World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> Agamaggan NEEDS Help.

Wolfinhowler

< Menethil Shadowstep … >

Agamaggan

140. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:05:32 AM PDT

We need transfers from high pop to low pop to even things out! Why have servers so packed full of people that when you grind your elbow to elbow with 5 other people, when there are ghost town servers where even the major cities seem empty? We need balance, open up free xfers from high pop ----> Low pop!

We're small, sharp and smart. We love wild creatures, wild beauty and wild life, unlike our dull cousins. We aren't very polite, but we don't have to be, since we shoot straight and run like the wind.

Drysc

Blizzard Poster

141. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:07:56 AM PDT

We're in the process of implementing alternate solutions to help assist the lower population realms. The problem here is that Agamaggan is not really what would be considered a "low population" realm, it's not even in the bottom 25 realms. While it's not at capacity (it's at around a 55% nightly pop) there are quite a few realms below it that we would need to focus our attention on first, such as Coilfang (around a 30% nightly pop) and 10 or so other realms like it.

Just to compare there are technically around 200 realms that aren't actually hitting capacity (no queues at any time for a month+) out of about 220 total US realms. While we would like all realms to be near capacity, there is a middle ground that still allows an extremely functional and fun play experience. A lot of the realms live in this "middle area" of capacity, and they have extremely lively economies and interactions. Before the population cap increase with Burning Crusade they might even be considered "high population".

In any case, when realms fall below that middle ground, which Agamaggan has not, then we need to start taking some action.

Our focus is going to be on those realms that are falling below a capacity we believe is acceptable to the players, and our intent for the ability to play the game with any amount of comfort. After that we would then continue to move up and focus on other realms.

Drysc

Blizzard Poster

143. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:12:52 AM PDT

Q u o t e:
Sister of Elune needs help too... =(

It has a higher nightly population than Agamaggan. It wouldn't be an immediate focus.

Schmizzle

< Remorseless >

Anub'arak

145. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:15:26 AM PDT

Q u o t e:

It has a higher nightly population than Agamaggan. It wouldn't be an immediate focus.

The issue does remain that servers may be fine, but the factions aren't. I know there are servers that aren't doing too badly, but have a 1 to 3 alliance to horde ratio.. skewing the data and hiding the real population problems

EDIT: Like the previous poster for example. Anub'Arak is fine. Horde side. Alliance side, it's barren and empty.

[ Post edited by Schmizzle ]

Imterrible

< bear and gnome >

Spinebreaker

146. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:15:57 AM PDT

Q u o t e:
We're in the process of implementing alternate solutions to help assist the lower population realms. The problem here is that Agamaggan is not really what would be considered a "low population" realm, it's not even in the bottom 25 realms. While it's not at capacity (it's at around a 55% nightly pop) there are quite a few realms below it that we would need to focus our attention on first, such as Coilfang (around a 30% nightly pop) and 10 or so other realms like it.

Just to compare there are technically around 200 realms that aren't actually hitting capacity (no queues at any time for a month+) out of about 220 total US realms. While we would like all realms to be near capacity, there is a middle ground that still allows an extremely functional and fun play experience. A lot of the realms live in this "middle area" of capacity, and they have extremely lively economies and interactions. Before the population cap increase with Burning Crusade they might even be considered "high population".

In any case, when realms fall below that middle ground, which Agamaggan has not, then we need to start taking some action.

Our focus is going to be on those realms that are falling below a capacity we believe is acceptable to the players, and our intent for the ability to play the game with any amount of comfort. After that we would then continue to move up and focus on other realms.

When you look at the total population? Yes.

When you look at the population imbalances? No.

Agamaggan is about 70% horde, at least the active 70s.

Warren

Zuluhed

149. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:16:26 AM PDT

Q u o t e:

It has a higher nightly population than Agamaggan. It wouldn't be an immediate focus.

Zuluhed.

Can I ask what exactly is being done to help the dead realms? Like, real solutions, or the "reccomended tag" type solutions?

