Guild Wars 2

15 forum bugs charrs

Like many have posted already, scoring being scaled to population (or lack there of) would be the best option presented.

I don’t like the idea of certain hours (timezones) contributing more to the score than others.

Draeyon.4392:

Like many have posted already, scoring being scaled to population (or lack there of) would be the best option presented.

(…)

During a same match, a team can have to play a conventional warfare, or an asymmetric warfare (being time to time the conventional forces or the guerrilla).

That’s why it could have been a good idea to build the score calculation on an evolving system, depending of the population trends at each “tic”.

And an other advantage of that kind of approach would have to make day/night debat obsolete.

But it seems we have a system, wait and see

How about you all let players play however the fanta they want to, if they want to capture objectives, let them capture objectives. Stop being such teardropsheeps about it. Capping objectives lead to fights, interesting fights. Not pirate pew pew in open ground and then run off like chickennuggets when you lose.

Draeyon.4392:

Like many have posted already, scoring being scaled to population (or lack there of) would be the best option presented.

I don’t like the idea of certain hours (timezones) contributing more to the score than others.

I disagree strongly with it being the best option.

If you score for action rather than passive ticks like it is now, then the population differences at different times of day are mitigated, and huge over night swings can no longer happen. See my earlier posts.

Any sort of ‘multiplier’ is a terrible idea which would lead to gaming of the system as well as a lot of ‘salt’.

I like everything except the action level and last stand thing. The skirmishes thing is a good step in addressing population imbalance and we should test that first before adding another layer onto it. The action level at this point just feels like a big slap in the face to anyone who doesn’t play during prime time.

Last stand I find to be pointless. If a server had a conceivable possibility to win, and cared enough about winning (most servers don’t), then they would do a final push anyway.

lil devils x.6071:

Not it doesn’t.. not at all. Currently it rewards the players that AVOID the fights and go take camps, keeps and towers that are undefended. Avoiding fights is how YB made it to T1, and why everyone got bored and left…

The best way to win in the current system and the proposed system is to AVOID fights, PvD when no one is there, kill the NPC’s, build ACs and balis and cats and shield gens and Trebs and then make sure your zerg gets into those towers and keeps fast enough to not allow anyone to die then get on siege and kill the 5 people outside! Doesn’t that sound fun? YAY!

Increased PPK might discourage people even more to engage in (fair) fights, because losing those would matter even more. I’d expect even more siege use, running away from even numbers, hiding behind walls, rolling over much smaller groups and ganking.

WvW isn’t suited for fair fights. There will be always a more or less big difference in numbers and let’s not forget the terrible class balance, which is almost completely ignored by the devs when it comes to wvw. So usually fair fights only happen, because the involved sides commit to those fights, simply because they want those fights. “For fun” basically, not for the points. But “fair” always involves the risk of losing. And as soon winning matters, less people would want to take this risk.

@ those that want to “punish” server with higher population and want to give smaller servers the same chances to win a matchup

Population differences are not only a problem because of the scoring. It is a problem because it often creates unfun situations (boring onesided fights, spawncamping, …) regardless of the scoring system. So the scoring system should still allow the separation of high and low population, to match them against similar populated server and create as even matchups as possible – not only score wise.

The outnumbered buff should be changed a lot…
Like people killed when outnumbered should not increase the death count.

So i just killed the enemy in a fair 1vs1, but because there is a map blob from my server somewhere else, there should be no reward? Doesn’t make much sense.

Killing somebody who is outnumbered in a fight (surrounded by much more enemys than allies at the moment of the death) shouldn’t give rewards/points, but i guess, a mechanic like this isn’t easy to implement properly.

If you have the outnumbered buff your death should not increase the death count, that’s all. It’s your problem if you don’t join your main forces and have to fight in 1v1…
And you say, it will be more difficult to make dynamic buff about area and not the all map.

Not everybody runs with “the main forces” and this is good in pretty much every regard. Splitting up should never be punished. And because the outnumbered buff can never reflect the situation in a particular fight, it should never influence a fight.

UmbraNoctis.1907:

(…)

@ those that want to “punish” server with higher population and want to give smaller servers the same chances to win a matchup

Population differences are not only a problem because of the scoring. It is a problem because it often creates unfun situations (boring onesided fights, spawncamping, …) regardless of the scoring system. So the scoring system should still allow the separation of high and low population, to match them against similar populated server and create as even matchups as possible – not only score wise.

Yep…but unfortunatly, I’m afraid we have to consider that unbalanced populations and asymmetric confrontations are part of massive online PvP games.

Some tried to regulate population during the massive pvp fights.
As an exemple some years ago Funcom have tried something to regulate populations during big PvP confrontations in its MMO Age of Conan using a sort of rendezvous system.
At the origin of the game these confrontations were organised around the capture of a keep controled by a Guild. Each week the guild controling the keep had to choose a timeslot during which another guild could attack. The guilds who wanted to attack competed in a sort of auction to select the one who could attack. During the attack, the map was instantiated to become a sort of private battelfield. Players were limited to 48 by teams, but even with this short limit, it was not rare to have asymetric fights.
Finaly too rigid, the system was not considered fun by most of players.

In fact the easiest way to deal with the natural unbalanced populations in Massive PvP games is to leave players free to constitute guild alliances as they want. That system is quite well adapted to sandbox MMO as eveonline. In that game population issue is not a topic.

But it doesn’t work very well on an instantiated game as Gw2 mainly because massive players confrontations in a game like Gw2 are highly regulated in term of time and space, and because teams are divided by rigid servers which have not an equal access to players. An other important difference between the 2 kind of MMO is the reason of massive PvP confrontations: In a sandbox MMO, players fight to control a territory for its ressources and that’s why, finally they have no need of a score.

Managing the score in a game like Gw2 is not a matter of punishment, but a matter of fair competition organisation.

Still waiting for more details about the “Possible Additional Changes”

Please don’t actually go through with this. A lot of the changes brought OCX/SEA back. This intended change is completely in favor of NA. As someone who has played OCX & SEA in Tier 1 for three years now. The better solution is to allow OCX/SEA/EU to go to Tier 1-Tier 2. This can be done easy by checking where people buy the game etc. No further below unless those tiers get stacked. Everyone has OCX/SEA/EU and no one can complain. T3 and below can enjoy their NA vs NA.

If this does go through any OCX/SEA/EU imbalance will result in servers losing more playerbase. Cause lets be honest. If you have 10 and they have 40. nothing is stopping the 10 from logging out. The 40 man gets bored and leave the game. Goodbye players. Tier 1 right now for OCX is good. Some nice fights, although BG has a huge presence due to being first. The guild groups have been skirmishing and enjoying the game. Don’t lose players who returned after the already good changes like stability and alpine.

Sidenote: Don’t know where these people get night capping as a OCX thing to do… Most of us hate PPT and stopped doing it in 2014. Its mainly NA who PPT we just show up and defend. I think its probably just NA not expecting a response in " Off Hours". Please stop calling us Off hours too. OCX, SEA, EU represent everything else except NA. Don’t group us. We are all very different and should be valued and respected equally. WvW is 24/7. So why not balance the coverage not the scoring?

UmbraNoctis.1907:

lil devils x.6071:

Not it doesn’t.. not at all. Currently it rewards the players that AVOID the fights and go take camps, keeps and towers that are undefended. Avoiding fights is how YB made it to T1, and why everyone got bored and left…

The best way to win in the current system and the proposed system is to AVOID fights, PvD when no one is there, kill the NPC’s, build ACs and balis and cats and shield gens and Trebs and then make sure your zerg gets into those towers and keeps fast enough to not allow anyone to die then get on siege and kill the 5 people outside! Doesn’t that sound fun? YAY!

Increased PPK might discourage people even more to engage in (fair) fights, because losing those would matter even more. I’d expect even more siege use, running away from even numbers, hiding behind walls, rolling over much smaller groups and ganking.

WvW isn’t suited for fair fights. There will be always a more or less big difference in numbers and let’s not forget the terrible class balance, which is almost completely ignored by the devs when it comes to wvw. So usually fair fights only happen, because the involved sides commit to those fights, simply because they want those fights. “For fun” basically, not for the points. But “fair” always involves the risk of losing. And as soon winning matters, less people would want to take this risk.

@ those that want to “punish” server with higher population and want to give smaller servers the same chances to win a matchup

Population differences are not only a problem because of the scoring. It is a problem because it often creates unfun situations (boring onesided fights, spawncamping, …) regardless of the scoring system. So the scoring system should still allow the separation of high and low population, to match them against similar populated server and create as even matchups as possible – not only score wise.

I didn’t say you want to just straight up increase PPK without conditions. I am saying they need to Increase PPK and LOOT while fighting over an objective without the use of siege You touch an AC then you get no PPK or LOOT.

The highest PPK and chance of rare LOOT in the game would be from defending your objectives without the use of siege, so players will come back to defend them and not just PvD or K train. That would make owning the objectives more valuable than they currently are. Players fighting other players without the use of siege over a structure, yak, camp, tower, sentry ect would receive the most LOOT and PPK.

Players fighting other players without the use of siege while attacking an objective would received the second most PPK and LOOT.

They can add multipliers to Increase the LOOT and PPK for the higher tiered camp/ Rower Keep and ALSO increase the LOOT and PPK for being outnumbered as well.

There are fair ways to offset the scoring and population imbalance issues and still treat players equally. As long as structures are not just scoring points on their own while players are not fighting over them, the score would not run away when no one is on. If no one is on, there is no one to kill to run up the score.

How do you define “fighting over an objective”? Only inside a small radius arround said objective? So stopping the enemys before they can come close to your “territory” shouldn’t be rewarded?

And if using siege doesn’t give points, it would be better to remove it (or make players immune to siege dmg), otherwise it could be used for easy trolling. And don’t forget, siege is often the only reason, why defending in outnumbered situations is even possible.

Fights are often not fair. With or without siege and objectives involved – it doesn’t matter when it comes to fairness. So they are not the best base for fair scoring.

Chaba.5410:

Stop rewarding players who don’t participate in WvW with passive rewards from WvW. WvW rewards need to be tied to WvW participation only.

Instead of just quoting my whole posting out of blind reaction, you should have focused your sight more on the first part of my posting, before I went into details about splitting the feature up into three parts, so that the Power of the Mists becomes for all different kinds of players an interesting blessing system, that incentivizes all kinds of players to participate in WvW.

I have clearly written in my first part of my posting, that players need to EARN their Victory Points by fulfilling various tasks in WvW that do count all towards the Warscore in the end for the Skirmish Session, but all of these taskas count towards a different part of “Participation” for one of three possible Playstyles and in these Participation Categorries you need to earn enough Participation Grade to be awarded at the end, similar like with Events the full Rewards.

Example:

Server A, B and C make a Match. Winning a Match awards every Player if the winning Server maximum 300 Victory Points for 1st Place, 150 for 2nd Place, 75 for 3rd Place.
After a weekly Match is over, the Game calculats then for all players, which type of tasks a player has fullfilled and helped the most for their Server and if the general participation of a player in these Categories was enough to be awarded with the amount of Victory Points that your Server has earned.

If your own participation in WvW was in that calcualtion then by far not enough to be worthy of Victory Points – then you will receive nothing. End of Story

Lets say Player X was all day long in WvW and has done in all the time he was in WvW always only tasks, that count towards the WvW Category (Claiming Locations, Defendign Locations, Escortign Dolyaks, Buildign and Destroying Siege Weapons ect.), then will player X increase his participation grade constantly only towards the WvW Category and when player X was 100% active to reach Gold Status for his participation in WvW, then will player X receive the complete 300 Victory Points all towards his/her WvW Blessing Account.

Lets say Player Z isn’t a hardcore WvW player, doesn’t interet claiming location,s but rather is interested in as many duals and battles with other players, so mainly plays for fighting other players and killing them., but isn’t by far as much as active playing WvW as like Player X, gets just only Silver Participation, which is worth 75% of what the Server has earned, then – based on the fact that your Server has won – would receive Player Z at the end of the match from the 300 Victory Coints towards his PvP Blessing Account only 225 Victory Points, due to not being active enough for WvW to earn the full points like the most active WvW players

So my proposed system here would DIRECTLY reward every single player based on their activity in WvW and it rewards them for the game mode, they like the most, based on the actions that you DO IN WVW, while regardless of what you do exactly in WvW, be it WvW tasks, be it PvP tasks or be it PvE tasks, everything will count towards your servers total warscore for the current Skirmish Session, so that all players will be able to do something for their server with something they like to do the most in WvW.

Its just a matter of redesigning the reward system of the power of the mist feature in such a kind of way, that it generally always favors your most liked play preferences, without that the things that you do hurt your Server, without that anybody could say in the end, the actions of player Z were obsolete over thoese thigns that Player X has done, because of any of the playing preferences havign any higher weight over any other play style.

If anet ensures, that this won’t happen through my proposed reworked power of the mist system here, then will everythign be fine and everybody will be able to do what they want to do in WvW, without that the Server lacks on pressure making for the score, when everybody wil lbe able to contribute with their preferred playstyles to the total score with a reward system, that TRULY UNIFIES all game modes in one together to give everyone good reasons for why they should fight for their Server to gain enough Vitory points so that players can keep maintainign their most preferred blessings.

My proposed system changes simply said the current “get everything put free up your butt without that you have to do anything for the effects personally” – into a system, where every player has to help their server and do something also for their server, so that they get rewarded in return with weekly lasting positive helpful blessings, once you obtained enough Victory Points to activate them for you, based on which game mode you prefer the most.

@Orpheal

Interesting concept you got there.

It might water down the participation of actual WvW type fighting though.

Overall War Points Increase based on Individual Contribution & Reward Track used to Encourage the behavior of Players.

War Points can come from all Game Modes…i.e…these are my examples btw.

WvW
…Objective Taking & Holding

PvP or GvG
…Players Killing Players

PvE
…Crafting
…Map Exploration
…Puzzles
…Role Playing

EoTM will always encourage Server Population Stacking behavior…due to the nature on how it does Match Ups…which isn’t good for long term health of WvW…imho.

Do Not recommend that EoTM activities contribute directly to a player’s World Rank Score.

Do Not Recommend that EoTM participants be given specific WvW type Rewards.

Do Recommend that EoTM participants be given more specific PvE type Rewards.

ANet needs to really understand what player behavior they’re rewarding as it impacts the WvW Game Mode in the long term.

A slight degree off in the compass can lead to a huge difference on the final destination a ship will arrive at after traveling for a (week, month, or year) on the open ocean.

Now you guys are starting to suggest stuff to over complicate the system. I just want to jump into wvw, take a tower or two, kill a player or 40, get some rewards and have fun during that time.

I don’t need to worry about if I’m defending a tower by myself with an ac and a group comes by do I shoot them or not because I get no loot or less loot or whatever, or do I just leave and let them cap the tower because it’ll be worth no points to them. Need to go work on my secret participation list anyways so I don’t get screwed out of rewards at the end of the match.

Won’t bother with that guy running by with an outnumbered buff, pointless.
I see our zerg is parked outside a keep..
Sup commander why you standing around?
We want to take this T3 keep and break the waypoint, but then the defenders will get extra points and loot if we attack it, we don’t want to give anyone precursors…
It doesn’t have ppt to it anymore anyways why bother..
We’ll stand out here in the open and wait for someone to come by..
Hey someone pull out the aviator box so we can rp being planes in the meantime!

K.I.S.S

WvWers will probably hate this but the best solution would be to just do away with the servers altogether and instead split the population into 3 teams.

Let’s talk about Action Level which may or may not even be put into play.

Potential (controversial) additional change:

While the above change takes steps to bring the value of off-hours coverage in-line, there’s a good chance it’ll still be overvalued. If that’s the case (and we’ll eventually poll on this), then we have plans for an additional system.
This is the Action Level – Victory Point Multiplier system
This system would multiply the Victory Points awarded by Skirmishes based on map populations and time of day.
During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3.
During off hours, the multiplier might stay at 3 or drop to 2 or 1, depending on on activity level.
It’s important to include map populations as a factor, to make the system more fair for off hours players and its important to include time-of-day as a factor to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score muliplier low by exiting WvW

Action Level = “based on map populations and time of day”

Not a lot of detail here, maybe on purpose. -_-

There’s two different factors that affect Action Level:
1 – map populations
2 – time of day

For map populations, he means it depends on how active the map is at any given time. I assume it means how big is the population disparity between servers during a skirmish since Tyler says “to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score multiplier low by exiting WvW”. So we can say if the disparity is large, the action level is low (1x). One server may have 40 people while the other two have only 5. If the disparity is low, the action level is high (3x). All three servers in a match have relatively equal numbers. This seems to incentivize players into making teams of roughly equal size.

For time of day, he means the Action Level will always be 3 during NA Prime (EU Prime for EU servers) no matter what the population disparity is. This is the controversial part of the proposal. This is the part that makes people feel discriminated against by the whole system even though it is only a small part of a secondary mechanism. The most obvious thing that stands out is NA players would look to stack onto servers that are already strong in NA because there is no risk of any population disparities causing the action level to drop. No other timezone could counter that because the minute another timezone gets too stacked, the action level drops. I’m not entirely sure how this is supposed to “prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score multiplier low by exiting WvW” since they’d just exit WvW in other timezones.

I agree with Anvu that Tyler’s stated gaming of the system may not even occur frequently enough to need such attention. The score multiplier would most likely drop for other valid reasons such as guild raid schedules. Some guilds only raid 3 times a match, some servers are considered weekend servers, etc.

Instead the time-of-day factor looks more to me like a mechanism to break tie conditions (notice I used the word “counter” above) where a strong OCX server gets into a score-balance against a strong NA server and are unable to progress against each other unless their players start overtiming. The NA population still outnumbers OCX, which needed to congregate into T1/T2 in order to have an active timezone, so theoretically the action level for NA skirmishes will always be 3 on the lower tier servers anyway.

If Action Level is tried out, try it first only by map populations. It isn’t clear how many tie conditions would exist or how frequently they would occur or last. And perhaps there are other ways to break them rather than handing a win to the NA skirmishes.

lil devils x.6071:

I didn’t say you want to just straight up increase PPK without conditions. I am saying they need to Increase PPK and LOOT while fighting over an objective without the use of siege You touch an AC then you get no PPK or LOOT.

I disagree with this for 2 reasons:

1. It would make defending stuff a nightmare. Either no one uses the siege or you have to invent some formula for paying people to use siege and agree it in time of crisis!

2. OK, maybe you don’t care about that. Maybe you’d prefer no siege fights even for keeps. But the other big reason is siege+ppk is a big reason not to face-rub keeps with a blob. Gonna lose a lot of people that way. A well organised group can stay alive, but a map blob, not so much. PvD against an outnumbered opponent could get a lot more costly.

[quote=6151089;Diku.2546…

War Points can come from all Game Modes…i.e…these are my examples btw.

WvW
…Objective Taking & Holding

PvP or GvG
…Players Killing Players

PvE
…Crafting
…Map Exploration
…Puzzles
…Role Playing

[/quote]

Role playing?!

Aside from that ludicrous idea (who’s going to judge if/how someone is ‘role playing’), the contribution in PVE would probably could line up with the daily activities. Crafting would be tough – in wvw and pvp, you can jump in with what you have, crafting requires that you actually participate in whatever mastery they pick, materials and potentially leveling in that mastery. Puzzles I assume are jps and would probably fit nicely here. Exploration would be problematic to tell if someone is exploring an area they have already been.

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.

War Machine covered the SEA, yes, but RISE/Cryptic Omen carried the rest. There was some internal issues between CO and WM that ultimately lead to Kaineng imploding and both guilds disbanding (Ahem… Mayoken…).

The real issue here is when one server has many more people than the others. BG can do a 50-75 map que on all 4 maps during reset, whereas JQ can hardly que a map anymore. That has nothing to do with time zones, its just BG has a massive 24 hour server population. I personally don’t think its right to punish the SEA/Oceanic players just because they are in a different time zone than NA, however, I think that a slight nerf of overpopulated servers vs. underpopulated servers has been due for a while.

Also, a HUGE step in the right direction is PPK. I have seen Kaineng, SOR, and now JQ lose ranking because they are more about fighting than face-rubbing doors. Now, with points being awarded for actually fighting, the balance of servers will start to even out. (No more siege humping…. I’m looking at you YB and TC!!)

wow…there are a lot of long posts here…can we please put TLDR summaries? I don’t have this kinda time!

I like the ideas put forth by Tyler and support them 100%. I think that the data available to Anet should help them calculate the off hours for each matchup and reduce the multiplier accordingly. Though, I feel like this “multiplier” should be visible on the HUD and available through the API so that it can be transparent. If not, we will all be raising a lot of stink in the future when the matchup doesn’t seem to be going our way.

I also think the “Last Stand” mechanic will make for some highly entertaining Thursday and Friday nights as the lower servers take a shot at winning.

Making Thursday worth more will cause a lot of resentment from many players.

lil devils x.6071:

UmbraNoctis.1907:

lil devils x.6071:

Not it doesn’t.. not at all. Currently it rewards the players that AVOID the fights and go take camps, keeps and towers that are undefended. Avoiding fights is how YB made it to T1, and why everyone got bored and left…

The best way to win in the current system and the proposed system is to AVOID fights, PvD when no one is there, kill the NPC’s, build ACs and balis and cats and shield gens and Trebs and then make sure your zerg gets into those towers and keeps fast enough to not allow anyone to die then get on siege and kill the 5 people outside! Doesn’t that sound fun? YAY!

Increased PPK might discourage people even more to engage in (fair) fights, because losing those would matter even more. I’d expect even more siege use, running away from even numbers, hiding behind walls, rolling over much smaller groups and ganking.

