Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    The eternal battlegrounds... of queuing for WvW

    This is bound to happen once endgame PVEers are pouring into WvW.

    Theoretically, with a 48 homeworlds setup, the maximum WvW capacity is 32k players at a given time across the board (2k players every 3 servers). With the undisputed success of GW2, the total number of players joining WvW during prime time will certainly go over 32k; hence, the queue and QQ. In reality, things would be worse, since the WvW demographics over all 48 homeworlds are NOT the same, resulting in longer queues for some homeworlds. For all the right reasons, not all WvW players would opt for migration.

    What to do then?

    Increasing the WvW capacity for each map has been officially talked about, so it's not an option in this discussion. Adding more homeworlds (not physical servers) with free transfers may not work, because, as stated above, some WvW players just downright don't want to transfer.

    My proposal is dynamic map duplication (still a maximum of 500 players on each map as usual), along with a reduction to the points gain for each objective.

    To achieve this "dynamics", there has to be a monitoring/evaluating system for queues, which produces data needed for homeworlds matchup. When a new matchup takes place, not only do homeworlds of similiar strength get matched, histories of queues from those 3 homeworlds are also taken into consideration. The more queues there were last time, the more duplications of maps there are this time.

    For example, say, in the beginning of this bi-weekly matchup, due to the histories of queues from all 3 homeworlds, a duplication of the Eternal Battlegrounds is needed to accomodate the estimated queue. Then we have 5 maps to play on, so 2.5k players can join this matchup. The scoring for this matchup across 5 maps (instead of the normal 4) would also be adjust by 0.8 (4 divided by 5), which means 40 points for a castle, 20 for a keep, 8 for a tower, 4 for a camp.

    In some cases, the duplication could consist of 8 maps (double maps, 2 Eternal Battlegrounds, 6 Borderlands, a maximum of 4k players) with a scoring adjustment of 0.5 (4 divided by 8), or 12 maps (triple maps for a maximum of 6k players) with a 0.33 multiplier (4 divided by 12) for the score.

    Of course, the map names of those duplicates have to be sorted out. So, what's your take on this WvW queue?

  2. #2
    Very nice thread m8
    U should althought take into considaration , that if server can handle 20k ppl, not all of them will play 24/7
    If each 1 of them play for 2 hours/every second day , then u will have 830 each time u login .

    Also now in the betas , theres some servers , that where vastly outnumbered . And in order some ppl to enjoy WvWvW , they tried joining 1 of the winning servers .
    A winning server in the live game , will attracts any kind of skilled players (low/medium/high) .
    While they will suffer high ques , also lower skilled players joining their WvWvW , will mess with their winning chance

    So the WvWvW balance , will alter constantly , and we wont have a <<king>> for 1 year straight
    Last edited by Plzbegentle; 2012-07-04 at 12:17 PM.
    GW2 : Plzbegentle - Ruins of Surmia EU - Sylvari Engineer
    WoW: Vergin - Deathwing EU - Elf Resto Druid (27/05/05 - 02/04/12 Perma-Banned- Unhappy whinning PvP customer - whos begged from 4.1 to get rid of the RNG of Regrowth ... )
    It seems ppl have the energy to whine for a game , for not beeing exactly like their <<main>> game , while it dont have a SUB , and they dont have the courage to whine at their Game Master for slacking and producing few PvE content ...

  3. #3
    Are you talking just about the small center map? That is the only one I had to queue for in the last BWE and the other 3 larger borderland maps were nearly empty most of the time. Until I see queues for those larger maps, I don't really see a big problem with the current system.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacon of Light View Post
    This is bound to happen once endgame PVEers are pouring into WvW.

    Theoretically, with a 48 homeworlds setup, the maximum WvW capacity is 32k players at a given time across the board (2k players every 3 servers). With the undisputed success of GW2, the total number of players joining WvW during prime time will certainly go over 32k; hence, the queue and QQ. In reality, things would be worse, since the WvW demographics over all 48 homeworlds are NOT the same, resulting in longer queues for some homeworlds. For all the right reasons, not all WvW players would opt for migration.

    What to do then?

    Increasing the WvW capacity for each map has been officially talked about, so it's not an option in this discussion. Adding more homeworlds (not physical servers) with free transfers may not work, because, as stated above, some WvW players just downright don't want to transfer.

    My proposal is dynamic map duplication (still a maximum of 500 players on each map as usual), along with a reduction to the points gain for each objective.

    To achieve this "dynamics", there has to be a monitoring/evaluating system for queues, which produces data needed for homeworlds matchup. When a new matchup takes place, not only do homeworlds of similiar strength get matched, histories of queues from those 3 homeworlds are also taken into consideration. The more queues there were last time, the more duplications of maps there are this time.

    For example, say, in the beginning of this bi-weekly matchup, due to the histories of queues from all 3 homeworlds, a duplication of the Eternal Battlegrounds is needed to accomodate the estimated queue. Then we have 5 maps to play on, so 2.5k players can join this matchup. The scoring for this matchup across 5 maps (instead of the normal 4) would also be adjust by 0.8 (4 divided by 5), which means 40 points for a castle, 20 for a keep, 8 for a tower, 4 for a camp.

    In some cases, the duplication could consist of 8 maps (double maps, 2 Eternal Battlegrounds, 6 Borderlands, a maximum of 4k players) with a scoring adjustment of 0.5 (4 divided by 8), or 12 maps (triple maps for a maximum of 6k players) with a 0.33 multiplier (4 divided by 12) for the score.

    Of course, the map names of those duplicates have to be sorted out. So, what's your take on this WvW queue?
    An easy way to resolve this: Release an expansion which has more levels and another WvWvW map to fight in a different area. Anyone that wants to fight in the existing map may do so, but they are scaled down to level 80. This gives new players or players without the expansion to be on the same level as players with the expansion.

    Most of the discussions on this forum seem to forget about expansions and think the game will remain as it is forever.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacon of Light View Post
    This is bound to happen once endgame PVEers are pouring into WvW.
    ...
    Honestly I do not see this as going to be an issue. You have to remember that just because they are getting ques during the BWE does not mean they will during live since you have two situations there that you won't have during live, A) Everyone is playing at the same time due to such short access times, many of those people may play more on different days but are limited to the few days that the beta event is going on, and B) People who may have no interest in doing PvP during live are trying it just to try it.

    You may see some PvEers dabble in PvP from time to time, but I honestly don't think that it will be as much as you think, there are just as many people who despise PvPing as those who despise PvEing. But with that said I would say that it will be treated like PvP servers in other games of people who want to do PvE stuff with the added risk of PvP, and because of that will have a much greater population then that of something that's purely PvP. With that said when or if their becomes to long of ques for WvW they will address it wither it be by increasing player caps if its a small enough que or be it by adding a few more neutral maps to fight in with more capture points but increasing the points needed to unlock rewards to compensate for the extra points per hour of adding a map.

    At the start it will be bad with people wanting to get in at ground floor, but it will either stabilize or be addressed after that rush.

  6. #6
    The Patient EdisonTrent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Australia, the arse end of the world.
    Posts
    281
    I'm not quite sure where the queue complaining comes from, I played on one of the most populated servers, as well as quite a prolific WvW server (Sea of Sorrows) and only had to queue once, and even then, it was quite a short queue. We managed to get a group of four into WvW in no time at all.
    Perhaps I was just lucky, but considering I had literally everything stacked against me, I'm not sure if that'd be the case.
    RIP Gunther, he wanted orange, the world gave him lemon-lime.

  7. #7
    Here is something interesting.

    The Secret World (TSW) has been released, and the game uses a setup very similiar to that of GW2, which is worth mentioning and observing.

    TSW operates on a single server with the concept of "dimensions" (same as GW2's "home worlds", which players can freely visit through "guesting"). TSW's 3-faction PvP is called Warzones, capped at a total of 250 players from 3 different "dimensions" (much like WvW).

    This is the closest comparable example I can find, and it has the same potential problem of queuing. So it may help understand GW2's WvW queues by keeping an eye on TSW's Warzones, because of their similiar designs.

  8. #8
    Stood in the Fire Xenlol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    399
    I'm sure they're anticipating these hypothetical problems, wouldn't be surprised to see fast solutions either

  9. #9
    Herald of the Titans Platinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    2,991
    I think they'd have to increase the map limit. If you have to be queueing all day to get into WvW I don't see the point of it.

    [email protected] | GeForce GTX 760 | 8GB DDR3-1600MHz | Samsung 840 120GB SSD | 1+2TB HDD | Gigabyte Z68XP-UD3 | Corsair CX V2 500W | NZXT Phantom | 2x 24" 1920x1080 | Qpad MK-80 MX Blue | Logitech G600

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Platinus View Post
    I think they'd have to increase the map limit. If you have to be queueing all day to get into WvW I don't see the point of it.
    I find it very unlikely that you will be in a queu all day. Not everyone plays at the same time, or is equally interested in WvW. Probably you'll run into some queu's, but i dont think itll be a horrible never ending queu.
    Simply flat out increasing how many players can be on a map has some nasty side effects. For starters it can really hurt performance, and put balance at risk.

    Servers are capped at X number of players, lets go with 500. Say there is a highly populated server, a medium populated and a low populated server. The high populated reach the cap and then some, lets say 800, people have to wait in line. The medium server also hits the cap, and a little spill, lets say 600. The low server doesnt even make it to the cap and hangs at 450.

    All servers can put in a max of 500 people, so itll be 500 v 500 v 450. Not terribly unbalanced as far as numbers go. But simply raising that cap to, lets say 800, you'd get the following: 800 v 600 v 450. Servers that are simply more populated gain considerable advantages.
    Now i understand balance of winners and losers are tallied and strong servers matched together. But the higher the pop cap the more population becomes a factor. And low pop servers will always be bottom rang, and high pop always top. And eventually the pooling will have servers even more so, face the same enemies over and over.

    At a lower pop cap, smallers servers can still compete.

  11. #11
    The Lightbringer Malthurius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    The Black Citadel
    Posts
    3,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenlol View Post
    I'm sure they're anticipating these hypothetical problems, wouldn't be surprised to see fast solutions either
    I'm sure they are anticipating it, but I believe that they are still working on a finalized cap for the battlegrounds, and until they get that nailed down it's really hard to tell to what extent they really have to go through in order to fix this hypothetical problem.
    "Questions are for those seeking answers. Those who have answers are those who have asked questions." -Mike R. (Malthurius)

  12. #12
    I really don't think the queues will be as bad as you think they will be, but we wont really know till after launch.

  13. #13
    I'll add this. Most of the WvW ideas seem to heavily borrow from Dark Age of Camelot. In DAoC's heyday, my server (which was on the high end of medium populationwise) would have about 1800-2000 people logged in. Out of that 1800-2000, it was pretty unusual for there to be more than 100 people per realm (and usually it was less than that) in the frontiers unless there was relic raid going on. Now DAoC was built around RvR combat and most people on the server at least dabbled in it but obviously not all at the same time. That's why I don't foresee queues being a big problem.

    That said, I think the small, central battleground will regularly have a queue because people will be drawn to the faster action there. That's the way it was on my server last BWE and I don't see a big problem with that.

  14. #14
    how does one complain about queue times based on theory crafting. Seriously. When the game releases and a problem arises, then you have a complaint. Until then you are throwing assumed math at it while conveniently ignoring factors like time, spvp, pve. OP, relax or find something that actually exists to complain about. This thread is utter nonsense.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Binaris View Post
    how does one complain about queue times based on theory crafting. Seriously. When the game releases and a problem arises, then you have a complaint. Until then you are throwing assumed math at it while conveniently ignoring factors like time, spvp, pve. OP, relax or find something that actually exists to complain about. This thread is utter nonsense.
    Its a valid concern. If it happens it could really ruin a lot of people's fun. And in this stage of the beta such things should be considered and preempted as much as possible. Waiting for live on issues is a bad idea, its generally much harder to properly change/balance once you reach this point.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by terrahero View Post
    Its a valid concern. If it happens it could really ruin a lot of people's fun. And in this stage of the beta such things should be considered and preempted as much as possible. Waiting for live on issues is a bad idea, its generally much harder to properly change/balance once you reach this point.
    True, but I'm sure Arenanet has a back-up plan if something like this were to happen. Why go this long in production and say that the game wont come out till it is ready, if they don't already have a plan for something like this.

  17. #17
    High Overlord Rashanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Prepared View Post
    An easy way to resolve this: Release an expansion which has more levels and another WvWvW map to fight in a different area. Anyone that wants to fight in the existing map may do so, but they are scaled down to level 80. This gives new players or players without the expansion to be on the same level as players with the expansion.

    Most of the discussions on this forum seem to forget about expansions and think the game will remain as it is forever.
    Releasing an entire new map that's the same exact thing would just be wasting space though and separate the playerbase. I honestly don't think queues will be that bad.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by terrahero View Post
    Its a valid concern. If it happens it could really ruin a lot of people's fun. And in this stage of the beta such things should be considered and preempted as much as possible. Waiting for live on issues is a bad idea, its generally much harder to properly change/balance once you reach this point.
    It would be a valid concern if it was based on valid data. but valid data does not exist until release.

  19. #19
    The Insane DrakeWurrum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Isle of Faces
    Posts
    15,029
    The queue actually didn't have THAT big of an impact on WvWvW, imo. Especially because you only have to queue if it's full. Otherwise, you can dive right in. Remember that it lasts for 2 weeks contiguously in the same match. You're bound to find a play time that works for you.

    Our WvW experience over the BWEs is going to be vastly different from our live experience.
    I hope you haven't forgotten my role in this little story. I'm the leading man. You know what they say about the leading man? He never dies.

    If you give in to your impulses in this world, the price is that it changes your personality in the real world. The player and character are one and the same.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Binaris View Post
    It would be a valid concern if it was based on valid data. but valid data does not exist until release.
    Nonsense, there has been WvW and that can certainly give an idea on how it performs. Saying we have no valid data about the player load is just downright wrong.
    And even if we had no data to work with at all, then there isnt any data to indicate it wont happen either. So its valid to raise it as a concern, if only to keep an eye out for any data that suggests its heading that way. Afterall, it would be very bad if it would end up like that. Nothing wrong with keeping your eye on vulnerable points in the system.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •