Guild Wars 2

Recently, I was asked if saving a keep was worthwhile compared to just flipping it back. I did some math and totally botched it so I decided to do it better. Figured I’d share.

As a baseline, I’ll calculate the number of points your server misses out on while a T0 structure upgrades back to T3 assuming perfect Yak survival and camp holding. The formula is as follows:

(Upgrade Time in Minutes / 5) x ((20/140)x(T3-T0) + (40/140)x(T3-T1) + (80/140)x(T3-T2))

Where T0…T3 is the point value of the structure at that tier.

ABL
Garrison – 180 points
Hills – 176 points
Bay – 132 points
NET – 411 points
NWT – 461 points
SET – 102 points
SWT – 112 points

DBL
Rampart – 149 points
Airkeep – 246 points
Firekeep – 208 points
NET – 180 points
NWT – 176 points
SET – 118 points
SWT – 118 points

Naturally, if a camp flips or a Yak is slapped, the number of lost points rises dramatically.

This means that even with PPK enabled, dying to save a keep is worth it with tiered scoring so long as they don’t get hundreds more kills than you. In the previous system where all upgrades gave the same amount, there was no direct benefit in giving your life for the cause. You would retain the extra defenses, but that’s all.

The data can be found, along with upgrade times, here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AvuefUnzOVLcp1c44-KHu6q9iXgKlkzMfLMOo7a2IwY/edit?usp=sharing

The “Don’t be a bag” statement is about preventing frustration. 20 random players trying to defend against twice their numbers or more simply isn’t much fun at some point regardless of the score impact.

This is what has completely been missed by score tweakers and even ANet. The score is a symptom not an actual problem.

I’m not trying to solve all of the world’s problems here. There was some uncertainty about whether a certain action was worth it with respect to points. I put together a little information to help people answer that question. That’s all~

Helpful information. Thanks for that.

One would also need to factor in the opportunity cost of defending vs retaking camps and structures that have been flipped. Meaning, if you have a lot of heat on a keep, people should figure how many resources (time, people, etc) should be devoted to defending that keep based on how ugly the rest of the map looks (and the other maps too).

If it’s data collection and math, I’m up for it, but can you clarify what you want to know a bit?

Are you asking if a server gets more points by defending structure A or backcapping structures B-Z? If so, a T3 keep is worth 20 while T0 camps are 2 and T0 towers are 4. That means defending a T3 keep is as much points as backcapping all 4 towers and 2 camps in the short run. If you’re going to be able to hold the stuff you flip and keep Yaks running for PPY, it’s worthwhile, but otherwise it’s better to defend the keep.

There are minor exceptions. On DBL, you need the northern towers to allow the Yaks from the side camps to get to the home keep. Defense is still a priority, but you probably don’t want to just ignore the towers. On ABL, the northern towers take 12 hours to upgrade under perfect conditions so you may want to take special care of them.

A personal note—I like to backcap things just to take the heat off of a keep I’m defending. Blobbers gonna blob, after all, so if they send the blob to hit a tower I get more time to prepare defenses and run Yaks.

I meant more that defenders should read the map when considering what to do based on your calculations.

For example, during a 20 min defense, it’s often a good idea to have a couple of roamers go out to flip the camps immediately behind the attackers to limit their source of supply. Taking other camps and towers with just a handful of people won’t detract from defense by much, but it will give you points for each tick while you’re defending the keep that you wouldn’t otherwise get.

Finally, when it comes to defending a keep, you need to consider whether or not you’ll be able to successfully defend, or even how long you can delay, and then weigh that potentially lost cause against more productive things that you could have otherwise done.

I think what you’ve done already is about as far as one would want to take the math. Good job.

Lot of good info and commentary in this thread. These days the fighting-for-the-sake-of-fighting crew seems to have taken charge of the argument over how WvW should progress. The increasing irrelevance of the score to any external outcome has led matchplay-oriented players to go find more satisfying things to do but to my way of thinking WvW is and always has been about taking and holding structures.

When and if we ever get back to a situation where either skirmish or match outcomes matter to a critical mass of players then these kinds of calculations will need to be made by both commanders and individuals as a matter of course. Until then I am just going to carry on enjoying myself by defending to the last second and running back from waypoint until the color changes. You can have my bags – I’ll have my fun.

Choppy.4183:

I meant more that defenders should read the map when considering what to do based on your calculations.

For example, during a 20 min defense, it’s often a good idea to have a couple of roamers go out to flip the camps immediately behind the attackers to limit their source of supply. Taking other camps and towers with just a handful of people won’t detract from defense by much, but it will give you points for each tick while you’re defending the keep that you wouldn’t otherwise get.

This right here! When I see a blob against blob and we are generally winning or at least holding, I like to go back and get camps or even take a couple and flip a house or two…hehe…house. Having a camp that can get the yaks flowing is better than not having at all.

Good OP though.

Thanks Sviel. Excellent post. This totally opened my eyes on the value of the ABL north towers. It’s a lot easier to prioritize defense with these statistics.

Would you be able to provide data for the EB objectives?

I haven’t timed the Yak routes on EBG so I can’t provide any data there. In general, since the distances are shorter, minimum upgrade times are faster and less points are lost due to re-upgrading. I would guess that all of the towers upgrade at about the same rate since they’re served by two camps each at similar distances.

Defending doesn’t give the phat lewts that backcapping does. There are more lewts to be had by backcapping and losing the match than defending and winning.

Lewts > maths

< playing devil’s advocate, cool your jets.

zedapoc.1493:

Defending doesn’t give the phat lewts that backcapping does. There are more lewts to be had by backcapping and losing the match than defending and winning.

Lewts > maths

< playing devil’s advocate, cool your jets.

I suspect that the increase in ppt for upgraded structures is their grand solution to “increase the reward and importance of defending” that they were selling on so much just before HoT release.

I’ve never found the loot from capturing places to be especially worthwhile. Then again, I’ve never K-trained and rarely ran with zergs in non-defensive scenarios. Especially now that we have reward tracks, I don’t feel like I’m missing out when defending as opposed to PvDooring.

On the other hand, since badges come exclusively from kills on players and NPCs, I do often feel shortchanged in that regard. Even so, it’s not so much that I’d consider letting something flip.

But, to your devilish advocate, perhaps the fabled skirmish rewards are going to fix everything.

Unless you are way out numbered, the fight to defend objectives is what brings the fun for me. Though not alot of point defending paper…
Often it’s about losing a wp in the keep that is more important not just score oriented.

But the numbers are interesting to see, ty OP for posting.

Straegen.2938:

The “Don’t be a bag” statement is about preventing frustration. 20 random players trying to defend against twice their numbers or more simply isn’t much fun at some point regardless of the score impact.

This is what has completely been missed by score tweakers and even ANet. The score is a symptom not an actual problem.

That is a different scenario entirely. I don’t think anyone would argue that dying to not save a keep is a good thing and this doesn’t change it. I do not expect people to waste their time on those things.

I have always put value on tiered keeps because it snowballs; tier 0 keep is prone to being lost again. Plus people will hesitate to place siege if they know it won’t get used.

Also backcapping as a strategy tends to have more value when you backcap the enemy zerg’s structures from the the third server. #pptin2017

Hrm, I use a different meaning for “backcapping”.

Borderland maps are set up to pit two attackers against one “home” defender. Backcapping is when one of the attackers is capping the objectives owned by the other attacker rather than attacking the defender. They are capping objectives behind the other attacking force rather than forcing the defender into a natural 2v1 situation.

The tactic can be used depending upon whether the other attacker is winning a skirmish/match or not and if you want to help the defender, but more often than not players will “backcap” without thought being given to any overarching strategy because such objectives tend to be a bit easier to take.

I don’t consider recapturing objectives on your own third or borderland as backcapping. You’re supposed to own those objectives.