People here are funny... Debating something that IMO, is pretty clear.
Originally posted by Psychow How can most fo the servers be "FULL" when a large portion of players no longer play?
And how you know that? Got any number to back up what you said? Exactly...
I thought he was being sarcastic, least I hope lmao.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
As others have pointed out, the red post wasn't saying that all chars are counted toward the full status but instead saying two things, that full servers are concurrent players and that when you transfer servers, all your characters are transfered. Anyone saying 'So it's Full = Main + alts' are just grasping at straws. It is very clear that a servers status is 'concurrent players online' and when transfering your characters are counted amongst 'total' players on the server.
And to those suggesting Anet has kept server caps really low just to inflate the apprent number of players are rediculous. Especially considering the number of folks who bitch about not being able to get into the game when they buy it because all the servers are full. Full = capacity, to suggest anything else is idle conjecture and pointless.
Originally posted by Psychow How can most fo the servers be "FULL" when a large portion of players no longer play?
Do you have proof that a large portion of players are no longer playing? Please do not use Xfire, everyone knows it is as reliable as wikipedia (in other words, it is not reliable). I'm looking for hard facts here, not personal perception, opinions, or subjective insights.
I find it funny, yet sad in a way, the mental, grammatical and argumentative gymnastics people perform in order to either praise (defend) their favorite game or trash (attack) a game they dispise. This entire thread is pointless and reeks of baiting.
The population status of each server changes depending on concurrency, not alts or dev gimmicks. I play in Sanctum of Rall. My server has changed from High to Full and back to High, and then yet again back to Full countless of times. Late at night and early in the morning it usually is High, later in the day and in the evening (US central time) it gets Full. I see the same happening to most other servers. One account, one count, regardless of how many alts you have.
After reading the link provided by the OP, I believe the OP has either greatly misread the link or has purposefully misguided others in to believing the OP's agenda-driven conclusions. I do not see anywhere in the link where it could lead anyone to believe that alts are being counted as individual accounts, seperate from the "main". Not only does it make no sense, but it is plainly not there... that is, if you read it objectively.
Though I play GW2, I am not a fanboy of GW2. I do enjoy the game, and believe it is much better than WOW in many respects (not in all areas); I have no problem in criticizing or praising the game, where criticizism and praise are due.
Originally posted by Pivotelite Originally posted by RizelStarOriginally posted by PsychowHow can most fo the servers be "FULL" when a large portion of players no longer play?
I have no clue to be honest. Me neither. Well whats the player cap on a server? Do we know that?
Originally posted by Pivotelite Originally posted by RizelStarOriginally posted by PsychowHow can most fo the servers be "FULL" when a large portion of players no longer play?
I have no clue to be honest. Me neither. Well whats the player cap on a server? Do we know that?
We can only estimate it for the time being. ANet said at some point that their WvW maps are the biggest and can hold up to ~200 players. Multiply that by the number of areas (including cities) and add players in instances (unknown but at least the same as the number of players in WvW).
25(afaik there are 25 maps)*200 + 200*8 (8 dungeons, I know it is just a vague gues) = 6600.
My guess is servers can hold way more players than that, tho.
Originally posted by IPolygon Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by Pivotelite Originally posted by RizelStarOriginally posted by PsychowHow can most fo the servers be "FULL" when a large portion of players no longer play?
I have no clue to be honest. Me neither. Well whats the player cap on a server? Do we know that?
We can only estimate it for the time being. ANet said at some point that their WvW maps are the biggest and can hold up to ~200 players. Multiply that by the number of areas (including cities) and add players in instances (unknown but at least the same as the number of players in WvW).
25(afaik there are 25 maps)*200 + 200*8 (8 dungeons, I know it is just a vague gues) = 6600.
My guess is servers can hold way more players than that, tho.
I see. So server full doesnt really mean anything to us since we dont know any real numbers.
Originally posted by sammyeli You are playing a very dangerous game my friend and its called common sense. you might want to run NOW!~!!! O_O
Not everyone knew that all your alts are counted in player population. I have 5 alts, i can only imagine how many others have that many and more. That is why a lot of people wonder where all the players are even though server is FULL.
Not that common sense bro.
There is a difference between a PLAYER and his CHARACTERS. The PLAYERS are counted... capisci?
Originally posted by sammyeli You are playing a very dangerous game my friend and its called common sense. you might want to run NOW!~!!! O_O
Not everyone knew that all your alts are counted in player population. I have 5 alts, i can only imagine how many others have that many and more. That is why a lot of people wonder where all the players are even though server is FULL.
Not that common sense bro.
There is a difference between a PLAYER and his CHARACTERS. The PLAYERS are counted... capisci?
When internet mafia says capisci..i think it would be hard to disagree.
And all three times there were people saying "No, it's healthy, population is rising, look more servers full now den a munth ago hurr durr!!!!".
It's called changing population distributions...
The lower level zones may not have as many players as launch (no duh!) but that means squat for the overall population if people are simply gathered in higher level zones.
If GW2's concurrency numbers were falling as quickly as some claim we wouldn't be seeing new servers being opened.
Would I be seeing less people outside instance locations, in Lions arch, in Spvp, lowlevel zones and WvW as well?
They must all be clumped on one another in a secret spot for GW2 elite players.
They're all hiding behind the trees ready to jump out on the 15th shouting SURPRISE when the "massive" content patch is launched.
No-one answered my question though I'll ask another..
Can you log into a full server?
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
And all three times there were people saying "No, it's healthy, population is rising, look more servers full now den a munth ago hurr durr!!!!".
It's called changing population distributions...
The lower level zones may not have as many players as launch (no duh!) but that means squat for the overall population if people are simply gathered in higher level zones.
If GW2's concurrency numbers were falling as quickly as some claim we wouldn't be seeing new servers being opened.
Would I be seeing less people outside instance locations, in Lions arch, in Spvp, lowlevel zones and WvW as well?
They must all be clumped on one another in a secret spot for GW2 elite players.
Can you log into a full server?
yes. which is why those saying that it means actual people logged in are wrong. it's artifical to control population.
And all three times there were people saying "No, it's healthy, population is rising, look more servers full now den a munth ago hurr durr!!!!".
It's called changing population distributions...
The lower level zones may not have as many players as launch (no duh!) but that means squat for the overall population if people are simply gathered in higher level zones.
If GW2's concurrency numbers were falling as quickly as some claim we wouldn't be seeing new servers being opened.
Would I be seeing less people outside instance locations, in Lions arch, in Spvp, lowlevel zones and WvW as well?
They must all be clumped on one another in a secret spot for GW2 elite players.
Can you log into a full server?
yes. which is why those saying that it means actual people logged in are wrong. it's artifical to control population.
You can also log into full servers on WoW . I've done it on Outland EU many many times without a wait . Good point though but to suggest that this only applys to GW2 is a false assumption .
As for the OP . Its pretty obvious if he thinks alts are counted hes misunderstood what was written .
Originally posted by botrytis If you log into a full server, you automatically get kicked to Overflow. So there is no wait in PvE.
So the server is not full then, thanks.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
And all three times there were people saying "No, it's healthy, population is rising, look more servers full now den a munth ago hurr durr!!!!".
It's called changing population distributions...
The lower level zones may not have as many players as launch (no duh!) but that means squat for the overall population if people are simply gathered in higher level zones.
If GW2's concurrency numbers were falling as quickly as some claim we wouldn't be seeing new servers being opened.
Would I be seeing less people outside instance locations, in Lions arch, in Spvp, lowlevel zones and WvW as well?
They must all be clumped on one another in a secret spot for GW2 elite players.
Can you log into a full server?
yes. which is why those saying that it means actual people logged in are wrong. it's artifical to control population.
You can also log into full servers on WoW . I've done it on Outland EU many many times without a wait . Good point though but to suggest that this only applys to GW2 is a false assumption .
As for the OP . Its pretty obvious if he thinks alts are counted hes misunderstood what was written .
nowhere have ever said it this only applys to gw2 or any other game. that is your false assumption.
Originally posted by botrytis If you log into a full server, you automatically get kicked to Overflow. So there is no wait in PvE.
