Rareguild Forum Welcome in the halls of the MMORPG Community <Rare>

[Bloodwyne]

kind off, you get into your char select screen and click world selection and the server of choice and transfer, the game will restart and after 1 or 2 min the transfer ended and you can join the server

[Share]

I think the main mistake you do is that you base your opinion of WvW on EB. EB is what you could call the mainstream WvW instance and it is the go-to instance for casuals and non-organized people who just want to get into some quick action and join a zerg, or just do the jumping puzzle or whatever. EB will always be unreliant in terms of player saturation because of this (that is directly causing a high demand for the instance), resulting in a discrepancy between the players' goals (and means).

I've been playing a lot on VS Borderlands which is the go-to instance for the DL alliance, and it's just far more enjoyable than playing on EB. It's always action packed as the french obviously want to be in control of their borderlands, and we're putting up a good fight because we're organised. Guilds will never be in charge playing on EB, it's just not possible to get in the numbers you need to take control of the map single-handedly. Hence the natural emergence of big zergs because the players are polarized and it's hard to create smaller sections where there's little control and little communication and little will. GF, ZDs and the other guilds playing on VS Borderlands pretty much always have a solid number of members in "their" instance, and so they can dictate what's happening and they're capable of doing so.

I'd also like to point out that the zerg in itself will always be a part of WvW. I'm not talking about this big zerg with 40+ different guilds or non-guilds representing, but an organised zerg. Bigger numbers mean potentially bigger output in terms of siege weapons (because of more supply) and general dps. This is especially important in EB where there are a bigger total number of big objectives than in the borderlands, i'd go so far as saying that zergs are a necessity in EB for certain targets. That doesn't mean that there isn't also place for smaller groups that achieve different things, they just have to coexist and you have to play in such a group according to the current premises.

And it is true as you say, the maps are very tiny. They are especially very tiny in comparison to the server populations. Even if you go to a medium server, the population will always be many, many times larger than the capacity for all combined WvW maps. There's also a generally high demand for WvW amongst players because the interested players come from both PvP and PvE. In other words: the queues will always be long during primetime (i'm using that as a point of reference for us, as i'm guessing that's the time when we will have peak numbers online) no matter where you go. If you've experienced otherwise during your tests on other servers, i'd guess a deciding portion of the difference comes from the fact that you play during european off hours at which time queues for FS are pretty much non-existant aswell from my experience.

With that said there are indeed some problems with FS and i'm not taking any stance in terms of server change.

[Aaron]

The borderlands does have more smaller sized groups running around. But it still has the big zergs. The problem I have with the borderlands is that they are even more cramped than EB. Often times action will only be in a certain spot, and that spot is just Keep, Keep, Tower, Water, Keep, Tower, Maze. Its frustrating. There are many areas where if you catch zerg you are going to lose a few players because there isn't a way to disengage favorably. This is true of EB too of course, but there are more areas that are open enough to get some better roaming in I feel.

Maybe this weekend we could get a guild group going (maybe 10+ would be optimal) and do some comparison.

[Lasastard]

Qeued for Desolation yesterday at 8pm, ungrouped, didn't get in after 45mins and logged. (not because of that - just adding data to the survey)

[Bloodwyne]

I was in queue for Desolation for about 30min when i queue'd at 22:30. Also had a blast when Bryt showed me the game Keg Brawl in Hoelbrak, guys u have to play it!! Its a minigame which is rly fun, specially after some beer

I partially agree with Aaron here, i really dont think that the Borderlands are more cramped than EB. In EB (due to the huge size of Stonemist) u are almost all the time running next to a Keep, which can lead to adds with siege weapons at all times while fighting other groups. Thats not the case in the other Borderlands, infact the amount of keeps/towers/camps in total is almost half than it is in EB. Specially in the northern part of the map you can roam freely apart of a few guards you eventually have to pass by at the northern camp.

But yes the best thing would be if we would have a group around 10 players up at the weekend (or today?) so we can do comparison as Aaron said.

[Jadene]

I queued up for Desolation yesterday evening and had to wait 30 minutes was all, was around 7:30pmish English time. Ideally I would prefer it if there were no queues at all but no doubt they will ease up with time. Still 30 minutes is bleh but not as bad as it has been in the past. Of course I didn't queue for EB so no idea on that one.

