Guild Wars 2

This is straight up an awful idea. This change won’t help a competitive environment at all. Period. Being on FA, seeing this change makes me not want to play the game mode at all. In T2 right now we have the T1 server of the week which is TC, who has won every skirmish except for one so far this week. Then there is FA and SBI. We have more consistent coverage than SBI but neither of us match TC’s coverage. We are consistently beating SBI but under this new scoring system we would only be 1 point ahead of them after countless 2nd place skirmishes. On what planet is this system fair or a good idea? Don’t even test it for even a week. Scrap it. Scrap it just like the rest of the unfinished kitten in your game.

Quit trying to play for second place every week, go after the first place server for a change. You think it’s fun for the weakest server in the match up to get focused constantly? If FA and SBI both focus TC the match will be a lot more fun for everyone.

Tell that to SBI, whenever TC is rushing our ebg keep the rest of our corner turns SBI’s color.

How would you co-ordinate a double team attack without some form of cross server chat or voice comms? Not individual whispers surely?!

It doesn’t need to be coordinated. Its simple to see that server X is getting attacked by server Y, so server Z can come in and cap smaller objectives while X is busy defending a t3 keep.

Yuffi.2430:

How would you co-ordinate a double team attack without some form of cross server chat or voice comms? Not individual whispers surely?!

Both servers hit the leading server’s objective.
This way, the leading server’s main force has to be spread thinner, giving the weaker server better chance in the fight.

freecarl.1320:

Tell that to SBI, whenever TC is rushing our ebg keep the rest of our corner turns SBI’s color.

SBI is also playing for second so of course they hit FA.
That is exactly what they are trying to discourage with the new scoring.
With the new scoring, SBI won’t gain anything by hitting FA all the time. Same with FA. The best chance is to team up against TC.

To all the people suggesting “just team up”:

What happens when the T1 server with T1 coverage and T1 numbers on every map wins against the T2 servers anyway? Yeah, no change. T2 will still be a huge mess of rotating T1 servers crushing T2.

In the case the 2 T2 servers actually damage T1 Flavor of the Week enough to knock them down to rank 2, won’t the 3rd place server still be 3rd place?

The 2 T2 servers will not be able to knock down a T1 FotW to 3rd place. Because they will fight back and focus on the weakest server of the two. I can’t imagine FA defending SBI’s home BLs. I can’t imagine SBI defending FA’s home BLs.

If you’ve paid attention to the past few weeks, T1 servers aren’t winning in T2 by a close margin because we’re “ignoring” them. They’re winning because they have near 24/7 coverage or coverage when T2 servers don’t. They’re winning by tens of thousands of points, not a mere thousand.

If T2 servers combined their strength to take on a T1 server, then one T2 server would still get screwed. The T1 server that got “beaten” (lowered to second place in T2), would be in that tier for a longer period of time, which means the T2 servers would be in a constant state of 2v1. That isn’t fun. 2v1s aren’t fun. WvW is meant to be a 1v1v1 game-mode. Setting it up to be a 2v1 game-mode just makes winning less rewarding and makes T2 an even bigger kitten-show than it already is.

Whoever thought this was a great idea has shown they have no idea how to give the community what it wants. The community wants 3 T2 servers fighting each other, 3 T1 servers fighting each other, etc. We don’t want to funnel more people into T1 servers because you get the current problem: 4 T1 servers.

Fix your server population nonsense by making transfers OFF T1 servers cheaper, and making transfers to T1 impossible.

I don’t understand the point in ppt anymore. Just I feel kittened for even trying to increase my team’s ppt. It doesn’t matter at alllll what I do. I can even command a group of 20 or more and steamroll stuff and I still don’t feel like it matters unless I’m upgrading thigns to T3 or Destroying T3 stuff.

Anyone else just feel dumb for playing the way we used to play? I only feel like im doing something when I’m working to upgrade something to T3. And this requires considerable time, investment, and repetition. Break out the guild upgades……get people to escort yaks, get people to defend yaks.

The whole game is turning into yak escort simulator. The best tactics for borderlands are going to be to have a havoc group in the enemy territory, and everyone else focusing on upgrading holdings to T3, putting all guild upgrades on them, and expanding these holdings very very slowly one at a time outward and upgrading them to T3 one at a time. Making golemns for camps and having them stall enemy attacks….lulz. Just stupid kittent like that….

Pay to win baby. Seeing nothing but golemn rushes each night now…..and no enemy can defend against that many golemns with so few. No defensive siege can save you from the money.

