Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
GW2 wvw problem: queuing vs lag
sammandar
Member Posts: 523
Trolls & haters beware! I have pre-purchased GW2 and am dying to play the game. I am not a GW2 hater!
CONTEXT:
Anet has not revealed how many "thousands" of players will be housed in each server (see green link). Due to a lack of detailed information, for the purposes of this analogy, we're going to assume that GW2 servers will be able to house the same number of players (36k) as WOW servers did in 2007 (see red link). The implication is though 7 years of technology most likely have allowed for servers to house more players, this is just a minimum situation example analogy!! (didn't know how else to call it lol).
REFERENCES:
Green Link: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
WVW PROBLEM (queuing vs lag):
GW2 will have 45 servers upon release (21 in NA and 24 in EU). For the purposes of this analogy (and a lack of accurate GW2 data) let us assume that each GW2 server can house 36k players, the same amount as WOW servers back in 2007 (again, see red link). When it comes to PVE and SPVP, other than "joining" team members in Overflow servers, there will be not much of an issue. Here's the catch though...
Anet has announced that there will be a total (from all 3 servers) max population of 500 players per map in WVW (2k players total); "Each World versus World map is going to support up to 500 players" (see green link). That only allows an average of 167 players per server per map and an average of 667 per server total.
If each GW2 server houses approximately 36k players, only 0.46% (167 players) per server per map in WVW will be able to participate at any given time and only 1.85% (667 players) per server total. I am fully aware that Anet devs are capable of increasing the population cap in WVW; thing is, would you be willing to trade queuing for lag?
CONCLUSION:
I'm not assuming that Anet devs have not considered the possibility of this kind of queuing/lagging "armageddon", and have not prepared accordingly (I'm hoping they have on both cases). I am merely brining this up on these forums to see if anyone has heard anything to the contrary or anything that will calm my nerves.
Cheers!
Comments
I wouldn't worry about it. I played in Beta Weekends and WvWvW was flawless. The most perfect PVP.
I have some videos for it.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/359874/Aerowyns-Video-Compilation-of-ALL-things-Guild-Wars-2.html
Check those out, those will tell you why GW2 is the best.
Arena net really listens to it's players, so I'm sure they've thought of this already.
none of this applies to me or my guild!
we'll be rollin' on Ferguson's Crossing! the promised land of no queue WvW!
More like the promised land of no-win WvW, because you guys are going to get crushed.
FC is grouped in with Blackgate, where quite a few serious PvP guilds (Epic and Matchless to name a few) will be rolling with the direct goal of dominating in WvW. Better get organized now, you've got less than a week.
See you on the battlefield.
Your only flaw in the math is that the 36k players is the max number of registered players on a server and not the max number of players playing at the same time..
Your conclusion about WvWvW queues is totally correct and i think it will be GW2´s major whining...
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
To me, this is a perfect example of a reasonable concern and potential flaw with GW2, and not an issue of "I want this in the game" or "I don't want this in the game" and therefore "it is bad". As an aside, it's kind of a sad state of affairs when you have to preface your comments with something like "Don't shoot I'm a friendly" but then again most people know what these forums are like.
Given the current cap on WvWvW, I've wondered what the corresponding server populations would be so that it was not a continuous line of people waiting to get in.
From what I saw:
"Player limits are not yet finalized, but current estimates are that each of the four maps will support up to 500 players, split across the three worlds, for a total upper limit of 2,000 players across the entire WvW match.[1]"
This honestly doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room, though I do think your 36k estimate is high.
Even with players playing a different times of the day, and even assuming not everyone plays WvW, people on very large servers could find themselves quickly frustrated.
We know that for the first week server transfers will be free, so I expect to see a lot of movement. I am hopeful that ANet has already considered these issues, but I would love to see some clarifying statements on this.
"Loading screens" are not "instances".
Your personal efforts to troll any game will not, in fact, impact the success or failure of said game.
oh we'll have wins.
we may not win the 2 week score but my little group does great anyways... i'm out to have fun and i'll take some towers, camps, and maybe ninja a keep or two. from my perspective the score at the end of two weeks matters much less than what my group does. if i have 20 people and we put up a good fight everywhere we go and we achieve our objectives but the rest of the server doesn't hold up their end.. thats not my problem.
we were on Fort Aspenwood for the entire beta. it was fun having the top score, and we contributed a lot to getting that score.. but it was much more fun just playing the game. and getting in and playing together won't be a problem on FC.
bring on epic and matchless imo.. i'm not gonna hop servers to ride the winboat on someone else's coattails! thats the kind of thing that stacks players on one server and causes these queue problems to begin with.