And then once the in-game population dies down, you have the option of moving back over into the full server. The server status ("Full", "High", etc.) is based on the people actively playing on the server, not the number of registered characters or number of players who have registered characters on the server.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Calerxes Originally posted by botrytisIf you log into a full server, you automatically get kicked to Overflow. So there is no wait in PvE.
So the server is not full then, thanks.
The overflow server is a different server. If the server wasn't full, you wouldn't be moved to a different server...the overflow server.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Going from that quote, it's clear the number of alts has no bearing on how full a server is.
Besides that making no sense at all to begin with, the quote is pretty clear on that (can't see how anyone got confused, TBH).
Furthermore, even if the alts were counted, this information is useless without knowing how many characters a server can hold.
TL;DR: If they wanted to skew server statuses, they could do it regardless of how players are counted. This point serves both sides and proves nothing for either.
Originally posted by botrytisIf you log into a full server, you automatically get kicked to Overflow. So there is no wait in PvE.
So the server is not full then, thanks.
The overflow server is a different server. If the server wasn't full, you wouldn't be moved to a different server...the overflow server.
So when I play a game like Perfect World and I'm in channel 6 on the Dreamwaever server am I on dreamweaver or an separate server? No I'm on another instance of the world on that server. Arenanet is doing the same thing and calling it something different thats all, the server is not full.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Do the servers ever change population? Are there ever times when some servers drop to medium or low? Times like the off hours of the US servers? WoW is definitely the most populated AAA MMORPG and it's servers dip from high to low depending on the time of day. If the GW2 servers never dip from high to medium or low, it is likely not counting concurrent users, rather it is counting total accounts that have a server set as the 'home' server. There is no way that enough people play concurrently to keep the majority of servers high/full 24/7.
Basically what we know is that full server population is a specific number which we don't have the specific details for. We also know that the number of current accounts is a specific number which we don't have the specific details for. We also know that the number of current active users is a variable which we do not have the statistics for. Those things are all specifically unknown but what we can attain from this is that forum users will continue to argue about stuff they don't know, saying that other people are wrong in what they don't know, just because someone makes an obtuse statement balanced in obscurity.
Are the forums now the playground of the modern day self proclaimed philosopher?
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" - Douglas Adams
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Originally posted by botrytisIf you log into a full server, you automatically get kicked to Overflow. So there is no wait in PvE.
So the server is not full then, thanks.
The overflow server is a different server. If the server wasn't full, you wouldn't be moved to a different server...the overflow server.
So when I play a game like Perfect World and I'm in channel 6 on the Dreamwaever server am I on dreamweaver or an separate server? No I'm on another instance of the world on that server. Arenanet is doing the same thing and calling it something different thats all, the server is not full.
Makes me wonder if the game assigns people arbitrarily to the overflow server in order to present a populated game world. Otherwise what if all of the servers are open except yours, and you're the very first guy that needs to be routed to overflow? You'd be by yourself in this giant game world.
Also, the GW2 wiki about the overflow shard says it's shared by all servers, so I think it actually does change which server your information is physically stored on until your 'home' server opens up.
Originally posted by botrytisIf you log into a full server, you automatically get kicked to Overflow. So there is no wait in PvE.
So the server is not full then, thanks.
The overflow server is a different server. If the server wasn't full, you wouldn't be moved to a different server...the overflow server.
So when I play a game like Perfect World and I'm in channel 6 on the Dreamwaever server am I on dreamweaver or an separate server? No I'm on another instance of the world on that server. Arenanet is doing the same thing and calling it something different thats all, the server is not full.
Makes me wonder if the game assigns people arbitrarily to the overflow server in order to present a populated game world. Otherwise what if all of the servers are open except yours, and you're the very first guy that needs to be routed to overflow? You'd be by yourself in this giant game world.
Also, the GW2 wiki about the overflow shard says it's shared by all servers, so I think it actually does change which server your information is physically stored on until your 'home' server opens up.
So if they can do that for the overflow server why make servers in the first place? The overflow server at launch must have been a massive server of its own bigger than any of the proper servers or were there channels as in my example? could you play with people of other servers and did you infact do that?
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I also have to wonder about the server "Full" or "High" status and issues WvW had with night capping. If the server status remains "Full" or "High" during the off peak hours (for US servers), if it were describing concurrent users, do you really think there would be an issue with night capping? With so many servers "Full" and "High" during off peak hours, shouldn't WvW just be business as usual? You know, just like it is during the peak hours when the server populations are listed as "Full" and "High".