No more playing for 2nd while the stacked server runs away with the ball? Nice chance I like it!

this almost makes up for the horrible upgraded objective stuff you added last patch. Good change

I cannot understand why on earth they would change this. And even worse how people can possibly justify that this is a good idea.
Seriously just delete wvw and have every1 go to pve land where every1 is a winner zzz

There should be no “teaming up” this is a 1v1v1 no matter what. The new scoring system directly entourages a 2v1.

Bad bad bad change. I hope it gets revert next patch. I really do.

Vova.2640:

I cannot understand why on earth they would change this. And even worse how people can possibly justify that this is a good idea.
Seriously just delete wvw and have every1 go to pve land where every1 is a winner zzz

There should be no “teaming up” this is a 1v1v1 no matter what. The new scoring system directly entourages a 2v1.

Bad bad bad change. I hope it gets revert next patch. I really do.

The old system encouraged worse 2v1s. If your only complaint is that it will encourage a 2v1 on the top server then its no argument at all.

Move to the winning server if winning matters that much to you. You get no benefits for it other than moving up a tier or maintaining your tier.

The smart players have learned to let go of score and have turned their focus on fights and having fun. For those that have their fun affected by wins, they can move to the bandwagon servers that fail 90% of every fight they don’t massively outnumber their opponents with and PvD all night while everyone’s asleep. I won’t be the judge if that’s what you like but what is victory without purpose – and there isn’t much of a purpose to winning in WvW.

I agree that this change is a silly idea but OP and all the other players that still cling to their PPT dreams need to move on. As soon as you let it go you’ll have a lot more fun.

So basically if you’ll never have a chance of coming first just mess around all week and leave everything paper. Don’t bother with upgrades, defending or slotting tactics/improvements just sit back and karma karma karma karmetraaaaiiiin, we cap and go, we cap and gooo-ooooooh.

I guess I just don’t see the point in this change other than to make the 2nd/3rd place score much closer, even if in reality one of the two servers might be considerably stronger than the other. It’s not going to encourage 2v1’s — people almost always go after the easier target over one that is going to be challenging and they will continue to do so after this scoring change (basically they go after the server with the weaker coverage at that time, or paper structures over upgraded/sieged up structures).

Tier 2 is going to be downright silly with the same two servers getting 1 point every skirmish while the Tier 1 server of the week wins by double their score (the overall score total will be lower, but the ratio and the glicko ratings will be more unbalanced).

Hopeful this scoring will create more match variety. Not too many people still care about scoring and tiers in the 20hours they don’t play. we just want to see what other guilds are out there to fight in our respective raid times.

So far being in t4 isn’t bad as there is rotation of different servers in and out. stagnation and match fixing causes attrition.

Djamonja.6453:

I guess I just don’t see the point in this change other than to make the 2nd/3rd place score much closer,

Its going to make the gap between 1st and 3rd closer and gives less reason to 2v1 2nd or 3rd. Its not as though 2nd and 3rd really mean anything.

shiri.4257:

Hopeful this scoring will create more match variety. Not too many people still care about scoring and tiers in the 20hours they don’t play. we just want to see what other guilds are out there to fight in our respective raid times.

So far being in t4 isn’t bad as there is rotation of different servers in and out. stagnation and match fixing causes attrition.

It won’t create more variety, at least not for T2. T2 at this moment in time always has 2 servers that are T2 in population and coverage, and 1 server that is T1 in population and coverage. 1 of the T2 servers rotates out with one of the T2.5 servers every couple of weeks, smashes T3 and bumps back to T2. The T1 server smashes all of T2 because of all the off-hours coverage and server blobs they have. Then the T1 server goes back to T1, knocking another T1 server down to T2 to do the same thing over again.

That is a problem of population and server transfer fees/limitations, not of scoring.

With this new system, T1 servers will absolutely dominate, accumulating a massive amount of points during periods of low coverage.

Let’s make an example.

Skirmish 1/PeakTime:

Server 1(T2 server+oceanic):1
Server 2(T2 server+sporadic coverage):1
Server 3 (T1 server+coverage during most timezones):2

Skirmish 2/WindingDown, Server 1 starts logging on and back-capping. Get the same score as Server 2.

Server 1:2
Server 2: 2
Server 3: 4

Skirmish 3/Server 1 has the coverage for this skirmish and flips everything.

Server 1: 4
Server 2: 3
Server 3: 5

Skirmish 4/Servers 2 and 3 have ppt heroes log on before work:

Server 1: 5
Server 2: 4
Server 3: 7

Skirmish 5/Server 3 has top coverage with little resistance, and rides the ppt heroes train.

Server 1: 6
Server 2: 5
Server 3: 9

Repeat every day for a week, with some changes between Servers 1 and 2.

So what we see here is teams and players that work hard to retake their BL, only to get 2nd place, are awarded the same amount of points as the people who aren’t even there.

Maybe in T4 they don’t care about scoring, but scoring is very much a factor to consider when you’re fighting to stay in T2 against T1 servers where you can actually get some fights that aren’t steamroll easy.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

shiri.4257:

Hopeful this scoring will create more match variety. Not too many people still care about scoring and tiers in the 20hours they don’t play. we just want to see what other guilds are out there to fight in our respective raid times.

So far being in t4 isn’t bad as there is rotation of different servers in and out. stagnation and match fixing causes attrition.

It won’t create more variety, at least not for T2. T2 at this moment in time always has 2 servers that are T2 in population and coverage, and 1 server that is T1 in population and coverage. 1 of the T2 servers rotates out with one of the T2.5 servers every couple of weeks, smashes T3 and bumps back to T2. The T1 server smashes all of T2 because of all the off-hours coverage and server blobs they have. Then the T1 server goes back to T1, knocking another T1 server down to T2 to do the same thing over again.

That is a problem of population and server transfer fees/limitations, not of scoring.

With this new system, T1 servers will absolutely dominate, accumulating a massive amount of points during periods of low coverage.

Let’s make an example.

Skirmish 1/PeakTime:

Server 1(T2 server+oceanic):1
Server 2(T2 server+sporadic coverage):1
Server 3 (T1 server+coverage during most timezones):2

Skirmish 2/WindingDown, Server 1 starts logging on and back-capping. Get the same score as Server 2.

Server 1:2
Server 2: 2
Server 3: 4

Skirmish 3/Server 1 has the coverage for this skirmish and flips everything.

Server 1: 4
Server 2: 3
Server 3: 5

Skirmish 4/Servers 2 and 3 have ppt heroes log on before work:

Server 1: 5
Server 2: 4
Server 3: 7

Skirmish 5/Server 3 has top coverage with little resistance, and rides the ppt heroes train.

Server 1: 6
Server 2: 5
Server 3: 9

Repeat every day for a week, with some changes between Servers 1 and 2.

So what we see here is teams and players that work hard to retake their BL, only to get 2nd place, are awarded the same amount of points as the people who aren’t even there.

Maybe in T4 they don’t care about scoring, but scoring is very much a factor to consider when you’re fighting to stay in T2 against T1 servers where you can actually get some fights that aren’t steamroll easy.

It won’t change the overall outcome of the week but it might make the week more fun.
Both the T2 servers were fighting for second place by trying to keep each other down, now you actually have to try and win the Skirmish. This makes TC the target and causes them to split their force into more manageable numbers so they don’t just steam roll everything while you back cap around them.

You won’t win the coverage war but the quality of the fights during peak hours might improve.

sounds like Op is clueless about WvW, now 1st get double teamed instead of 1st and 3rd double team 2nd or 1st and 2nd double team 3rd.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

With this new system, T1 servers will absolutely dominate, accumulating a massive amount of points during periods of low coverage.

Under a 3-2-1 system the margin server 3 has would be similar it would just have an overall higher score. So 2-1-1 has less blowouts and closer scores overall across an entire week.

Man, some of the comments in this thread… lol

Give it a couple weeks and see how it goes, have to see if players adapt to the new mindset. This is a change that can get the focus off the 3rd place team and maybe have 2nd 3rd push 1st more often.

P.S dang T3 is really close this week.

Another example using current T1 matchup.

Under the 3,2,1 system the scores are currently: BG 116, Mag 102, JQ 76. A spread of 40 between 1st and 3rd.

Under a 2,1,1 system the scores would be currently: BG 71, Mag 70, JQ 55. A spread of 16 from 1st to 3rd.

2-1-1 system would clearly result in much closer matches.

You guys really want to have “even matches”
Give everyone 1 point, regardless of how they score.
There you go, perfectly even matches.

Seriously though, this needs to be reverted.

morrolan.9608:

Another example using current T1 matchup.

Under the 3,2,1 system the scores are currently: BG 116, Mag 102, JQ 76. A spread of 40 between 1st and 3rd.

Under a 2,1,1 system the scores would be currently: BG 71, Mag 70, JQ 55. A spread of 16 from 1st to 3rd.

