does punish people for being relatively casual or at least for playing normal spare-time patterns and that is not a player issue. Gandara does much of this. However, Gandara also have other issues with playing patterns, not related to time or coverage, where part of what Shinigami says hold some truth.

With that the solution has always been twofold. If the server wants to navigate the system then what Riba says is correct. To shed overly casual- and PvX weight the only current recourse is to repopulate a much smaller server. The other option is to accept the system for what it is (until restructuring goes live) and work on oneself. That means to actively build community. Have community guilds that pick new- and loose players up to teach them and provide public content. Also have the other guilds help out by providing public content and supporting the/their tags who go public.

Gandara is, quite frankly, rather poor at those things. The community guilds that exist have been rather reluctant to take on the stick-to-the-carrot parts of that and over time the raiding guilds have become less keen on sharing content as a result. This is where Shinigami's comments begin to be accurate. That isn't a Gandara problem, it is a GW2/WvW problem (fanned by Anet's neglect), Gandara however is a rather standout example having been rather nice, casual and forgiving for some time, but also taking some of what they had for granted (eg., public tags who lead for many years and became popular enough to be adopted by the server as a whole, with little regard for what made them popular in the first place).

 

[Mabi black.1824]

Gandara and his players are not to blame. indeed over time they have created the conditions for their community (like all servers) they feel part of their server, they have fun, they like this game and therefore they can put more hours of play if they have the chance. instead of going to other games or other platforms. And I find it absurd that someone who plays the mode exactly as it was conceived and designed, with passion, only gets the result of being punished for it.

The truth is that Arenanet, with all its good intentions, at some point created the pairings to improve the gaming experience for everyone. Clearly this new mechanic has brought with it a series of unexpected events, then a series of problems, out of the control of Arenanet and completely manipulated by players ''unsporty''

As a result, the WWW community has suggested a series of changes to this mechanic, precisely to correct / eliminate a series of unexpected problems. What followed was a long silence. Development problems? Skills problems? Problems of economic return?

I have no idea, in fact nothing has ever been done that incentivized servers, redistribution to servers, competition between servers, balance between servers, scaling between servers, control of servers anets. As a result, the server communities got nothing, and consequently the players of this mode got nothing. Always in terms of game mechanics between worlds vs worlds.

We got so many other things, gliders, mounts, new specializations, balance between game classes, updates to the mechanics of the structures, benefits near the structures, even a new desert map, with subsequent modifications. But updates and manipulations of server mechanics, never.

Until a few months ago, when Anet finally arrived and told us that they have actually started working on Alliance and WR. To know how this story will end, you will have to stay tuned to GW2, because we will see some good ones in the near future.

In the meantime, for what it is worth, Gandara and his community have all my esteem and solidarity.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[Chaba.5410]

On 12/18/2022 at 3:55 AM, nthmetal.9652 said:

Only, that in our current matchup, the enemies also had presence until at least 4am, so we're not even alone.

Furthermore, we're not talking about the being rewarded. Would we be rewarded, this time spent playing would have some kind of impact. Compare that with the actual performance, with the time we spent in T5. There is no reward whatsoever

You don't make more progress on your reward tracks and pips by playing longer hours than those who play less? Nonsense.

The system doesn't care about individual matches. It has to work the same for all matches in all tiers. If you are in a match against other tryhards who are also playing at 4am, how is that the system's fault? It already caps map population. Why shouldn't it also cap playhours?

[Chaba.5410]

2 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I have no idea, in fact nothing has ever been done that incentivized servers, redistribution to servers, competition between servers, balance between servers, scaling between servers, control of servers anets. As a result, the server communities got nothing, and consequently the players of this mode got nothing. Always in terms of game mechanics between worlds vs worlds.

What do you mean nothing has been done?

You didn't mention all the changes that were implemented to try to incentivize the players to balance server prior to restructuring being worked on. You even went so far as to call the playhours change that punishes players for grinding hours absurd.

- Population algorithm change to playhours to discourage stacking and fix the exploit of  transfers in during low player number timezones. (Full servers used to open for transfers when number of players in WvW was low. Imagine sitting in longer and longer queues during EU Prime because whole guilds were able to use an autoclicker to transfer in during OCX timezone.)

- Server links to approximate restructuring rebalancing as best as was technically possible at the time.

- Skirmish scoring to make stacking timezones less impactful on score. (Skirmish activity level score multiplier proposed but never tried.)

