Guild Wars 2

42: The answer to “nightcapping”, “server stacking”, queues, “ppt/fight” divides and everything (else with scoring)

Hello friends,

I’d like to remind you of something. Last winter when WvW changes were a hot topic (HoT topic, ~amiright?) and Gaile came in here to this very forum promising us that WvW development would not just be faceless polls, hr-hrm…

… an idea was thrown around that could help solve most of the topics that recurr here on a steady basis: How scoring has always divided servers into those who play for points (capture) and those who play for fights (kills). How captures over night or regional off-hours have always decided too many weekly matchups and how transfering off to another server to join a winning team because they have more players has been spiralling out of control.

Are you still with me? Good

The idea was that the current system does not need any wild ideas to be guided back in the right direction, where it can take a positive spiral and start generating better content. We don’t need changes to the glicko, because that is not the root issue at hand, and we don’t need to deface the server-system, servers’ identity or turn to design intensive seasonal meta-guild systems.

All we need to do is to scale scoring and make it population relative

This means that – as long as the servers in a matchup has a relatively similar amount of players on a map – the map will be worth its 100% in score.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a prime-time peak hour of 80 vs. 80 vs. 80 or a graveyard off-hour of 8 vs. 8 vs. 8. The map is still worth 100% of score from any ticks or kills.

What it will change is when there are fights of 80 vs. 8 vs. 8. Then the map will only be worth 10% of the score. If the map coverage is 80 vs. 40 vs. 40. The map will be worth 50% of the score. You get it, right?

So what are the implications of this relatively simple change?

It will solve server stacking issues. It will be pointless to transfer to a large server in order to win through superior numbers. Those numbers will not help the score on empty borders or against outmanned opposing groups (there may be no one around to retake objectives or you may kill more players while outmanning them, but those victories will be less valuable than when taking- and holding objectives or beating hostile groups of players with equal- or fewer numbers). Instead of encouring players to transfer to large servers the system will encourage players to spread thin.

It will solve night-capping issues – more or less in the same way. The issue with nightcapping has never been that english-speaking SEA players like to play on NA servers or SA spanish- or CAN french-speaking players who prefer EU servers. The issue has always been that those communities have stacked up on too few servers, giving certain servers unfair advantages in regional off-hours.

If those communities are encouraged to spread thin by the system, same as everyone else, then there is no issue. A system like the one I propose does not force them to go back to a more suitable timezone or stop them from contributing equally but it encourages them to spread thin over different servers to contribute equally or choose to contribute only relative opposing servers’ coverage or off-hour presence.

It can solve the issue of long queues on popular servers. A system like this does not require a queue. We can simply create new overflows for any map that passes the 80-man hardcap. Player 81-160 will end up on “Eternal Battlegrounds 2” and the score contributed by that map will be relative to whatever the servers can populate it with.

It can solve the “PPT server” vs. “fight server” divide that has existed since the dawn of organized WvW-play since that divide mostly exists because differing numbers makes it difficult for certain servers to fight back against superior numbers or retake lost objectives, when defended, in off-hours (or overall, because off-hours where there are no fights dominate total score too much with its capture points).

Make Anetmerica great again and mend the borders (appropriate today, no?)

All of this could bring an overall positive to the entire game mode since taking objectives and getting fights will not be seen as two so polarized different things. It can give the entire game mode a more holistic perspective on taking objectives to get fights or taking fights to win objectives. The objectives taken will better reflect whose gameplay dominates the map rather than whose off-hour coverage or man-advantage. That will give further incentives to actually take and defend objectives as well as forcing fights that could affect presence and influence on the map. Send a player to spawn and he will be nowhere near an objective. Take outmanned fights to free-up resources for capture. It will be a choice and not a have-cake-and-eat it advantage for servers with numerical superiority at any time.

Ps. I rarely log in to write here, so if you attempt to discuss any of the points raised with me here in this thread: I may not be around to read or reply to them for a fairly long time.

Feel free to talk about them though.

This primary solves points, but does nothing for the actual fights, also how does this affect personal rewards?

Many would rather have the “easy win” in fights over the win in points. And might not even notice or care about the change to points.

And people still crying about night capping, grief.

Pretty long and detailed post. I, personally, am not so sure with the idea of Eternal Battlegrounds Overflow however, because hopefully, when people see that there are queues, then they would play on another border. If there are overflow maps, then I feel like most people would only play on EB and leave the borders alone. There’s also the possibility that 2 different enemy zergs will end up on different EB maps.

Also, those that say others are “crying” about night capping, most likely has a night capping presence. It is quite an unfair advantage just because some of us need sleep. It is still pretty much a thing and I know it’s pretty difficult to balance it.

Justine.6351:

And people still crying about night capping, grief.

If you met servers we are facing were they cap all late night and early morning and then when people join back during morning all they do is run away from every fight. Run or port and back cap what others have flipped. Except for about 2 hours in the evening were they are roughly 100 players on the map and fights do happen, and your server roll them over. This matches are not fun for anyone, good loot sure, but after a few days people are bored as hell. This is how it is in EU for some servers that are not stacked or are night cap servers. In NA you have the oceanic players to cover you when you sleep so i suppose the issue is not really that bad in NA

You do realize a lot of night capping teams are small groups right? I’ve seen Baruch bay’s night capping team and there’s not more than ten of them. And this system effectively punishes karma trains who go to maps without conflict to ppt…the score would be worth less because no one is on the map. This would punish ppt crews more than night cappers.

Problematic with that idea is that would be people changing maps to secure a high tick. Same problem arises when a zerg switches map to rush something, how do you calculate that? Is there a period of let’s say 2 or 3 ticks where the % doesn’t get updated? Lot’s of issues which could lead to potential abuse and/or even less fights I think.

The points you get per tick are still way to high. Needs more points per capture and way less points per tick. That way activity from all servers would get rewarded instead of onesided karmatrain. That would not solve population imbalance though as the issue could be still that a much larger group just backcaps all the stuff.

The problem is just that by now (and for quite some time) the game mode servers to many playstyles which just not go hand in hand where balance without making one group mad is impossible. There’s no clear vision of what the game mode is actually supposed to do and no balance around that.

More points per capture would increase karma training because people who do ppt would not care about keeping kitten (fights/defense) and they would only kappa kappa kappa all day long. You’d have to actively seek and hunt them down whereas in the current system you at least get fights because of defense.

Fremtid.3528:

More points per capture would increase karma training because people who do ppt would not care about keeping kitten (fights/defense) and they would only kappa kappa kappa all day long. You’d have to actively seek and hunt them down whereas in the current system you at least get fights because of defense.

Actually with the system proposed in the OP, if 50 people karma train an empty map, they’d get next to nothing from captures. So if the PPT was also small they would get next to nothing.

Personally I’m more for reducing the personal rewards for zerging, so not a very popular opinion

Uhh…I am pretty sure I made an opinion on someone’s suggestion to artificially inflate point values of “smaller populations.”

From: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Suggestion-Skirmish-Scoring/first#post6328331

Chinchilla.1785:

Mikau.6920:

I feel there is no difference between the new scoring and the old one, is maybe even worse.

Why would there be a difference? Coverage still affects it the most, and scoring does not physically change population. You can fiddle with the scoring numbers all you want, but it will still be an inconsistent experience to the players unless they are moved around in a balanced manner.

Mikau.6920:

As suggestion, what about new points for each skimish:

• 5 for 1st;
• 4 for 2nd;
• 3 for 3rd.

In that way would alleviate the differences between the servers (the 1st isn’t 3 times ahead of 3rd, but almost 2 times). Maybe other values like 4, 3, 2 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd if the diference is too low?

Why would you seek to remove the ‘differences between the servers’ in a match up?

I am against artificially handicapping scores to make up for gaps in population (again, coverage helps current scores the most). What you suggest is to have match-ups linger on due to closer artificial scores despite drastic differences in populations.

This game mode lives and dies by its population, it is unfortunate and short sighted that people felt that scoring should take priority. I believe if population/coverage was resolved scoring would have been less of an issue….regardless that is another topic.

TLDR: Artificially inflating the value of a person (outnumbered or otherwise) is bad in that it doesn’t change their game state. They are still outmatched, or more correctly, mismatched against a blob with nothing to do. Fiddling with scores won’t guarantee good game play…and what sort of taste will be left in players mouths after being pushed out by score to “transfer.” Feels bad mang.

subversiontwo.7501:

Make Anetmerica great again and mend the borders (appropriate today, no?)

I could not have summed up your post better myself.

Some1 out there, feeling forgotten and disconnected, advocating to make the process of change allllllll about themmmm at the expense of others. Cause their playtime is just sooooo much more important than everyone else’s.

Unfortunately the forums are dominated by euro players, not american players…..start praying they don’t start imitating you.

You should realize that skirmishes solve the nightcapping problem and your post is offering ‘lesss’ not more for the “majority” of players who don’t happen to be you. The others above already went through most of the points. Like how anything close to 90% reductions in ppt score per map based on population is absolutely atrocious. How did you come up with a 10% ppt value…..just what!!!!??? Even basic arithmetic will show how few points you will generate from conquering the entire map….much less the points per person generated per person helping to take things. Try and put some thought into ur numbers at least…go on the wiki or something and look at how much ppt there is per map and take 10% of that….its NOTHING. People don’t play to distribute their forces evenly all over every map. And when u outnumber people on more than 1 map STILL. Or the enemy can just abandon a map when its too hard. Abandon ebg when they work hard to take it all fairly and they only get 10% of the ppt, pretty funny ideas you have.

subversiontwo.7501:

We don’t need changes to the glicko, because that is not the root issue at hand, and we don’t need to deface the server-system, servers’ identity or turn to design intensive seasonal meta-guild systems.