Yes it is very zergy at points and the popping players really vexxes me when they just appear around you enmasse lol but still have managed to achieve some things whilst there even if just 2 of us.

For example some Desolation players were attacking a door, we ran off and circled around, Mike rooted them and then we aoed them to death which was hilarious with a couple of other people joining in.

Not saying they were the sharpest tools in the box but you do have the sheep mentality in zergs as well as the smarter players.

You can do hit and run tactics, take out supply camps, draw them out, and of course you always have the people who over extend.

Nor have we had proper assist trains working which could use to decimate superior numbers.

Not saying of course I want to fight zergs as such but we haven't really chipped the ice off the iceberg yet of having proper wvw group or groups going.

And imo the main reason for that is the queues.

I really do not want to change servers as yet though as I think it is going to be detrimental in the long term but if everyone wants to do that I will acquiesce and move where ever.

I will also test some of the other servers and see how it is there as haven't done it as yet.

And yes sure Mike and I will be on this evening and up for WVW Mark

[Bloodwyne]

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/mike ... d-vs-world

[Ravis]

Something interesting about the main issue (other than fucking queues)!

https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/p ... s-properly

In particular what one of the Anet programmer team talks about

Hi all,
For a variety of performance reasons we limit the number of characters that are reported to any given game client. This report limiting (or culling, as it’s also been referred to) is generally distance based and limits both the amount of bandwidth and client side processing (rendering, etc.) required to play the game. Ideally this shouldn’t be something that you notice happening as characters will simply fade in when they’re “far” away from you. In the best case this happens far enough away that even if you’re looking right at them when it happens it isn’t too visually distracting. Unfortunately, there are some situations in the game in which this setup doesn’t work as well as we’d like and it seems that those situations come up in WvW rather more often than in other parts of the game. The higher player densities that we see in large battles are an obvious example of where this system goes awry. If only the nearest N characters are reported to you but there are N+100 characters within effective battle range then many of those characters will be invisible. There’s never a great time to be dealing with invisible characters, but I think that it’s fair to say that during a large battle is one of the worst times.
In WvW one of the things that we see exacerbating the issue is this: From the moment a character is first reported to your client to the first moment that your client is able to render it a non-zero amount of time passes. During this time your client is doing things like loading textures from disk, which can be (at least in computer terms) fairly slow what with all that accessing of spinning, physical storage media. So that means that a character who is moving towards you can potentially appear first at a much closer point even than the one at which they were reported because, of course, they were still moving during that load time.
MajorKong’s screenshot doesn’t immediately look like the situation I just described so it may be that there’s some kind of bug lurking in there as well. We will certainly be looking into that possibility.
That was a lot of detail but really I’m posting to let you know that we’re aware of the issues associated with invisible enemies and we’re working on finding both the root causes and effective solutions. I understand that these experiences can be quite frustrating but please rest assured that we do care and we are working on improving the experience.
Thank you for reporting your issues here on the forums and for your patience and understanding as we work to resolve them.
Also, MajorKong, that really was a great screenshot even if it does show a bug and bugs make me sad.

[Lasastard]

Well well, good news and strange information... why they won't simply let clients decide at which distance enemies or any object should fade is a bit of a mystery to me (even DAoC had different render distances...). And the argument with physical media needing to spin-up to load the textures is nonesense, I am playing on a sata3 SSD and still get this, even though access and load times should be pretty much a non-issues there. So why won't he just say 'look, there is obviously a bug in the engine and we are trying to fix it'.

[Ravis]

It's good news that they are "looking into it", but I agree the information is a bit strange.

If you are running the game from a SSD there shouldn't be any issues with loading textures, plus the fact that the invaders/defenders all look pretty much the same anyway, lol. I don't think think there are any custom armour skins for the enemy servers apart from light, medium and heavy.

The engine still seems poorly optimised (at least for me it is) and in particular rendering player models seems to be a problem and is very much CPU bound. But like you said there should be a client side option to select the render distance so at least people who got the horsepower to run WvW reasonably well can chose how far they want to see. Right now all it does is to mess it up for everyone with their server side and somewhat random "culling".

But well, the game is still new so I hope they will get things sorted sooner or later. It would just be nice to actually see who is hitting me before I am dead and to run WvW with more than 8-14 FPS (no matter what settings) while my GPU is idling.