- Removal of rewards for winning matches to discourage transfers to winning servers.

- Locking transfers to host servers when links were first introduced to try to get players onto lower populated link servers. (Removed since it wasn't having intended effect.)

- Not providing links to the largest populated servers to incentivize players to transfer off. (Worked on Blackgate, Jade Quarry, and Kodash)

 

Restructuring is just the next step.

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

What do you mean nothing has been done?

You didn't mention all the changes that were implemented to try to incentivize the players to balance server prior to restructuring being worked on. You even went so far as to call the playhours change that punishes players for grinding hours absurd.

- Population algorithm change to playhours to discourage stacking and fix the exploit of  transfers in during low player number timezones. (Full servers used to open for transfers when number of players in WvW was low. Imagine sitting in longer and longer queues during EU Prime because whole guilds were able to use an autoclicker to transfer in during OCX timezone.)

- Server links to approximate restructuring rebalancing as best as was technically possible at the time.

- Skirmish scoring to make stacking timezones less impactful on score. (Skirmish activity level score multiplier proposed but never tried.)

- Removal of rewards for winning matches to discourage transfers to winning servers.

- Locking transfers to host servers when links were first introduced to try to get players onto lower populated link servers. (Removed since it wasn't having intended effect.)

- Not providing links to the largest populated servers to incentivize players to transfer off. (Worked on Blackgate, Jade Quarry, and Kodash)

 

Restructuring is just the next step.

 

You must excuse my lack of historical knowledge here. I didn't notice all these updates.

However, browsing the forum I noticed often run the same suggestions to change something in the current matching mechanics. change the hat of the servers ( in Europe we have 27 buckets of water some full and others empty, if you can not throw water on the ground reduce the flow limit in order to redistribute the water to get 27 buckets with the same amount of water inside)

Or, make sure that Arenanet has control over transfers so that the next day the endless pairings of migrant players do not make the construction of the day before Arenanet useless.

Or in Europe, treat all servers equally, avoiding that 3 servers are always ''penalized'' compared to all the others.

This kind of suggestions that the community has indicated many times, through many different players here on the forum (just read the posts of the relinks, practically every time you can recognize yourself in the three points that I have summarized) have never attracted the attention of Arenanet. I realize that it could be a complicated job on the part of development, hence the choice to do nothing.

Or maybe these kinds of suggestions came at the wrong time for development, for whatever reason I don't know, this could be another valid reason. And when they decided to get their hands on fixing things, they thought it more appropriate to choose a "more revolutionary" path, indeed, more progressive rather than conservative.😉

Surely I have to give credit to Anet and the development for having chosen the most complicated road and full of obstacles, to try to fix the mechanics of balance of the servers. It took some time but in the end they were really brave.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Mabi black.1824

[Xenesis.6389]

On 12/18/2022 at 2:06 AM, neven.3785 said:

Long ago anet asked us if they should blow up the existing servers and make smaller pieces as alliances was worked on.  They said it was needed to balance the matchups better than the current size of the pieces, and unfortunately a large portion of the games player base spoke out against it.  Some of these players were the same folks who spoke out against the original linkings, because they liked karma training and roaming on empty maps in the lowest tiers, but a good portion who spoke out against it dont even play wvw much if at all.  Most who wanted competitive play were all for this but they were drowned out by neigh sayers who don't understand server identity died when  megaservers happened in pve-land

I love bringing that thread up whenever I can, https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Hypothetically-Speaking-New-Worlds

Would have been the best of both worlds, homers get their permanent server, guilds and their fans get their own servers that jumps every link as they do now anyways. Oh well.

We're getting it anyways but through player groups instead of server groups. I think it's a just a matter of most not seeing the vision of the system, much like WR/alliances which is still misunderstood after all the discussions.  🤭

Edited December 19, 2022 by Xenesis.6389

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

You must excuse my lack of historical knowledge here. I didn't notice all these updates.

That's understandable.

Some of today's server population issues are a direct result of the old population method.  Server populations were not reset, people were not forced to pick a server, when the methodology changed.  So anyone who squeezed into a server before the change were "grandfathered in".  That includes inactive accounts, which don't have to pick a new server to play on if the player logs in for the first time in 2, 5, 8, or even 10 years.

The old method was based on the number of accounts (across both PvE and WvW) that were logged into the server at any one time during the day.  So maybe the server was Full if 5000 accounts were online and playing during EU Prime.  But then at 4am there would only be 100 accounts online and playing.  So the server status would change to Low and everyone who played WvW during EU Prime could transfer in.  Now there would be 8000 accounts logged in and playing during EU Prime even if the Full threshold was 5000 (one of the main reasons for overflow maps in PvE).

A lot of server communities gave instructions to players and guilds on how to set up an auto-clicker so this transfer could take place if the server status opened while they were sleeping.  This is the so-called "building a community" that occurred.  Some communities would even organize mass-logouts, going into PvE and asking players to log out momentarily, so a WvW guild could transfer in.  This player action circumvented what Anet considered "Full".  This meant that some servers were not only "Full", but they were "Morbidly Obese".  And what one can usually find is that these "Morbidly Obese" servers that never should have had the number of accounts they ended up with, still remain some of the highest populated worlds today.

The effect this had too was draining other servers of their population and causing further population problems.  Players were not going to leave these overstacked servers.  Why would they?

Edited December 19, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[nthmetal.9652]

5 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Players were not going to leave these overstacked servers.  Why would they?

And that is really one of the key questions. These days, we sadly have a system that not only rewards players for staying in an overstacked server. It also has the base to ensure that said stacked servers will be winning. (Not with a 100% guarantee might you, but with a high likelyhood)

Not only do you have more groups on a stacked server, meaning you can attack where an enemy cannot defend due to numbers, but in addition to that the so called initiative for more "skillfull" gameplay, which is meant to ensure you pay attention to when you use your skills, making skills less impactful, also ensures that the bigger group has the greater advantage in fights. Ironically the very changes that were meant to emphasize skillful play in small group content, raids, PvP, do exactly the opposite in WvW! While skill has some kind of meaning - you won't win fights simply by 1-1-1ing, numbers are way more important. You simply cannot push 40 with 20.

So stacking numbers is rewarded, not stacking numbers is punished. And there is not a single effective mechanism to counter that. The only things we have to discourage people is the higher price to transfer to a stacked server (which has a link - obviously you cannot transfer to a full server), but that's not an incentive. It's a deterrent to go to an already well-populated server, but if winning is fun to you, the additional gems likely won't stop you.

Let me finish this up by saying: I don't mind being on an unlinked, full server. I don't mind being in T5. But what is unfun is the realization, that you cannot get out of T5 and are stuck down there due to population numbers. And then being repeatedly closed and unlinked, making you permastuck in T5, simply due to factors not in your hands.
I totally wouldn't mind getting no link and being closed every second linkup period, that's kinda okay. It comes with being a closed server - as long as population balance still inclused activity in WvW and not simply accounts on a server. Just look at the server's previous performance: If either a server lost the majority of their matchups, and / or spent their time in T5 unable to get out, maybe consider doing one of three things:

• open a server up for some time
• give that server a link in the next linkup perioud
• or - and this would be my preferred choice: Look at what factors contribute to a small server (or team) being perma-stuck in T5 and find ways to mitigate that. If you offer the losing side incentives to keep playing, things might be half as bad.

Edited December 19, 2022 by nthmetal.9652

[Sansar.1302]

Most unnfun server to face in eu

[subversiontwo.7501]

On 12/20/2022 at 12:15 AM, nthmetal.9652 said:

And that is really one of the key questions. These days, we sadly have a system that not only rewards players for staying in an overstacked server. It also has the base to ensure that said stacked servers will be winning. (Not with a 100% guarantee might you, but with a high likelyhood)

It feels like you are misunderstanding what Chaba is saying so maybe I can help out. Chaba is referring to the system prior to 2015 (not to be confused with the systems changes in 2016). While what is being said is factual, it doesn't really relate to either Gandara as a server or the later systems, beyond what it sets out for how margins for being full works or how returning/visiting players can affect the population. Prior to 2015 Gandara was a rather middle-of-the-ground server. It even lost quite alot of its more established guilds with EotM in 2014. The servers stacking their population back then were other servers and the way they could stack numbers was exclusive to that system. Gandara's issues since then is unrelated, it has to do with its playerbase (generally casual, older and more PvX-oriented than elsewhere) being more resilient to WvW's neglect (after 2014). That's the main factor contributing to its relative size and issues today.

On 12/20/2022 at 12:15 AM, nthmetal.9652 said:

Not only do you have more groups on a stacked server, meaning you can attack where an enemy cannot defend due to numbers, but in addition to that the so called initiative for more "skillfull" gameplay, which is meant to ensure you pay attention to when you use your skills, making skills less impactful, also ensures that the bigger group has the greater advantage in fights. Ironically the very changes that were meant to emphasize skillful play in small group content, raids, PvP, do exactly the opposite in WvW! While skill has some kind of meaning - you won't win fights simply by 1-1-1ing, numbers are way more important. You simply cannot push 40 with 20.

This then more so relates to the 2016 system that we still have today. What is generally referred to as stacks today isn't necessarily size-stacks but actually "skill"/activity stacks. What's confusing is that the two things are not entirely divorced since activity/success breeds popularity and the system has few options to gate players transfering to popular, growing servers. The way numbers get stacked today is simply that the system can't keep up with rapidly growing servers: It pairs servers up at relinks and then the small linked servers tend to grow into servers that has a completely different population than it had at relink. That type of stacking does have some intent behind it, but usually not the intent to stack numbers. That tends to be an indirect result of stacking active and experienced players for recruitment- and content-access.

So the end result may be that those worlds (pairs) get stacked with numbers, but quality is not any less important today and most of those servers eventually get stacked with quantity because they first were stacked with quality: They have the type of groups that can push 40 with 20, first and that is what makes them popular and subject to general stacking.

On 12/20/2022 at 12:15 AM, nthmetal.9652 said:

So stacking numbers is rewarded, not stacking numbers is punished. And there is not a single effective mechanism to counter that. The only things we have to discourage people is the higher price to transfer to a stacked server (which has a link - obviously you cannot transfer to a full server), but that's not an incentive. It's a deterrent to go to an already well-populated server, but if winning is fun to you, the additional gems likely won't stop you.

Let me finish this up by saying: I don't mind being on an unlinked, full server. I don't mind being in T5. But what is unfun is the realization, that you cannot get out of T5 and are stuck down there due to population numbers. And then being repeatedly closed and unlinked, making you permastuck in T5, simply due to factors not in your hands.

It is true that there is no mechanism to stop servers that are medium at relink to grow to full within the following 7 weeks. That is the system and the replacement for that is World Restructuring (Alliances).

As long as The Linking System (2016) exists then Gandara has two options:
1. Move its active (discord/TS/etc) community to a medium population server and rebuild community there.

2. Actively build community with what it has on Gandara (improve the formation-, organisation- and interaction of groups in the existing community: learn, plan, write and talk). How that is done is no one's challenge or fault than Gandara itself's. Its community guilds are not very active in the planning/learning things, its raiding guilds tend to be oversized and few of its smaller groups tend to form into purpose-built parties. It is rather a mish-mash of everything where guilds try to be community-raiding-skirmishing-score-minded guilds all at once and players tend to end up in multiple similar such guilds at once (similar overlaps exist on more of the PPT-oriented side as well with an overlaps between various defending-roaming-havocking-clouding groups that are yet to find an identity or who may struggle to be impactful within the realm of what they choose to do; eg., scouts who do not have the means to force-multiply to defend effectively). That too isn't a Gandara-only issue but seems rather common across diffrerent servers these days but it is certainly an issue on Gandara that the server never really wants to touch.

Edited December 23, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[Chaba.5410]

20 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

it has to do with its playerbase (generally casual, older and more PvX-oriented than elsewhere) being more resilient to WvW's neglect (after 2014). That's the main factor contributing to its relative size and issues today.

Don't forget the adjustments Anet makes to the threshold for "Full".  Not clear what it is.  Feels like it's been lowered over the years though.  A server that wasn't super-stacked in the past can still end up overly Full it seems.

Edited December 23, 2022 by Chaba.5410

[subversiontwo.7501]

11 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Don't forget the adjustments Anet makes to the threshold for "Full".  Not clear what it is.  Feels like it's been lowered over the years though.  A server that wasn't super-stacked in the past can still end up overly Full it seems.

Oh yeah for sure, I mean, I'd assume it's relative albeit manually adjusted (relative between servers, total playerbase). That's plain logical and chimes with whatever information that has trickled out when things have been touched.

Ps. for anyone interested: Here are some of the sources from that cached Dulfy article or from the Wiki references in 2015.

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

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Population-Changes-Are-Coming/page/1#post5315121

Edited December 23, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501