The logic is there, the community manager response looks like it says that server population is determined by the number of accounts calling that server their home. However, that response is worded in such a way that people that want to believe it's concurrent users can do so. It looks like PR spin to me. "full from people actually playing there at the moment" can mean the same thing as "full due to the number of accounts currently assigned to the server as their home server". You see it in the "he will be counted among the total players of Baruch". Concurrent players shouldn't have anything to do with TOTAL PLAYERS. The fact that total players is being talk about at lends confidence that the first statement implicitly was referring to total players as well.
Edit: Another thing to consider. Why would concurrent users prevent someone from transferring? It's not exactly a fool proof system. If server status was determined by concurrent players and transfers were limited by 'full' server status, I know that I would just transfer during off peak hours. Region based servers are not full at off peak hours for any game. If it was this easy to get around, why even bother limiting transfers at all... they have overflow servers after all.
Comments
Best Regards, ...
I thought he was being sarcastic, least I hope lmao.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
As others have pointed out, the red post wasn't saying that all chars are counted toward the full status but instead saying two things, that full servers are concurrent players and that when you transfer servers, all your characters are transfered. Anyone saying 'So it's Full = Main + alts' are just grasping at straws. It is very clear that a servers status is 'concurrent players online' and when transfering your characters are counted amongst 'total' players on the server.
And to those suggesting Anet has kept server caps really low just to inflate the apprent number of players are rediculous. Especially considering the number of folks who bitch about not being able to get into the game when they buy it because all the servers are full. Full = capacity, to suggest anything else is idle conjecture and pointless.
Do you have proof that a large portion of players are no longer playing? Please do not use Xfire, everyone knows it is as reliable as wikipedia (in other words, it is not reliable). I'm looking for hard facts here, not personal perception, opinions, or subjective insights.
I find it funny, yet sad in a way, the mental, grammatical and argumentative gymnastics people perform in order to either praise (defend) their favorite game or trash (attack) a game they dispise. This entire thread is pointless and reeks of baiting.
The population status of each server changes depending on concurrency, not alts or dev gimmicks. I play in Sanctum of Rall. My server has changed from High to Full and back to High, and then yet again back to Full countless of times. Late at night and early in the morning it usually is High, later in the day and in the evening (US central time) it gets Full. I see the same happening to most other servers. One account, one count, regardless of how many alts you have.
After reading the link provided by the OP, I believe the OP has either greatly misread the link or has purposefully misguided others in to believing the OP's agenda-driven conclusions. I do not see anywhere in the link where it could lead anyone to believe that alts are being counted as individual accounts, seperate from the "main". Not only does it make no sense, but it is plainly not there... that is, if you read it objectively.
Though I play GW2, I am not a fanboy of GW2. I do enjoy the game, and believe it is much better than WOW in many respects (not in all areas); I have no problem in criticizing or praising the game, where criticizism and praise are due.
Me neither.
Well whats the player cap on a server? Do we know that?
Me neither.
Well whats the player cap on a server? Do we know that?
We can only estimate it for the time being. ANet said at some point that their WvW maps are the biggest and can hold up to ~200 players. Multiply that by the number of areas (including cities) and add players in instances (unknown but at least the same as the number of players in WvW). 25(afaik there are 25 maps)*200 + 200*8 (8 dungeons, I know it is just a vague gues)= 6600.
My guess is servers can hold way more players than that, tho.
Me neither.
Well whats the player cap on a server? Do we know that?
We can only estimate it for the time being. ANet said at some point that their WvW maps are the biggest and can hold up to ~200 players. Multiply that by the number of areas (including cities) and add players in instances (unknown but at least the same as the number of players in WvW).
25(afaik there are 25 maps)*200 + 200*8 (8 dungeons, I know it is just a vague gues)
= 6600.
My guess is servers can hold way more players than that, tho.
I see. So server full doesnt really mean anything to us since we dont know any real numbers.
Yes. This is exactly correct. "Server Full" means there's a queue or you can't add a character to that server. Nothing more.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
There is a difference between a PLAYER and his CHARACTERS. The PLAYERS are counted... capisci?
When internet mafia says capisci..i think it would be hard to disagree.
I am shaking in my boots.
They're all hiding behind the trees ready to jump out on the 15th shouting SURPRISE when the "massive" content patch is launched.
No-one answered my question though I'll ask another..
Can you log into a full server?
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
yes. which is why those saying that it means actual people logged in are wrong. it's artifical to control population.
You can also log into full servers on WoW . I've done it on Outland EU many many times without a wait . Good point though but to suggest that this only applys to GW2 is a false assumption .
As for the OP . Its pretty obvious if he thinks alts are counted hes misunderstood what was written .
So the server is not full then, thanks.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
nowhere have ever said it this only applys to gw2 or any other game. that is your false assumption.
And then once the in-game population dies down, you have the option of moving back over into the full server. The server status ("Full", "High", etc.) is based on the people actively playing on the server, not the number of registered characters or number of players who have registered characters on the server.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So the server is not full then, thanks.
The overflow server is a different server. If the server wasn't full, you wouldn't be moved to a different server...the overflow server.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Have to agree with GW2 supporters here.
Going from that quote, it's clear the number of alts has no bearing on how full a server is.
Besides that making no sense at all to begin with, the quote is pretty clear on that (can't see how anyone got confused, TBH).
Furthermore, even if the alts were counted, this information is useless without knowing how many characters a server can hold.
TL;DR: If they wanted to skew server statuses, they could do it regardless of how players are counted. This point serves both sides and proves nothing for either.
http://lyrics.iztok.org/verse/Lynyrd_Skynyrd/Simple_Man/80615
So when I play a game like Perfect World and I'm in channel 6 on the Dreamwaever server am I on dreamweaver or an separate server? No I'm on another instance of the world on that server. Arenanet is doing the same thing and calling it something different thats all, the server is not full.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Basically what we know is that full server population is a specific number which we don't have the specific details for. We also know that the number of current accounts is a specific number which we don't have the specific details for. We also know that the number of current active users is a variable which we do not have the statistics for. Those things are all specifically unknown but what we can attain from this is that forum users will continue to argue about stuff they don't know, saying that other people are wrong in what they don't know, just because someone makes an obtuse statement balanced in obscurity.
Are the forums now the playground of the modern day self proclaimed philosopher?
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" - Douglas Adams
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
Makes me wonder if the game assigns people arbitrarily to the overflow server in order to present a populated game world. Otherwise what if all of the servers are open except yours, and you're the very first guy that needs to be routed to overflow? You'd be by yourself in this giant game world.
Also, the GW2 wiki about the overflow shard says it's shared by all servers, so I think it actually does change which server your information is physically stored on until your 'home' server opens up.
So if they can do that for the overflow server why make servers in the first place? The overflow server at launch must have been a massive server of its own bigger than any of the proper servers or were there channels as in my example? could you play with people of other servers and did you infact do that?
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I also have to wonder about the server "Full" or "High" status and issues WvW had with night capping. If the server status remains "Full" or "High" during the off peak hours (for US servers), if it were describing concurrent users, do you really think there would be an issue with night capping? With so many servers "Full" and "High" during off peak hours, shouldn't WvW just be business as usual? You know, just like it is during the peak hours when the server populations are listed as "Full" and "High".
The logic is there, the community manager response looks like it says that server population is determined by the number of accounts calling that server their home. However, that response is worded in such a way that people that want to believe it's concurrent users can do so. It looks like PR spin to me. "full from people actually playing there at the moment" can mean the same thing as "full due to the number of accounts currently assigned to the server as their home server". You see it in the "he will be counted among the total players of Baruch". Concurrent players shouldn't have anything to do with TOTAL PLAYERS. The fact that total players is being talk about at lends confidence that the first statement implicitly was referring to total players as well.
Edit: Another thing to consider. Why would concurrent users prevent someone from transferring? It's not exactly a fool proof system. If server status was determined by concurrent players and transfers were limited by 'full' server status, I know that I would just transfer during off peak hours. Region based servers are not full at off peak hours for any game. If it was this easy to get around, why even bother limiting transfers at all... they have overflow servers after all.