2-1-1 system would clearly result in much closer matches.

Doesn’t that just mean that the server that tries hardest to win is getting rewarded far less for their efforts? Because that’s all I see. Your server can make a kitten good push in off hours and wring out a second place, but the currently offline 3rd place will get just as many points as you. Where’s the motivation to even bother?

Crescendo Forte.4821:

morrolan.9608:

Another example using current T1 matchup.

Under the 3,2,1 system the scores are currently: BG 116, Mag 102, JQ 76. A spread of 40 between 1st and 3rd.

Under a 2,1,1 system the scores would be currently: BG 71, Mag 70, JQ 55. A spread of 16 from 1st to 3rd.

2-1-1 system would clearly result in much closer matches.

Doesn’t that just mean that the server that tries hardest to win is getting rewarded far less for their efforts? Because that’s all I see. Your server can make a kitten good push in off hours and wring out a second place, but the currently offline 3rd place will get just as many points as you. Where’s the motivation to even bother?

1st is still 1st, if they want to remain 1st they’ll push.

The new system is BS.

Didn’t we vote for a new GLICKO system? Wtf are you doing ANet, seriously WTF!?

Whatever. More importantly in the patch notes it says “this is a change that we and the players wanted to try….”. What players? Who? This line in the patch notes just appears to be anet trying to continue the idea of player participation in wvw development when infact this doesn’t exist. Cannons were bought in after a vote, but the cannons had allready been developed so the vote was a farce. This “player” involement doesnt exist.

There are 2 benefits for 2-1-1 victory points over 3-2-1 victory points:

1. There is no incentive to fight for the 2nd place in a skirmish.
2. Both losing teams will be at equal position to catch up.

There are 2 downsides too:

1. Glicko rating rewards for the losing teams will not reflect their relative strengths.
2. The matchup can be decided earlier into the week (halfway instead of 2/3rds).

I see this as an excellent change. Thumbs up. Maybe now we will really see the ebb and flow of 3-way warfare instead of lopsided, stale matchups.

However the Glicko rating rewards may need adjusting in far future. Right now Glicko doesn’t mean a thing due ANet manually changing the ratings and the world linking artificially changing teams’ strengths every 2 months. Once the world linking ends and the server populations get rebalanced, the leaderboard becomes meaningful again.

The yet unreleased Last Stand feature could make the last day of the matchup significant. On the other hand it could make Friday too exhausting. First you need to giddy up 24 hours to secure the matchup victory. Then comes the reset and you need to up your game to strike fear and hopelessness to the enemies of the next matchup. That’s a long play session that.

Nightingale.8364:

Whatever. More importantly in the patch notes it says “this is a change that we and the players wanted to try….”. What players? Who? This line in the patch notes just appears to be anet trying to continue the idea of player participation in wvw development when infact this doesn’t exist.

It was discussed a while ago mainly favourably.

The main probably I see with 2-1-1 is that it makes the strongest server basicly decide who comes second place, instead of themselves fighting for that. The idea that the two weaker servers will play friends and gang up on the strongest is… just not going to happen. No, they will both fight each other like they should, then the top dog comes in and sits on one of them causing them to loose.

As with the old system, this only works if the wins are traded between all three servers on a frequent basis, except now you dont even have to bother fighting for 2nd place because it wont help. Just roll over and die already.

I like the change. One of the worst things to me is when a Com will avoid enemy zergs focus on ppt objectives. This is even worse when your “playing for second” for the week. This change is one that encourages you to seek fights instead of door pushing. If you want to ppt the strongest play becomes 2v1 vrs the strongest server, not avoiding them and picking on the weakest.

What is there to like? It basiclly kills the competiveness of this system even more.

The Number One server is a save number one while second and third dont give a kitten about the MU.

This will draw even more players away from this gamemode/game.

Thea Cherry.6327:

What is there to like? It basiclly kills the competiveness of this system even more.

Scores will be closer than before, thats more competitive.

Thea Cherry.6327:

What is there to like? It basiclly kills the competiveness of this system even more.

The Number One server is a save number one while second and third dont give a kitten about the MU.

This will draw even more players away from this gamemode/game.

At this time, BG leads Mag by 15 vp, under the new scoring they’d be leading by only 4. How is a 15 point gap more competitive than a 4 point gap? The T3 match is going to go down to Friday. A great match. Wish I was there.

As for TC/FA/SBI, do you really, I mean REALLY, think that FA or SBI cares about this matchup? Or the next one, or the next one, or the next one? Do you think that ANY change to the scoring will change the outcome? The same can be said for T4.

What’s going to take the fun out of the lopsided matchups is that the number one server who has better coverage and population, will now start to siege up their structures and even camps to YB levels and beyond.

What’s better about this is that instead of the first place server deciding who finishes second or third, the third place server can decide who finishes first. Does the second place server really want to hit the third place server? This could make for more interesting map politics.

It was discussed a while ago mainly favourably.

Where was this discussed morrolan.9680 ? Could you find me the post or include some Dev feedback that was mentioned? Maybe it was just the 20 or so people that reply on these forums on a regular basis that discussed it, that certainly does not ecompass the players or deserve a comment that “we and the players wanted to try”.

This idea may appeal to the minority of people who read these forums but that does not in any way constitute a basis for saying that it is us the players who wanted this, that is untrue and misleading. " we and a small minority of players who chatted about this on the forums" would be a more accurate description. Anet has lost touch with the wvw player base, this change along with other recent changes just show that.

Funny how everyone just assumes their server will not win a single skirmish. Here’s an idea WIN a skirmish or two and you will earn more points…

Why not 1 for the winner and 0 for others?

The 1 in 2-1-1 only marks the passing of time and everyone gets it even for not playing.

displayname.8315:

Funny how everyone just assumes their server will not win a single skirmish. Here’s an idea WIN a skirmish or two and you will earn more points…

Yeah, in my match the first place server has won all but one skirmish.

Here’s a better idea, balance the population and you will have a better WvW for all.

P.S. My server has won only one skirmish this match, the other server has zero wins.

Nightingale.8364:

It was discussed a while ago mainly favourably.

Where was this discussed morrolan.9680 ? Could you find me the post or include some Dev feedback that was mentioned? Maybe it was just the 20 or so people that reply on these forums on a regular basis that discussed it, that certainly does not ecompass the players or deserve a comment that “we and the players wanted to try”.

This idea may appeal to the minority of people who read these forums but that does not in any way constitute a basis for saying that it is us the players who wanted this, that is untrue and misleading. " we and a small minority of players who chatted about this on the forums" would be a more accurate description. Anet has lost touch with the wvw player base, this change along with other recent changes just show that.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Official-Feedback-Thread-WvW-Skirmishes/first

P.S it’s a change they’re testing, not like it’s a permanent change.

Lord of Rings.5371:

Why not 1 for the winner and 0 for others?

The 1 in 2-1-1 only marks the passing of time and everyone gets it even for not playing.

All teams need some victory points for fair adjustment of Glicko ratings after the matchup. Even though the ratings no longer reflect the strength of servers nor anything else for that matter.

Servers with the weakest coverage don’t even need to turn up now to be rewarded. Smart move

Reverence.6915:

Servers with the weakest coverage don’t even need to turn up now to be rewarded. Smart move

What? Servers that don’t show up now still get points awarded in 3,2,1. This makes zero sense.

Swamurabi.7890:

Yeah, in my match the first place server has won all but one skirmish.

Here’s a better idea, balance the population and you will have a better WvW for all.

P.S. My server has won only one skirmish this match, the other server has zero wins.

That would make you a lock for 2nd place congrats, not that winning 1st or 2nd means anything. If your server is super dead like most you should find somewhere better to play.

The linkage im on has taken 2nd place in T1 NA for awhile now. Don’t really care tho as long as there’s stuff happening when I log in, which usually there is.

displayname.8315:

Swamurabi.7890:

Yeah, in my match the first place server has won all but one skirmish.

Here’s a better idea, balance the population and you will have a better WvW for all.

P.S. My server has won only one skirmish this match, the other server has zero wins.

That would make you a lock for 2nd place congrats, not that winning 1st or 2nd means anything. If your server is super dead like most you should find somewhere better to play.

The linkage im on has taken 2nd place in T1 NA for awhile now. Don’t really care tho as long as there’s stuff happening when I log in, which usually there is.

I’ve been playing EotM lately just to get the same feeling as being on an overstacked server.

man up and win the skirmish

imo this encourage people to transfer to a stacked server even more, since this is win or nothing. Those players in a server’s weak timezone will have zero objective to do(except karma/wxp farming/teabag), since all their effort will become nothing no matter how hard they fight.

However, let’s see how this change will really do since this may not a permanent change, cheers.

we live in an age where the team in last team still gets a trophy…

mulzi.8273:

we live in an age where the team in last team still gets a trophy…

Actually this is more like “Winner take all” instead of giving a consolation prize to 2nd place.