WvW isn’t suited for fair fights. There will be always a more or less big difference in numbers and let’s not forget the terrible class balance, which is almost completely ignored by the devs when it comes to wvw. So usually fair fights only happen, because the involved sides commit to those fights, simply because they want those fights. “For fun” basically, not for the points. But “fair” always involves the risk of losing. And as soon winning matters, less people would want to take this risk.

@ those that want to “punish” server with higher population and want to give smaller servers the same chances to win a matchup

Population differences are not only a problem because of the scoring. It is a problem because it often creates unfun situations (boring onesided fights, spawncamping, …) regardless of the scoring system. So the scoring system should still allow the separation of high and low population, to match them against similar populated server and create as even matchups as possible – not only score wise.

I didn’t say you want to just straight up increase PPK without conditions. I am saying they need to Increase PPK and LOOT while fighting over an objective without the use of siege You touch an AC then you get no PPK or LOOT.

The highest PPK and chance of rare LOOT in the game would be from defending your objectives without the use of siege, so players will come back to defend them and not just PvD or K train. That would make owning the objectives more valuable than they currently are. Players fighting other players without the use of siege over a structure, yak, camp, tower, sentry ect would receive the most LOOT and PPK.

Players fighting other players without the use of siege while attacking an objective would received the second most PPK and LOOT.

They can add multipliers to Increase the LOOT and PPK for the higher tiered camp/ Rower Keep and ALSO increase the LOOT and PPK for being outnumbered as well.

There are fair ways to offset the scoring and population imbalance issues and still treat players equally. As long as structures are not just scoring points on their own while players are not fighting over them, the score would not run away when no one is on. If no one is on, there is no one to kill to run up the score.

I’m pretty sure Anet has said that, for technical reasons, they can’t do what you’re proposing. They can’t tell when an objective is “defended” accurately enough or who is “defending” it to award points or loot. They talked about this when people were asking for defenders to be better rewarded.

Now granted that was awhile ago but I haven’t seen anything from them to indicate that they have overcome this technical issue.

Gideon.6742:

Making Thursday worth more will cause a lot of resentment from many players.

as I’ve said ad-nauseam elsewhere(Sorry!) the equivalent of Last Stand can be achieved, without any messing with the points, by changing reset to Sunday night (so busiest days are the last days) and increasing ppk, as ANet already propose. I think that’s a better way of doing it.

Anet have already said they are thinking of changing reset back to Saturday night when these changes kick-in (can’t remember if it was ‘officially’ or in the leaked release notes), but that would still leave Saturday night and Sunday for teams to get ahead. Better to have a slow build through the week, then an all-out Friday night to Sunday.

About siege, no one likes to be killed by it, but it is part of the environment. This is WvW not PvP, meaning there are more weapons out there, siege is one of them. They still require a cost(blueprints/scribing), time to build them, supply and then maintenance. They are also an element that will require people to invade or defend an objective or even open ground to get to them. Not to mention as stated above they are what sometimes allow a much smaller force to hold back a bigger one. It’s just annoying when used by the larger force but that’s part of the warfare. +1 on leaving them alone on this discussion. If you start to restrict people and the tools they use then does that open the door that people that use range weapons only get 50% reward since they had the advantage of range? I don’t think people are going there, but they might if that becomes an option.

Some of the best fights have been assaulting an objective while under siege fire. Some fights have felt like wins when you are able to just breach a wall and clear a keep of siege even if you don’t capture it. And some players really like the game element of the build, defend and hold which siege plays a big role in.

Gideon.6742:

Making Thursday worth more will cause a lot of resentment from many players.

Yeah I think with last stand comes a move in reset, don’t think this will be a weekday issue.

Like eHarmony (and some other online dating sites).

Scoring determines Match Making. The intention of this idea being that if each side scores closely together they will then be matched together. So I will try to include this idea where it matters.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Changes to Match Structure:

• We’ll split the week long matches into 2 hour time slices we are calling ‘Skirmishes’
• Warscore is used to determine the winner of a Skirmish
• Skirmishes award varying amounts of Victory Points based on placement
• Victory Points are used to determine Match victor
• When a Skirmish ends, Warscore is reset, but actual map-state remains unchanged

Benefits

• Winning a Skirmish by a small margin, or a large margin, awards the same number of victory points.
• This keeps the winning and losing scores closer together, allowing the losing worlds a fighting chance
• Teams will still want to win as many time slices as possible, off-hours coverage is still important, but less dominant

The wording here sounds strange to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like this only attempts to hide the current War Score display behind the Victory Points awarded at the end of each two hour Skirmish. Does this mean instead of seeing 300,000 War Score, we’ll see 84 Victory Points at the end of the week? If this is the case, I do not feel this will help to make the best match-ups since it may just act the same as the current system.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Potential (controversial) additional change:

• While the above change takes steps to bring the value of off-hours coverage in-line, there’s a good chance it’ll still be overvalued. If that’s the case (and we’ll eventually poll on this), then we have plans for an additional system.
• This is the Action Level – Victory Point Multiplier system
  • This system would multiply the Victory Points awarded by Skirmishes based on map populations and time of day.
  • During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3.
  • During off hours, the multiplier might stay at 3 or drop to 2 or 1, depending on on activity level.
  • It’s important to include map populations as a factor, to make the system more fair for off hours players and its important to include time-of-day as a factor to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score muliplier low by exiting WvW

My opinion on this is simple. Artificially inflating the value of a server’s “Prime Time” will not necessarily mean a good match up. Take an example right now: Blackgate’s Sea timzone (8am est – 11am est) is massive compared to Tarnished Coast and Dragonbrand. Where as Jade Quarry’s Sea timezone is a good match for Blackgate, but Jade Quarry lacks the EU (11am est- 6pm est) and NA timezones (6pm est – 11 pm est) that Blackgate has.

Which is why this suggestion is so controversial, and arguable needlessly complicated. Basing the Score on time has led to this factor of coverage wars. 4 hours (“Prime Time”) is going to always be less than 20 hours (“Non-Prime-Time”). I personally would instead use these Active Scoring ideas below that you have suggested/gathered. Since these ideas require active participation from players instead of towers ticking away for points. Consequently removing the constant PPT could resolve the fear of run away scores.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Last Stand

• Last Stand describes the final day of any week long matchup
• During Last Stand, [in relation to above, make Active Scoring larger]
• This is intended to make the last day of the match as exciting as the first, and provide a final comeback mechanic for teams that are behind

[removed reducing ticking time]

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

Points for Capture

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

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.
• We will also rebalance the Warscore for Caravan Kills, Caravan Delivery and Sentry Captures.

Again, because Scoring determines who you fight against I feel it is paramount we judge it by actual activity the best we can.

“We want to be matched with the enemies we love fight, and not the ones who are not there.” – said no eHarmony statement ever

Good points about matchmaking. I’ve been meaning to ask this. I finally got through all 10 pages and haven’t seen it asked yet.

If the overpowering nature of certain timezones is going to be artificially reduced and you base the Rating on this new Victory Point system, it will give a different match than if you used the Rating from the total score.

So a server with heavy Sea for example will not have the boost in Rating that it previously did. Meaning it will actually be rated lower than previously and will be in a lower tier match.

How is matchmaking going to be done in the new scoring system? How are you going to determine who matches up with whom?

Tyler Bearce.3427:

takes steps to bring the value of off-hours coverage in-line

I’m still beside myself that people are so arrogant to think that the 4 hours they personally play, should be greater than or equal to the other 20 hours in a day.

DeWolfe.2174:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

takes steps to bring the value of off-hours coverage in-line

I’m still beside myself that people are so arrogant to think that the 4 hours they personally play, should be greater than or equal to the other 20 hours in a day.

what if no-one played the other 20 hours…should the structures still tick at the same amount?

i think the only solution is to get rid of PPT entirely, so that points are only awarded for caputures, defenses, and kills. that way action = points, no action = no points. problem solved.

mcarswell.3768:

what if no-one played

How many points would tick by each server if only sentries killed yaks and guards killed sentries and river drake? xD Would anything even get upgraded?

Chaba.5410:

mcarswell.3768:

what if no-one played

How many points would tick by each server if only sentries killed yaks and guards killed sentries and river drake? xD Would anything even get upgraded?

i don’t think a sentry can kill a yak before it gets out of range and the sentry tethers back…can it?

mcarswell.3768:

Chaba.5410:

mcarswell.3768:

what if no-one played

How many points would tick by each server if only sentries killed yaks and guards killed sentries and river drake? xD Would anything even get upgraded?

i don’t think a sentry can kill a yak before it gets out of range and the sentry tethers back…can it?

I believe it happens sometimes; especially if harpies or bats add in. Could be wrong now though with the faster yaks on Alpine. Yak guards can kill sentries. They wouldn’t stay to cap the circle though. Maybe there really wouldn’t be any points.

