GuildWars Poll

[DeletedUser]

All who participate on GuildWars should respond to this poll. It is to decide some restrictions to avoid over-population.

[Shawn319]

No 100 choice? =P

[DeletedUser]

100 is way too much..

[Flecko]

You guys honestly think that 100 is too much?

I mean, not everyone that is playing at one time is going to be trying to raid cities or playerkill. There are a few other things to do in the game, and I know the old world is "small," but its not that small. I used to play on EQLive when classic EQ was all there was. It was typical to see populations of 500 to 1000 people online at a time, granted, 1000 was crowded.

I could see the guild wars server holding maybe 150 to 200 and still being fun in the sense of a guild wars server.

Ultimately, it is up to the kind people that host guild wars. Its obvious though, that if they cap the population at 50 to 65, that demand will exceed supply. I'm sure that could be a problem in the eyes of free loving EQ players here.

I hope that this situation all works out for the best for everyone.

-Flecko

ps - Guild Wars #2 anyone?

[madcoyote]

100 is way to much =P lol plus image doesn't have enough computers for 50 zones!

[Aragain]

I said none, becuase eventually when there are more Guildwars like legit servers, people will leave on their own.

Now, if people dont leave, you can force them however way you see fit, in my opinion =P

[DeletedUser]

I run 50 zone servers, half are static zones (all the starting cities and various popular zones), other half are bootable zones. Thats saying that 100 people have to fit in 50 zones, 2 each, most do not do that and the zone servers are always taken. The computers which run the zone servers are running at 60-100% cpu usage (when we are peaked with all these users) and I do not have money for more computers. So to keep the stability of the server something has to be done.

[killspree]

I voted 65. Seems like a fairly reasonable limit, and every time I've been on when there were 65ish on, it seemed like there were plenty of zones free.

I can see how 100 is way too many though, and agree that something should be done if it's a risk at causing things to be unstable.

[hogosha]

time limit or activity should be used. or have a zone server limit, keep things leveled out, should be fine then.

[DeletedUser]

We dont have trouble with individual zone servers, we have trouble with people being too spread out

[Slayer02]

Image, the hour idea may work, i.e. someone can play for two hours but has to stay off the server for three or something. This would work well because people might just leave their computer running and not log off because they don't want to come back and not be able to join.

[hondamd]

but... if you can inforce the limited play time wouldn't there be a way you could boot people that are idle for a certain amount of time? I just think the restricted number of players is better because some people like to log on for 12 hours straight then not play for a few days, or some such...and, what would happen when someones allotted time was up? They get booted? I think this would cause some people to get kinda mad if they were in the middle of something important. Just trying to throw out the pros and cons as I see them

[Slayer02]

Well, to avoid something like that we could have it like after one hour it would send a tell to the player saying "You have one hour left" or something, then when they have twenty minutes left it would inform them, then they should try and finish up whatever they are doing and it will inform them when they have five left and then boot five minutes later.

[Aragain]

What we really need, is Guildwars Sever Number 2.

Those of us who havent accomplished much on Guildwars, could sure migrate to the second server.

Just need someone to host it first... /shrug

[tiddyman]

I vote to take the char limit down. avoid those that play multi chars at same time. Character wipe, then limit of 1 char/account. 1 login per ip at a time.








trolling for an argument...