Guild Wars 2

vana.5467:

Personally, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m not specifically against any of the proposed changes, but they don’t address the core of the issue. “Night capping” is a direct result of uneven coverage – why not attempt to fix that instead of the secondary problems it creates?

Because you cant fix that. Its literally impossible. Balancing out its effects by changing the scoring mechanics is the only way.

zerorogue.9410:

If you want to fix nightcapping fix being outnumbered. If the nightcapping matches where still balanced then there would be no trouble.

This!

Changing how avoiding fights and pvd adds to score won’t make playing for score any less boring.

Hecatonchir.9326:

In my personal opinion scoring should be based on proportional wvw population during each tick. If each team has, say a minimum of ~30% of the total wvw population then each tick should be full, if one server has 50% and the other two have 25%, ticks should not be as high, as the one server has a clear advantage over the other two, and continue decreasing to say one server having =<90% of the wvw population during the tick.

This does a few things: it does not reward stacking a time zone where your opposing servers have no coverage because you will not be equally rewarded for that time zone as you would be if coverage was roughly even on all servers. It encourages splitting up stacked time zones and distributing evenly amongst their tier, because at that point they will be fully rewarded for their efforts.

The issue with night capping isn’t that it’s “off prime time hours” or even that it’s rewarding stacking a time zone, the issue is that it rewards exploiting unbalanced population levels. If all 3 servers have a total of 15 people in wvw each, they all have an equal chance to attack and defend objectives, and thus should be rewarded as well as during prime time, because there is no imbalance. If one server has 40 people in wvw and the other two servers have a combined 5 people, the stacked server should NOT be rewarded because they don’t have to put any effort into attacking or defending. It’s not about total population, it’s about population balance.

I think you are right and made a good point.

This seems unfair for internacional players… I play from Argentina and can never be on at your Prime times. :/

I think we should consider the thing without day/night cap perspective.

The “skirmisher” system would limit the impact of a team that could paint all the maps with its colour whatever day or night at certain moment of the match, simply because it has the population to do that.

Day or night…finally it’s not the main topic in the core system proposed to us.

It hardly get fixed when u guys at Anet dont change where and what the real issues are.

Aeolus.3615:

It hardly get fixed when u guys at Anet dont change where and what the real issues are.

I’m assuming you do? I’ve already seen 999999 different claims of what the REAL issues are, and they’re all just as valid as the statistics I just gave.

Well, to me it really looks like whoever is whining is just a crying baby who seek easy win due to night cap and PVD while they are playing alone. Sorry for being so rude and direct, but that s exactly how your complains looks for.

Personally, i will wait the new system to be realeased (as soon as possible i hope) and i will try it out, then i will share my feedbacks. I do not understand how ppl can comment or even complain about something they have not even tried once.

So basically, all off-time players solely play for the PPT not because that’s what their real life allows? People actually play off-time deliberately because the potential PPT advantage it can give?

Weird, I thought at this point nearly nobody cares about PPT anymore because of the current system. I thought the current state of WvW kinda showed that too. People gave up on PPT and just went for fights.

The proposed changes only change the scoring impact of off-time playing. It doesn’t affect fights or anything else. If you went out of your way to play during off-times to get a tactical PPT advantage then I can imagine that this hurts you. But even then, you’re still playing the other 2 servers in those skirmishes. You can still win those and gain points over the other 2 servers, albeit having less of an impact.

Thanks for your consistently clear and informative posting, Tyler. It’s a refreshing change!

Most of the changes look good on paper. As a player who plays WvW almost entirely for server pride and who would quit GW2 entirely before changing servers I am very heartened to see that ANet is keeping faith with the original concept of World vs World vs World that brought many of us to the game in the first place.

Increasing the score for upgrading structures and/or capturing upgraded structures is an excellent idea. Personally, when I log in to WvW I could hope for nothing better than a three-hour Keep siege, either attacking or defending. To me the entire game mode is about that. Any changes that enhance the perceived value of attacking and defending structures is very welcome.