All we need to do is to scale scoring and make it population relative
…….
You get it, right?

Lemme just….I HAVE TO, cause this is just soooo perfect. Just this is amazing that you wrote this so well. I’m sorry but I have to uncloak the veil here for anyone not in the loop:

*We don’t need to change capitalism, because that is not the root issue at hand, and we don’t need to not question our policing and gun laws, or turn to public healthcare and government assisted social programs.

All we need to do is tariff all imports and weed the ‘guests’ from the population.*

THAT IS SO PERFECT! Thankyou for that, omg that was great.

This was a troll post right? cause that was just so perfect. I don’t know how what you wrote could possibly not be at least “at little” bit of a troll post.

I am gonna be flagged for this, but if I do your OP should also get flagged (tellme with a straight face your OP wasn’t political? plz do). Moderators are not in the business of fairness though, but that was worth writing. NO REGRETS, except that I broke the formatting somehow and can’t get it fixed.

EVEN your ending is perfect! Numerical advantages and all that! The fewer should have MORE! MORE!!!!!! MOREEEEEEE!!! NO PARALLELS HERE AT ALL!
“Take outmanned fights to free-up resources for capture. It will be a choice and not a have-cake-and-eat it advantage for servers with numerical superiority at any time.”

Take the cake from the people and give it to the guys in the tower instead! No cake for the masses!!!! NO CAKE FOR YOU!
Do you write? cause you should write, and I should write with you. THis is gold.

What does the 42 in the title stand for though? I didn’t catch onto that part, and the hidden meaning there.
“42 U.S. Code Chapter 144 – DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND BILL OF RIGHTS”?

Omg you are a delight. This is the best thread ever. I apologize, I didn’t get the thread at first and lashed out premature. I get it now though. You have my respect sir, thankyou.

Score bias has been suggested before. Thanks for writing it out so well and in such detail.

There are several issues with this approach:

• One team can prevent the other worlds gaining any points by simply not playing the game.
• Tinkering with scoring does not make the gameplay any more enjoyable for the small team against blobs.
• Artificially inflating a weak world’s score does not make them any fitter to get matched up against strong worlds.
• Players will find it demeaning if their team gets carried by handicaps.

Korgov.7645:

Score bias has been suggested before. Thanks for writing it out so well and in such detail.

There are several issues with this approach:

• One team can prevent the other worlds gaining any points by simply not playing the game.
• Tinkering with scoring does not make the gameplay any more enjoyable for the small team against blobs.
• Artificially inflating a weak world’s score does not make them any fitter to get matched up against strong worlds.
• Players will find it demeaning if their team gets carried by handicaps.

This. Too easily exploitable, imagine if you “flip” the first issue aka the server with more players just making fake accounts on the other server to afk with them on a map.

It’s too easily exploitable if the scaling is applied at the individual match level. As others have said, you can establish a lead then get all of your friends to quit WvW while afking their alts on the other servers.

So it would need to be applied at a gamewide level, i.e. reduce scoring based on total game population across the board during the night hours.

This should have happened right at the beginning of the game of course, but even if it happened tomorrow, it would be way too little, way too late at this point.

You want to match servers by their population and coverage. So what that means is during a certain time of day those populations on that day of the week should match. We already have an idea of how this is calculated based on whether or not your account gets a WvW Opinion Poll (so maybe it includes some x amount of participation per hour and WvW Rank up for each skirmish).

Scaling scoring will in some ways still reward PPT gameplay while maintaining the fight focused players morale in their ability to fight other players both on WvW small scale and WvW large scale fighting.

To fix (some) exploits you could make it only work for 2nd/3rd place during any given moment.

EG without a fix 1st place obtains solid lead, logs out to reduce ppt for other servers.

Instead, they just don’t benefit (or not as much instead of not at all) from the “no pop active” status.

Also rather than instant checks, the tracker should “move towards” the desired rates (per map). So if a server secures a bunch of stuff on a bl, then ports to a different one, instead of instantly adjusting ppt, it would slowly shift towards the adjusted value over time.

In the past, I was always opposed to this solution because it;

• Incentivises people to suggest that other players leave maps in order to reduce enemy zerg’s impacts on the score. e.g. Abandon the map entirely rather than have small groups/soloers capping camps.

• If the score were to adjust depending on the total number of WvW players a server has on ALL maps (excluding EotM, for clarity), that would make more sense to me.

I want the matches to seem;

• fair-sided ,
• winnable by any of the three sides,
• until long into the week (so it’s not over by Monday)
  I’m not 100% convinced the OP’s suggestion does this, but it seems something that would be better than the nothing that we’ve got in the pipeline. Does this sound desperate? It’s meant to.