Schmizzle

< Remorseless >

Anub'arak

150. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:17:15 AM PDT

Q u o t e:

HAI SCHMIZZLE!

I wonder what server could be 3-1 O.o

I edited :-p

Wolfinhowler

< Menethil Shadowstep … >

Agamaggan

151. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:19:17 AM PDT

Q u o t e:
We're in the process of implementing alternate solutions to help assist the lower population realms. The problem here is that Agamaggan is not really what would be considered a "low population" realm, it's not even in the bottom 25 realms. While it's not at capacity (it's at around a 55% nightly pop) there are quite a few realms below it that we would need to focus our attention on first, such as Coilfang (around a 30% nightly pop) and 10 or so other realms like it.

Just to compare there are technically around 200 realms that aren't actually hitting capacity (no queues at any time for a month+) out of about 220 total US realms. While we would like all realms to be near capacity, there is a middle ground that still allows an extremely functional and fun play experience. A lot of the realms live in this "middle area" of capacity, and they have extremely lively economies and interactions. Before the population cap increase with Burning Crusade they might even be considered "high population".

In any case, when realms fall below that middle ground, which Agamaggan has not, then we need to start taking some action.

Our focus is going to be on those realms that are falling below a capacity we believe is acceptable to the players, and our intent for the ability to play the game with any amount of comfort. After that we would then continue to move up and focus on other realms.

Wouldnt it make sense to have these severely low pop servers (the bottom 25 as you put it) get free transfers unto servers like mine which arent as bd as some but are still pretty low? This would kill two birds with one stone essentially, the non critical servers would get some new blood in to prevent us from BEING critical, and the critical servers will instantly see an improvement from their old server.

Its one suggestion but I see it as very workable :> And thank you for responding, its good to know that you are aware of this problem and are taking measures to plan to fix it. Dont forget you have hundreds of irritated players willing to brainstorm ideas right here so if theres ever a time you guys are stumped just check with us ^-~

Drysc

Blizzard Poster

152. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:19:49 AM PDT

Q u o t e:

When you look at the total population? Yes.

When you look at the population imbalances? No.

Agamaggan is about 70% horde, at least the active 70s.

I can't pull out "active" 70's with any amount of certaintly, but Agamaggan has one of the most balanced overall factions. It's close to a 1.1:1

Pronebar

< CTU AGAMAGGAN >

Agamaggan

155. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:21:19 AM PDT

What I find funny is you can probably make one well-balanced highly progressed realm by merging 4 or 5 of the realms in this BG, but you'd never consider it, because your PR is apparently more important than the enjoyment of the players who shell out 15 bucks a month for the stupid game. You are going to eventually need to come out and just admit that spam releasing new servers every 2 weeks was a mistake, or you're going to see more of these threads pop up when people realize it's impossible to advance their characters or participate in the end game when your realm is dead.

Everything I say and do is right.

Yermann

< Fun >

Lothar

158. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:25:37 AM PDT

Q u o t e:

I can't pull out "active" 70's with any amount of certaintly, but Agamaggan has one of the most balanced overall factions. It's close to a 1.1:1

You might count up all the Karazhan raid IDs for a week, as a measure of how many 70s are active on a server.

Imterrible

< bear and gnome >

Spinebreaker

159. Re: Agamaggan NEEDS Help. 10/24/2007 11:26:37 AM PDT

Q u o t e:

I can't pull out "active" 70's with any amount of certaintly, but Agamaggan has one of the most balanced overall factions. It's close to a 1.1:1

You know why you can't?

Because there aren't any.

And i played on Agamaggan Since day 2 it was started until recently when I finally transferred off, and with the break up of not 1 but 2 raiding guilds, and the subsequent transfers off, Agamaggan will be about 70% active lvl 70 horde to alliance.

The fact that the Emberstorm Battlegroup exists is proof enough that blizzard does not pay attention to their servers. There was no reason for the TBC Release servers to be released when TBC opened up, since there were already servers with retardedly low populations to begin with.

GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM