Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
- - - - -

WvW 500 players per server/queues?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
29 replies to this topic

#1 IKShadow

IKShadow

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:22 PM

If I understood correctly the WvW map is limited to 500 concurrent players per server so does that means we will have WvW ques.

Iam a bit worried if let say guild makes event and want to join with 50 members and after first 20 came to WvW the rest was put in que.

Any thoughts ?

#2 Calico

Calico

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 231 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 09:40 PM

We dont really have any exact numbers yet.... i believe i heard something about 166 players per server per each of the 4 maps. But that might be nonsense, i cant find the information right now. if its true thats (3x166)x4  = 1992 players....

but in the very fresh interview with Jonathan Sharpe, he said they are still stress testing the servers for that and that from the results so far its looking very very good and they might bring the numbers up a bit. So, yes expect WvW too be massive... if your guildies cant get to that map cause its full you might be still allowed to join on any of the other Maps to play together.

#3 Brannigan73

Brannigan73

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 02:50 AM

That is still a lot of players.  I remember a fight with only about 200 players in DAOC which was the largest I have ever seen in a MMORPG  it was the worse slide show I have ever seen and the zone crashed.  Don't get me wrong DAOC was an older game and Im sure they have some tricks up there sleeves to hopefully reduce lag but there is going to have to be a cap of some sort.  There are a lot of things to do in guild wars though I doubt whatever it is it will be hit frequently if its that big.

Edited by Brannigan73, 12 April 2012 - 02:53 AM.


#4 Sixes

Sixes

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 304 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:52 AM

Put simply Queues>lag.

500 or so per server just means they have to size the servers accordingly. This may mean that within 2 months of the game starting the biggest servers (with consistent queues) get split (usually the way to do this is voluntary, essentially just offering free transfers to less populated servers).

Remember that 500 is 500 in WvW at one time. With multiple time zones, people in PvE and people playing structured the servers are likely just the size of DAoC servers (roughly 2-3k active at prime time). That's a lot of people. Another thing to remember is that more smaller servers means a better ladder system for WvW (while changing nothing for PvE and structured as they are cross server anyways).

#5 Tr0n

Tr0n

    Guild Wars 2 Slovenia

  • Community Contributors
  • 2121 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:53 AM

There will certainly be queues for WvW, at least at the beginning.

You can't have full 3 servers connecting to the WvW server at the same time. Too many users.

#6 jondifool

jondifool

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:18 AM

Tr0n said:

There will certainly be queues for WvW, at least at the beginning.

You can't have full 3 servers connecting to the WvW server at the same time. Too many users.

as the 3 servers will have different queues, it only matters if your own server have reach its potential.
If you like playing WvW, and don't mind being the underdog , find a low populated server, and specialise in keep defense. ;)

#7 Tr0n

Tr0n

    Guild Wars 2 Slovenia

  • Community Contributors
  • 2121 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:20 AM

All 4 WvW maps are on one server. Maybe each map will have a queue, if that is what you mean, but I kinda doubt it.

#8 Bunzaga

Bunzaga

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1034 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:24 AM

I would rather have to sit in a queue for a few mins, doing PvE, crafting, looking at builds, practicing my rotations, etc.  Than participate in game play that is 1 frame per second, and unplayable.

I'd like to get a reference to all these numbers people are throwing around.  I've heard 100, 150, 166, now 500...  Are people just pulling these out of there asses, or is there some written statement somewhere?

#9 IKShadow

IKShadow

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:36 AM

Bunzaga said:

I'd like to get a reference to all these numbers people are throwing around.  I've heard 100, 150, 166, now 500...  Are people just pulling these out of there asses, or is there some written statement somewhere?

Quote

WvW is designed to accomodate players that would not normally participate in PvP. For instance, the high player limit means a new player can get involved without immediately feeling pressured to contribute. In addition, objectives are available for a variety of group sizes, so players don't need to be members of dedicated guilds in order to be productive.

Player limits are not yet finalized, but current estimates are that each map will support up to 500 players, split across the three servers, for a total upper limit of 2,000 players across the entire WvW match.[2]

Source : http://wiki.guildwar...ld_versus_World


Well it can become annoying when well organized guild want to start WvW with let say 10 groups ( 50 people ) while having plans for each group only to find out that not all groups managed to join.