As a UK resident playing on an NA server my play hours will exclude the entirety of the 6 hour prime for my server. I’m guessing that will be around one in the morning until seven a.m. my time. I have no problem whatsoever with that. So long as there is good action and the chance to contribute to my world’s score during the time I am playing that’s fine.

The sooner you can roll these changes out to beta and start tuning them the better!

You absolutely cannot create dynamic scoring with zone population. What will those people do that play off prime or whole day, if their time-zone is scored minimally? They will quit.
Imagine a Population-Time graph, a flat line with peak on prime currently, after such a change a peak on prime but zero everywhere else! People have to understand this.

Then dynamically modifying score with population balance? You are 15v40 in zone, ’EVERYONE LOG OFF, you are ruining the server!!!!". Creates hate, salt and toxic. Instead of trying to gather numbers to fight back people will hate on others and want them to log off.

Essentially capping scoring by creating these Skirmishes already is such a huge equalizer for timezones that you don’t need to destroy off peak ppt to be something less.

Final-kittening-ly!

Been waiting years for Anet to finally figure this out, even though we suggested a similar change years ago!

Only thing is I think the 2 hour skirmish is a little short. I think 4 hours would be better.
But then considering some casual players only play for 2 hours, maybe 2 hours is better as that player’s contribution will feel more worthwhile.

I cant wait to see how this changes the rankings! We’ll finally see which servers, cough cough german servers, like their nightcapping instead of fighting us on the field!

Thanks to the Anet team for sharing their ideas with us. But, the “action level” idea seems incredibly unfair to all off-peak players. Not just overseas players but others who work shifts or just find it easier to play outside of “prime”.

What should matter is the actual level of activity, not some arbitrary peak and off-peak time slices. The activity level “fix” risks killing the game in off-peak times – just the opposite of what we should want.

If SEA/OCX have their own prime-time, when NA/EU is in bed then that should score fully. That is not nightcapping. What is bad is when a small number of players take objectives without opposition and have an impact on the score that far outweighs their efforts.

This all seems incredibly complicated too. It will take a lot of very risky development effort and end up needing to be reversed.

Why not take this step by step. If we increase the ppk as you already propose to 5 (or even 7) points per kill (whatever level is needed so about 40%-50% of the score is made from Friday evening to Sunday night and busy times (whenever they are) contribute more than when hardly anyone is on) and change the reset time to Sunday evening, so the time when most people are playing is at the end of the matchup instead of the beginning this might fix almost everything, without the need to set “activity levels” or make the last day artificially more important than the rest of the week.

If Player vs Player activity counts more than tick:

- There will be no runaway because the “final weekend”, when there is the most activity, earns most of the points

- Off peak players have exactly the same contribution as prime-time players – holding structures earns the same, killing earns the same – but if you kill less to cap things because there are fewer players you have less of an impact on the final score – that seems something few can argue against.

The only concern I can see is that this might somehow encourage blobbing, but I don’t think this would happen:

- if you are a massive blob people will avoid you rather than fight you
- In a mindless blob your zerglings will be picked off at the back by roamers
- If you face-rub a keep you may take it in the end, but hordes will probably die against siege in the process and the enemy will just run away at the end.

For all the above reasons a blob might end up being killed more than it kills.

The skirmish idea might be good too; If that replaced the ppt part of the score it would give people more regualar short term objectives. But the activity level, as described, seems unnecessary and unfair.

I’m not sure what to think of the new system.
But rewarding people for playing on NA timezone and penalizing every other timezone is stupid.
It was you, dear Anet, that created a 24h warzone with only two region servers in the beginning. And everyone knew that would lead to “unfairness”.

It’s not okay that the time periods with the smallest number of active players have the largest impact on the score

I don’t agree with that because it’s only half of the truth. The largest impact on the score depends only on numbers – not necessarily off-time numbers. That’s what some guild are gaming with for years now. They don’t switch servers because they want to fight equal numbers, but they want to win their fights.
Just base the “Prime time” on the percentage of players doing wvw on a server, not on population.
So if you have 5000 players on a server, and 1000 are NA, while 1200 are OCX and 1000 are EU and 1800 are SEA make the server a SEA prime time server.

Your idea will lead to further stacking NA players on one or two servers and make all efforts players from EU, OCX or SEA achieve completely useless. Your game is already almost dead, don’t kill it by disbalancing wvw more.

And while you are at it:
- make transfers finally more expensive. Transfering often should increase the costs for every new transfer. Transfers shouldnt be used to create new fotm servers
- change the system for queing maps by stopping the option to outnumber someone. Don’t let servers queue a map with 80 people, when it’s two opponents only run with 10-20 people there. That will lead to people to unstack servers quickly.
- and please, check your wvw contribution numbers on a series of week days and base all of your ideas on those numbers not on a single day in a week.

This might sound really strange by why are personal rewards (WXP) so disconnected from PPT ?

Why not simply make the increments of scoring based on average WXP gain per player? This encourages team work and sharing on objectives and ensures both offense and defense over objectives and player fights. If a player is “not contributing”, you encourage them to roll with your team on the map and it rewards players actively participating in any activity.

It seems so simple yet there is all this “activity level” and “time zone night capping” and “last stand” context with additional rulesets and all the salt that will go with it. All you need to do is balance the overmanned buff (tier it) and there you go. The current WXP gains is already in place.

The only negative is afk player base staying on maps and not doing anything which is really no different than the problems with the other suggested improvements.

• Warscore is used to determine the winner of a Skirmish
• Skirmishes award varying amounts of Victory Points based on placement

I assume that “based on placement” refers refers to server’s Glicko ratings.

I’m glad to hear there is only 1 winner of each Skirmish. Every server will fight for the win instead of double teaming on the weakest server to secure the easiest PPT. I would expect the 2 top servers to go after each other instead.

OTOH the increase in PPK will probably steer the top servers to pick on the smallest team for safe points.

Or will there be Victory Points for servers not winning the Skirmish? Then we’d be in no better place than today.

Dawdler.8521:

vana.5467:

Personally, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m not specifically against any of the proposed changes, but they don’t address the core of the issue. “Night capping” is a direct result of uneven coverage – why not attempt to fix that instead of the secondary problems it creates?

Because you cant fix that. Its literally impossible. Balancing out its effects by changing the scoring mechanics is the only way.

The current imbalance issue is literally due to population difference caused by stacking. Some servers have way too many people due to stacking over 3 years. Some servers are empty, due to destacking over 3 years.

The answer has always been simple. Control the intake by determining the differences between servers which then efficiently prevent stacking, if the lowest server is too low, you close off all other servers that exceed that population disparity. Of course, you will see some stackers QQing over “Full” status but that is the price they have to pay for stacking.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

• Reduce the need for 24 hour coverage by reducing the effects of off-hours capping (night capping)
  • It’s not okay that the time periods with the smallest number of active players have the largest impact on the score
  • Of course we don’t want to alienate players who play during these period, off-hours coverage will still matter, it just will no longer be the primary factor in determining which world wins any given matchup

What a time to be alive.

Sincerely, a former WvW player who warned about this many years ago.

Kudos ArenaNet.

I really like the changes, they might not be enough but they are definitely several steps in the right direction. My favourite, apart from the ‘10v1 is more impactful than 70vs70’ thing (at any given time, the night argument is like saying global warming is a hoax because it snows), is the ‘Last Stand’, sounds fun^^

I know I haven’t played for ages and my opinions might be a bit outdated, but I have a suggestion on what to address next: AI and sieging.

Yes I somewhat agree with the ‘no PvE in my PvP’ argument, but NPCs were a bit ridiculous in my time. Sure they could barely slow a group of roamers, but with enough skill you could duo or even solo a supply camp. A very small group could easily kill the guards in a tower, build a ram and capture said tower. With no – or delayed – white swords, the only option for defenders was to have scouts (formerly a very ungrateful and boring task, but I’ve seen you’ve added rewards for it)

Let me give a suggestion inspire in Riot Games: less is more. They make small changes to balance a champion instead of big nerfs/buffs. It works.)

PVD is too strong, in my days attackers could ignore defenders (if too many arrowcarts -> nuke some of them) and melt a gate just by hitting it. This created a constant cat and mouse game where defending when there was an enemy raid was a bit pointless (aka EoTM in fancier maps), so everybody just ran around. No strategy, no baits, almost no organization required.

Defenders should have the advantage in their forts. Attackers can go take something else (although waypoints don’t help, as doesn’t ‘I can use stability and ignore your CC and siege to get inside my tower and turn the tables aka I was on the other side of the siege but now I can defend from it because hue hue’), use catapults (although the enemy can build a defensive treb so there goes the siege) or trebs (in a way the most balanced sieging mechanism, frail and long-range, although defensive trebs usually are higher so maybe have a longer range, not sure)

Also, tower to tower trebbing is wrong and promotes stale gameplay (‘just sit there and press 2 while the rest of the raid farms people who overextend/goes somewhere else, that’ll open that wall hue hue’), providing attackers with an almost risk-free siege (since the treb is in a super-safe place).

Plus, in most keeps all the defensive arrowcarts can be hit (if the enemy is decent/there are not that many ACs focusing fire, he can just ignore the damage for a while) and defenders didn’t have the advantage of… defending a fortress. The only option was to have an organized raid storm out (sometimes from another map). Defensive trebs/catapults were kind of a bad joke since they could usually only hit a small area right in front of the gate, barely delaying the gate meltdown by a raid. A commander should be able to ask for help/manpower in PvE-land and other WvW maps (maybe with a pre-determined message, with the proper anti-spamming features of course).

Many already left because of the massive lack of support WvW got in the first years of the game (population imbalance was a big part imo, but there was more), hopefully you’ll continue the good workd, turn it around and some, like me (maybe), might come back to a more fair game (still the best large scale PvP currently available). In the words of the big A: I might be back.

FYI, I took the data on two matchups – top matchup for EU and NA for the last week of the DBls (last week which was a full 7 days) and approximated the score if ppk was 5pts (no other changes). It was quite easy to see what the baseline tick (ppt + dolys etc), which seem to happen at all hours of the day. For both EU and NA the minimum (allowing for a few rogue data points on MOS Millenium that look like errors) seems to be about 1100 points. I then assumed anything over 1100 were points for kills – not perfect, but reasonable.

With the current scoring, in the quiet middle of the week the midnight-4AM accumulated score was 76% (EU) and 86% (NA) of the 8PM-midnight score, even with very clearly less activity. With 5ppk it changed to 52% (EU) and 65% (NA) a major shift.

The suggestions sound good so far. I especially support the controversial ones – the action level is a must have. I play a lot at latenight and offpeak myself and would not mind my contribution counting less – the population levels are far too imbalanced at latenight to actually let it decide matchups.

Also I hope the Last Stand mechanic will not be overpowered – matchups decided after day one are bad, but 6 days worth of “work” getting overturned on a friday afternoon does not sound fair either.

PPK is a double edged sword – it rewards fights, which is good, but it also encourages monoblobbing since the biggest zerg will win most fights and rarely get wiped – so if you plan to buff PPK it would need more incentives to actually split zergs, especially on EB.

SkyShroud.2865:

Dawdler.8521:

vana.5467:

Personally, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m not specifically against any of the proposed changes, but they don’t address the core of the issue. “Night capping” is a direct result of uneven coverage – why not attempt to fix that instead of the secondary problems it creates?

Because you cant fix that. Its literally impossible. Balancing out its effects by changing the scoring mechanics is the only way.

The current imbalance issue is literally due to population difference caused by stacking. Some servers have way too many people due to stacking over 3 years. Some servers are empty, due to destacking over 3 years.

The answer has always been simple. Control the intake by determining the differences between servers which then efficiently prevent stacking, if the lowest server is too low, you close off all other servers that exceed that population disparity. Of course, you will see some stackers QQing over “Full” status but that is the price they have to pay for stacking.

That is what Anet did you know. It doesnt work, because players always find a way around it in order to play in their overstacked cliques. Your ideas only work if you assume players are a herd of brainless sheeps. It also assume a steady flow from high to low tiers, which just aint gonna happen.

This seems somewhat relevant. I have absolutely no clue how it is calculated, though:

http://coveragewars2.com/timezone/

Korgov.7645:

• Warscore is used to determine the winner of a Skirmish
• Skirmishes award varying amounts of Victory Points based on placement

I assume that “based on placement” refers refers to server’s Glicko ratings.

I’m glad to hear there is only 1 winner of each Skirmish. Every server will fight for the win instead of double teaming on the weakest server to secure the easiest PPT. I would expect the 2 top servers to go after each other instead.

OTOH the increase in PPK will probably steer the top servers to pick on the smallest team for safe points.

Or will there be Victory Points for servers not winning the Skirmish? Then we’d be in no better place than today.

It’s based on your standing in skirmish points.
For example, first place gets 3 points, second place gets 1 point, third place gets none.
Or 6-3-1, 5-2-0, 4-2-1 or how ever else they ultimately decide to split it.

Is there consideration for a lead cap?

The idea that the leading server cannot be more than X points ahead of the trailing server. I think that would make the match interesting for the whole week rather than the first few days.

Jiminy.8340:

Going to be interesting to see what happens to the BG blob during offpeak times. Will they get frustrated at their steamrolling not contributing to PPT? Time will tell I guess.

We’re not here for PPT. All our OCX and SEA guilds are here for fights, with PPT as a by-product of us being heavily stacked in comparison to our current competition. Sometimes the only way we get some fights is to hit objectives over and over again, also resulting in high PPT.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

It’s important that PPT continues to be the primary source of score.

Why is this?

Since the tick based scoring clearly aggravates other problems like timezone imbalances why would it be important to keep it?

PPT as it is doesn’t reward clustered control of objectives. The Yak’s do encourage that because they require connections between camps and objectives. But ATM yaks only represent about 35-40% of the score.

With PPT as it is, you never really have a sense of a front line for conflict. As a result players will backcap any objective anywhere on the map leading to a simple capture race. This encourage players to attack the objective with the least resistance because from a scoring perspective they are all the same.

Unless the scoring mechanism more significantly rewards clustered control of objectives, then WvW will always be a capture race with limited strategic appeal.

i find all this nightcapping/primetime/stacking debate quite brain dead…
i think the solution anet came with is good (maybe the primetime multiplier is not needed, this has to be seen).
it is good because it is not forcing mechanics or player choices, but fixing flaws leading to poor (from a gamewide perspective, not player’s) strategic choice.
timezone stacking is best strategy for minimazing effort and maximizing ppts. with proposed changes simply it won’t be anymore. that’s it. simple. effective. late.

It is completely discouraging when a handful of players watch an off hour blob roll over everything they built up. When as soon as they log in there is a zerg at their spawn. The score is only the indicator this is happening. Adjusting the score to account for getting blown out by numbers isn’t going to fix that fundamental problem.

Many (most?) players simply will not play when a map is being overrun. That is what needs to be fixed and adjusting the PPT/PPK math isn’t going to change that.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

It’s important that PPT continues to be the primary source of score.

Why is this?

Since the tick based scoring clearly aggravates other problems like timezone imbalances why would it be important to keep it?

PPT as it is doesn’t reward clustered control of objectives. The Yak’s do encourage that because they require connections between camps and objectives. But ATM yaks only represent about 35-40% of the score.

With PPT as it is, you never really have a sense of a front line for conflict. As a result players will backcap any objective anywhere on the map leading to a simple capture race. This encourage players to attack the objective with the least resistance because from a scoring perspective they are all the same.

Unless the scoring mechanism more significantly rewards clustered control of objectives, then WvW will always be a capture race with limited strategic appeal.

+1

It is time to get rid of ppt from OWNing structures but rather focus on PPT from defending (with certain conditions), attacking (with certain conditions), doliak kills, and PPK as the sources for score.

Chaba.5410:

Reverence.6915:

and even KN

Remember that one time when Kaineng was carried from T8 all the way to T2 primarily on their SEA alone? Then they fell apart when they hit a tier where servers actually had some coverage.

Been on servers like that, using people off hours to fully control all the maps. Its raised the server into tiers that it couldn’t manage which resulted in weeks of dead WvW since they were being spawn camped during all the other time zones. The glicko system is meant to try and create closer match ups and if gamed can create some unfortunate results.

street.2176:

vana.5467:

Personally, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m not specifically against any of the proposed changes, but they don’t address the core of the issue. “Night capping” is a direct result of uneven coverage – why not attempt to fix that instead of the secondary problems it creates?
Off the top of my head, a simple solution using existing features would be to vary linking over the course of a day. We have 4 matchups for NA. Boil that down to 1-2 during off hours, and “night capping” largely goes away. The servers with little to no coverage will be carried by their linking partners, the linking can control population balance fairly well, and (most importantly) it would create a much more active environment for the people playing in these timezones.

The people actively playing in these timezones for months/years obviously dont want a more active environment, or else they wouldnt pvdoor for months/years. If they wanted it they would transfer to other Servers so each Server has an equal amount of Players during night providing “Action”.
But they dont and thus prefer PvDoor.

Oh right, just like BG, TC and other stacked NA servers even out the player base. Give me a break.

In every RvR game since the beginning of time players have stacked when allowed to by the game mechanics. If ANET truly wants competitive play, they will have to force the issue.

Zok.4956:

Hecatonchir.9326:

In my personal opinion scoring should be based on proportional wvw population during each tick. If each team has, say a minimum of ~30% of the total wvw population then each tick should be full, if one server has 50% and the other two have 25%, ticks should not be as high, as the one server has a clear advantage over the other two, and continue decreasing to say one server having =<90% of the wvw population during the tick.

I think you are right and made a good point.

This is interesting, but does it create elitism as well? Everyone except my guild leave WvW so that we can get more points. Have to be careful not to create negative incentive if we are also trying to get as many people in WvW as possible. Now once again, maybe something with rewarding the underdog versus a penalty to the side that can muster people.

Yea if the larger blob servers get punished I can see more and more people running tagless which is actually unhealthy for WvW as a whole. There needs to be various things like Tagless Guild Groups, Pug Blobs, Roamers, Havocs etc to maintain healthy WvW and I don’t know if punishing people by having proportional wvw pop scores is good.

Artaz.3819:

This might sound really strange by why are personal rewards (WXP) so disconnected from PPT ?

Why not simply make the increments of scoring based on average WXP gain per player?

Scenario, 5 players kill a soloer. PPK handles the scoring today and rewards points because they killed just 1 player. Under your concept it would pay them 5 times as much. Unless you are also saying pay them WxP based on the value of the player divided by 5, then that might be a different story.

But also if WxP replaced PPT then we are back to holding things have no value and flipping would be preferred, so that’s dicey since we are back to PvD and K-trains.

That would also be super trollable by having AFKs tank the average.