I would agree with your points there .. though i havnt rechecked with your maths but i am sure they are correct. But i have also spent a lot of time in WvW in Betas and Stress Tests, apart from the usual Beta and Stress test issues as expected by game play experience in terms of Lag and FPS has only improved every Beta and Stress Test.
I can see from your Math how this could clearly be an issue as technically even if they double the number of players per map would at best be able to cater to 4% of the population. Though to me experiences of the little (approx 20 hours of WvW) i have played during BWE and stress tests i hardly got queues for WvW if i wanted to enter the borderlands. Though yes Eternal Battle grounds were the only place i had to queue. This could be due to various reasons. My Beta server was a Mid Pop server. possibly not many were testing out the WvW, since there was soo many other things to test out for such a small period of time. The server i was on maybe was not particularly interested in WvW, or the performance issues of a Beta and stress Test forced people not to test WvW as much and hence no queues. There could be various other reasons.
But in 1 month into lauch, i can easily see .. after most people have settled into thier home worlds have leveled enough and seen a lot of out world content and the other thousand of things to do out in world wuold eventually start coming more and more to WvW. And this is when i can see the Math of OP could come into consideration seeing the % of people per server than can get in, leading to longer queues. Though i donot know how they are planning to solve this issue, if this issue is a major problem to begin with, and maybe not many people playing are actually interested in WvW, maybe on avg 10-15%( assumption, not based on facts) of the people want to PvP in WvW and seeing how many play from varied time zones a 3-4% chance of pop per server getting in doesnt lead to major queues at all. But i can be rest assured of One fact, ANET if it is an issue, would be aware of it, would keep a track of it post launch (clearly seeing the queue times on some spread sheet of thiers) and would do some thing about it, how when and how fast is something we will just have to wait and see.
I've also played in all the BWEs and in all the stress tests. WVW was great, for the most part. In the early betas I remember having a lot of lag in the Eternal Battlegrounds. By BWE3 and the following stress tests, most of the lag was gone. However, my cocern still remains, if they increase the population cap, how will they keep lag down?
Have you ever pvp'd before?
We don't know exactly know many copies of GW2 have been sold; I believe we have been told that approx over 1 million copies have been sold within the first couple weeks since GW2 was released for pre-purchase. I would "guestimate" between 1.5 to 2 million copies have/will be sold by release.
Let us be extremely conservative:
Let us suppose that only 1 million copies of GW2 are sold; divided by 45 servers, that equals 22,222 per server (466,662 in NA and 544,428 in EU). Let us suppose that only 1/4 of the total population of each server is interested in WVW, that leaves us with 5,555 players per server. That still only leaves approx 3% per server per map in WVW and a total of 12% per server total in WVW. Even if we cut in half the number of players online at any given time, that still only leaves us with 6% per map and 24% total.
Though the numbers begin to look a bit better as we cut in half the number of players online at any given time, I think that's a dangerous and risky game for Anet to play.
I'm not trying to be purposefully negative, I guess I'm just not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel on this one. During the betas I had no issues for the most part; though I did hear a lot of other people complaining. Whatever Anet did during the betas to keep WVW seamless, for the most part, I pray they can continue to do after release and as the number of palyers increases.
Yes, I've seen a lot of "crazies" on these forums so I just wanted to be clear from the beginning haha. I think that is part of my biggest concern is that in order to keep lag at bay, Anet is going to have to limit the population cap. Which is why I titled the thread "queuing vs lag". Unless Anet has un unkown magic trick up their sleeve, they'll essentially have to choose between queuing or lag; I guess I would rather queuing.
But even if only 1-3 thousand players per server are interested in playing WVW, in most cases the percentage allowed per server will still be in the single digits.
Most games start their servers or maximum players in a zone relatively low and eventually yank up the numbers. I dont think lagging is worth some more players so I think we should wait for eventual future optimnization to add more players to it.
Lagging in PvP is really bad. Being forced to avoid PvPing a few hours a day or being in queue rather bad too but not as bad as lagging.
Agreed. I would rather wait to play wvw than get in and not being able to play due to lag. Has anyone considered the possibility of multiple wvw battles per server? Similarly to an overflow wvw server.
True enough, we don't know exactly how many people will be interested in WVW. I guess I'm hoping for the best and preparing myself for the worst! :-p
Cheers!