You can also look at it this way, small guild goes there with 2 groups ( 10 people ) and only 4 managed to get in while others are waiting in que ( 2, 3 minutes ques not a problem but 30, 40 mins ... )

Edited by IKShadow, 12 April 2012 - 10:40 AM.


#10 Brutaly

Brutaly

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 402 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:58 PM

IKShadow said:

Well it can become annoying when well organized guild want to start WvW with let say 10 groups ( 50 people ) while having plans for each group only to find out that not all groups managed to join.

Even though i agree the really competitive servers will have some sort of joint leadership that coordinates all guilds and use a common TS/vent.

I played 24 hour tournements in BF2 a couple of years back and we had literally hundreds of players waiting to join in on one map. We played the same map for 24 hours and i think the "best" servers will have some informal que system to wvw, just like we had.

The issue you raise is more of an issue for large guilds like your own (Futilez) and mine (Ragnarok) and less of an issue for smaller guilds.

I think it will be solved on the more competitive servers, like i suspect our guilds will most likely sign up on.

#11 Calico

Calico

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 231 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:03 PM

like stated earlier, Jonathan Sharpe said in this interview that they are still testing how the servers work and how many players the servers can support. and that the results so far seem promising.

So its more likely that we are talking about 500+ players per map now, for a total of over 2000 people on all 4 maps of a WvW match.

Edited by Calico, 12 April 2012 - 01:07 PM.


#12 Darkstar The Legend

Darkstar The Legend

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 154 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 03:05 PM

Not entirely sure, i may have just imagined it but i seem to remember them at some point saying that they didn't like the idea of you just sitting around in a queue waiting to join.  They were looking at developing a kind of holding server for everyone in a queue to play in while they waited for the specific server they wanted to play in to free up a slot.

#13 Jimmeh1993

Jimmeh1993

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1728 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:08 PM

That holding queue is in PvE. They can't do that in WvW because that's essentially like making your character invisible and immune to any enemy player. They can't see you, they can't fight you....you'd have free reign of that overflow map and it would still affect their map. Just can't happen.

#14 omnomagon

omnomagon

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:36 PM

As long as the waiting time isnt that long its ok ...

#15 IKShadow

IKShadow

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:43 PM

Brutaly said:

I think it will be solved on the more competitive servers, like i suspect our guilds will most likely sign up on.


Hopefully server list gets released soon so we can start discussing how to properly distribute big guilds over servers.

I would like to see some of the old "enemies" on different server so we can again meet on the battle field :)

#16 menikmati

menikmati

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 167 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:56 PM

its not limited to 500 people in the entire WvW battle. its 500 people per map. and theres 4 maps inside WvW

#17 IKShadow

IKShadow

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:03 PM

menikmati said:

its not limited to 500 people in the entire WvW battle. its 500 people per map. and theres 4 maps inside WvW

Well 500 per map for 3 server its not really that much.

For mass PvP we were usually organized in 10 squads / 50 people ... well 48 from AoC .)

So thats basically 166 players per server per map and if we come with 50 on map there is only place for 2 more big guilds.

p.s. We have 512 slots team speak 3 server that will come handy for WvWvW.

#18 Brutaly

Brutaly

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 402 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:34 PM

IKShadow said:

I would like to see some of the old "enemies" on different server so we can again meet on the battle field :)

I see this a bit different.

would be superfun if nastrandir/futilez/ragnarok/night watch ended up on the same server, hopefully named fury. It would be mayhem :devil:

#19 Metrik

Metrik

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 535 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:13 AM

Whilst it might not be possible to have your entire guild involved perhaps guild events suggested by the OP can be arranged for times of day and days of the week which become traditionally quieter? Yes we might wish to be able to enter and take part in large groups when we wish but I would rather have WvWvW with limited people then max people to begin with then people stop playing it as it is too laggy/buggy whatever happens with too many people.

#20 Culler

Culler

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:55 AM

I'd just like to point out that 500 players is a LOT of players. Even in games without population caps I've never seen that many in one zone, much less 500 on each of two sides to a conflict. I don't think this cap will be much of a problem unless GW2 servers are massively bigger than the servers in other big-name MMOs.

#21 Metrik

Metrik

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 535 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:15 AM

Culler, I think we will see Queues for the beginning of each 2 week period  as people try to get in asap and grab what they can, but after the first 2-4 weeks I imagine it will settle down the rest of the time.

#22 IKShadow

IKShadow

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:20 AM

Brutaly said:

I see this a bit different.

would be superfun if nastrandir/futilez/ragnarok/night watch ended up on the same server, hopefully named fury. It would be mayhem :devil:

Haha that would be to much, personally I prefer to be underdog aka us against all lol.

Culler said:

I'd just like to point out that 500 players is a LOT of players. Even in games without population caps I've never seen that many in one zone, much less 500 on each of two sides to a conflict. I don't think this cap will be much of a problem unless GW2 servers are massively bigger than the servers in other big-name MMOs.

I agree better less players that lag.

p.s. We had some pretty massive fights in Darkfall and even in AoC with uber lag fest.

#23 sher

sher

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 54 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:22 AM

IKShadow said:

Haha that would be to much, personally I prefer to be underdog aka us against all lol.



I agree better less players that lag.

p.s. We had some pretty massive fights in Darkfall and even in AoC with uber lag fest.

Wasn't really any challenge to pvp with you guys so this time im going against the system(futi) :D

/decap

#24 Berlus

Berlus

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 229 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:31 AM

I donĀ“t see a problem with queues...maybe at release but when pve noobs;) recognize that they even get asskicked in GW2 they will leave WvW maps very fast


@ ikshadow
I really loved to corpse jumping you in AOC :D Atleast you were no K/D whore, like many others...

#25 Fuzzion

Fuzzion

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 06:30 AM

We used to crash servers in DAOC when there were over a thousand people in frontiers.

If GW2 does get hugely popular, get ready for a GW slideshow when facing 400 enemies in RvR, i mean Wvw. :)

#26 celticwar17

celticwar17

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:04 PM

Why do are people so concerned about queues?
are they really that frustrating? it will be like five minutes at the worst.

if it was 500 people per server then there is bound to have SOMEONE leave every 1-10 seconds or so (probably even faster). The queue will be circulating pretty fast with that amount of population.

I know at least playing BF3 a 32 person filled map takes like 15 seconds to get into the game. Alterac valley in vanilla WoW with 40 players took me around 5 seconds-15 minutes to get into, but that was for only 40 people on a large WoW sized server.

500 people is a massive amount of players pvping in the first place anyway, I don't think most servers will ever get to that high except for right after release and the really high population servers. So I don't think there will even be all that many players actually in a queue line in the first place either.

Edited by celticwar17, 17 April 2012 - 12:08 PM.


#27 Fable

Fable

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 08:49 PM

Decap are u serious with guardian? xD

and we end up fighting against each other anyway sometime (i hope) :P

#28 Game of trolls

Game of trolls

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 186 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 09:58 PM

I have never been in a game with 500 players sounds like either it will be a lag fest or a lot of fun :)

#29 redgiant

redgiant

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:40 AM

Even 200 players total from 3 sides looks like a veritable moving sea of people. In the same place, that many people in DAoC looked wall-to-wall outside the walls, and once inside it was a sardine can. Just be glad they don't have player collision detection or you wouldn't be able to move.

You'd think you were reenacting Helm's Deep. sitting on the ramparts waiting nervously for the waves of players to come into clip range.

#30 smooticus

smooticus

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 282 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 06:14 AM

The Queue is what's going to keep servers like sorrow's furnace from dominating. The server cap provides a little bit of check-and-balance, so a server with three times the population will still have a challenge against a normal server.

In the beta vids we've seen so far, there havent been zergs above 40 players, so 500 per map, per server, is still far more than enough. A map with 500 players in one team can siege every single fort along its team borders. 500 per team across 4 maps.. that's a total of 2,000 per server, and 6,000 per battle.