I’ll preface this by saying I consider the PPT system to be fundamentally broken. I made suggestions similar to these sometime in 2013/14, but have since come to believe that a model of simple objective control doesn’t reflect what WvW is about. However, I do welcome changes from A.net, and I do think these changes have the capacity to improve the current scoring. With that said, some constructive criticism:

Upgraded Objectives Score Higher

• Each tier of objective upgrade increases the amount of score per tick
• The goal is to incentivize defending your upgraded objectives and assaulting opposing upgraded objectives

The goal here is noble, but the effect contradicts the prior stated goal of reducing the need for 24 hour coverage. One of the effects of servers with strong night and morning presences is turning all of their opponents’ structures wooden. This is a double whammy with lower PPT values for wooden structures, as retaking those structures then occupies further time, during which the higher-coverage servers continue to get max-value income from their own fortified structures.

Reduced the Score Tick Timer from 15 minutes to 5 minutes
&
Points for Capture

• Capturing an objective awards immediate score.
• If the objective is upgraded it is worth additional score.

I am extremely wary of this change. We saw 5-minute ticks and instant-cap score in EotM. Although EotM is not directly comparable, as you do not upgrade structures, and players have no attachment to overall placement, I do believe this gives undue advantage in winning the match-up to the eventual approach commanders in EotM adopted, which was to be the fastest flippers on the map. When a server chose to defend its holdings against another server in EotM, it was to the benefit of the third server, who would then gain greatly from capping as much as possible during that battle. I firmly believe WvW is a mode that is about encouraging large-scale battles between groups of players, over optimising objective-flipping.

Points for Kill

• The amount of score earned from PPK will be increased, so that it contributes more to the overall score.
• As a rough number, PPK may increase to 3-5 points, rather than 1, with diminishing returns on killing players who have been alive for less than 5 minutes.

Improving PPK does fall in line with my vision of WvW. I am not entirely sure about the diminishing returns system. Players are no less of an obstacle to capturing an objective if they’ve spawned recently. At the same time, I recognise that under the new system, it may be tempting for commanders to keep their force inside an enemy keep, ‘farming’ defenders for PPK. It’s hard to judge the outcome of this without knowing the exact numbers you intend to assign many of the new systems, but I think this will improve the average WvW experience.

• Warscore for Caravan Kills, Caravan Delivery and Sentry Capture should increase by at a similar rate as PPK.

Caravan Delivery giving points is questionable. You are rewarding people for the absence of enemies a lot of the time here (this is a general problem with PPT, and the source of my dislike for the system). However, given that a server essentially gains ‘double’ from killing a caravan (they both gain points and deny their opponents points), it may not be a big deal.

Bethryn.4087:

Caravan Delivery giving points is questionable. You are rewarding people for the absence of enemies a lot of the time here (this is a general problem with PPT, and the source of my dislike for the system). However, given that a server essentially gains ‘double’ from killing a caravan (they both gain points and deny their opponents points), it may not be a big deal.

I think the problem is that they use both PPT and Caravan scoring. The benefit of Caravan scoring in terms of balancing is that it requires a neighboring camp and every yak is contestable by even a single player. Caravans also encourage regional control which is strategical more interesting than PPT’s capture race.

Its not the supply caravan scoring that needs to go, its PPT.

I’ve thought it through for a bit and came up with the following system:
Rather than holding singular objectives, servers should be rewarded for holding clusters of objectives. Therefore, successful supply deliveries should be incentivized.
So rather than scaling the ppt for holding objectives for a long time, we could scale the points gained for supply delivieries with the level of the objectives, for example, whenever a caravan reaches an objective(note, this is distinctively different from the current system, where points are only rewarded at the final objective), the server that controls both the caravan and the objective(if they don’t match, there will be no points) receive 8+a+b (just some random suggestion) points, where a is the upgrade level of the supply camp and b is the upgrade level of the receiving objective. Maybe even do away with PPT entirely and scale the baseline points and b according to which type of objective receives the delivery.
This would reward servers for keeping control of the areas around their fortified objectives and tearing deep into the opponent’s lands, rather than just running around in circles, tearing down wooden objectives.
Killed Dolyaks would be worth 9 points regardless of the upgrade status of the involved objectives.

Just when you think they fixed WvW and come back..now this.
Now they are Rigging WvW.
Great Job.

I honestly wish there was an option to just leave WvW alone in that poll and listen to feedback from the community on what we really want lol.

I voted for the scoring because the ideas listed under the quality of life stuff was just awful and most of which is already handled by things like overlays that already exist if you want them.

This idea of Night Capping is Ludicrous.
It’s like telling Japan it’s not fair for attacking Pearl Harbor at 7:48 a.m. on a Sunday.
The Server runs 365 days a year 24/7.
Deal With It.

I’m gonna be blunt. I don’t really care how WvW is scored. What I want out of any scoring and reward system is for incentives for players to come out and fight at all hours of the day. If it disincentivises players from my time zone to play, then I’m basically going to leave GW2 because no fights = no enjoyment = no point playing the game.

We just had a whole bunch of people come back to the game due to recent stability change and alpine map rotation. Don’t take backward steps ANet.

Reverence.6915:

I’m gonna be blunt. I don’t really care how WvW is scored. What I want out of any scoring and reward system is for incentives for players to come out and fight at all hours of the day. If it disincentivises players from my time zone to play, then I’m basically going to leave GW2 because no fights = no enjoyment = no point playing the game.

We just had a whole bunch of people come back to the game due to recent stability change and alpine map rotation. Don’t take backward steps ANet.

The PPT and PPK scaling seems to be based on the current activity of the specific map. So getting more people into and fighting inside those maps will increase the PPT and PPK from what im reading. What that means is that as long as you aren’t karma training you will generate the same ammount of PPT and PPK or atleast almost as much. HOWEVER. If you are rolling over a borderlands when the other side simply doesn’t have the numbers to even TRY to stop you. Then you will produce less PPK and PPT. Because your actions will largely be taking undefended towers and keeps.

This change should only heavily affect those groups that commit large scale night time karma training which can swing matches into a specific servers favor simply because the other two don’t have the coverage to fight them. They will still get SOMETHING for it. But it won’t be the free tens of thousands of war score they generate now.

Reverence.6915:

I’m gonna be blunt. I don’t really care how WvW is scored. What I want out of any scoring and reward system is for incentives for players to come out and fight at all hours of the day. If it disincentivises players from my time zone to play, then I’m basically going to leave GW2 because no fights = no enjoyment = no point playing the game.

We just had a whole bunch of people come back to the game due to recent stability change and alpine map rotation. Don’t take backward steps ANet.

This. Creating better equality in the matches is what will keep players engaged. The score is only a very minor part of enjoying a game.

The problem then becomes the other server has no incentive to come out if they’re losing fights to defend stuff. Both DB and TC COULD field some numbers in SEA time but they might just not show up (we all know how fickle DB’s SEA is).

What starts off as a great night of WvW devolves into karma trains because they wipe a few times and go back to PvE or whatever especially now that they don’t lose as much PPT by not defending.

Monk Tank.5897:

Just when you think they fixed WvW and come back..now this.
Now they are Rigging WvW.
Great Job.

wait when did they fix wvw?

look at current matches. this week only t3 is close in scores. every match since the current changes we have gotten, matches were over after the weekend. for a long time now matches have been over after the first few days of wvw.

the hardcore wvw’ers still play win or lose everyday but there are people that only play when they are winning and when matches are blow outs those same players go elsewhere.

if any of theses score changes actually make the scores closer during the week there will be more of a reason to log in and play as much as you can every single day. that’s the way i saw it when i read this thread.

The proposed changes look excellent including the ‘controversial’ change. Can’t wait.

Ansau.7326:

Then we have the coefficient of people playing. As at off-times there are less people playing their, their efforts are counted less.

Quite the opposite. Because less people are playing, your efforts matter much more, not just in war score, but in flipping/upgrading objectives. Even with these changes Oceanic players will be more valuable than NA players.

Complex ideas, but I think there’s a better long term solution.