Chaba.5410:

For map populations, he means it depends on how active the map is at any given time. I assume it means how big is the population disparity between servers during a skirmish since Tyler says “to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score multiplier low by exiting WvW”. So we can say if the disparity is large, the action level is low (1x). One server may have 40 people while the other two have only 5. If the disparity is low, the action level is high (3x). All three servers in a match have relatively equal numbers. This seems to incentivize players into making teams of roughly equal size.

I assumed it meant total players across all 3 servers and all maps.

morrolan.9608:

Chaba.5410:

For map populations, he means it depends on how active the map is at any given time. I assume it means how big is the population disparity between servers during a skirmish since Tyler says “to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score multiplier low by exiting WvW”. So we can say if the disparity is large, the action level is low (1x). One server may have 40 people while the other two have only 5. If the disparity is low, the action level is high (3x). All three servers in a match have relatively equal numbers. This seems to incentivize players into making teams of roughly equal size.

I assumed it meant total players across all 3 servers and all maps.

It could be.

“Depending upon activity level” wasn’t detailed. It seemed implied that if NA were set to max 3 activity level “to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score multiplier low by exiting WvW”, then population-based activity level must be considered low if there is some large population disparity. That’s my reasoning anyway.

The time-based activity level though seems highly gameable. :p

Orpheal.8263:

How about you just rework the feature into something, that will also work under the new WvW Systems please??.

I like your ideas. I think they need to be workshopped a bit, but in general, I like it.

One of the most fun things I remember back when I first started playing was the knowledge that by doing well in WvW, I was helping out those on my server who weren’t playing. Even the NPCs around the portals would boast about their accomplishments and how they were protecting the world and making it a better place for the rest of the population. I felt the same way.

Giving WvW players a way to feel like they’re the “troops overseas”, whose sacrifice is providing for the PvE players “back home” is a really good way to make WvW feel a bit more satisfying.

I hate the night capping. If your server is kitten during NA Prime, there’s no chance of coming back cos the PPT will nerfed for Euro/ OCE/ SEA time, making American players more important than the rest of us.

And because they’re no Oceania/Asia servers, we’re kittening screwed no matter whether we’re in an european or american server.

Johje Holan.4607:

lil devils x.6071:

UmbraNoctis.1907:

lil devils x.6071:

Not it doesn’t.. not at all. Currently it rewards the players that AVOID the fights and go take camps, keeps and towers that are undefended. Avoiding fights is how YB made it to T1, and why everyone got bored and left…

The best way to win in the current system and the proposed system is to AVOID fights, PvD when no one is there, kill the NPC’s, build ACs and balis and cats and shield gens and Trebs and then make sure your zerg gets into those towers and keeps fast enough to not allow anyone to die then get on siege and kill the 5 people outside! Doesn’t that sound fun? YAY!

Increased PPK might discourage people even more to engage in (fair) fights, because losing those would matter even more. I’d expect even more siege use, running away from even numbers, hiding behind walls, rolling over much smaller groups and ganking.

WvW isn’t suited for fair fights. There will be always a more or less big difference in numbers and let’s not forget the terrible class balance, which is almost completely ignored by the devs when it comes to wvw. So usually fair fights only happen, because the involved sides commit to those fights, simply because they want those fights. “For fun” basically, not for the points. But “fair” always involves the risk of losing. And as soon winning matters, less people would want to take this risk.

@ those that want to “punish” server with higher population and want to give smaller servers the same chances to win a matchup

Population differences are not only a problem because of the scoring. It is a problem because it often creates unfun situations (boring onesided fights, spawncamping, …) regardless of the scoring system. So the scoring system should still allow the separation of high and low population, to match them against similar populated server and create as even matchups as possible – not only score wise.

I didn’t say you want to just straight up increase PPK without conditions. I am saying they need to Increase PPK and LOOT while fighting over an objective without the use of siege You touch an AC then you get no PPK or LOOT.

The highest PPK and chance of rare LOOT in the game would be from defending your objectives without the use of siege, so players will come back to defend them and not just PvD or K train. That would make owning the objectives more valuable than they currently are. Players fighting other players without the use of siege over a structure, yak, camp, tower, sentry ect would receive the most LOOT and PPK.

Players fighting other players without the use of siege while attacking an objective would received the second most PPK and LOOT.

They can add multipliers to Increase the LOOT and PPK for the higher tiered camp/ Rower Keep and ALSO increase the LOOT and PPK for being outnumbered as well.

There are fair ways to offset the scoring and population imbalance issues and still treat players equally. As long as structures are not just scoring points on their own while players are not fighting over them, the score would not run away when no one is on. If no one is on, there is no one to kill to run up the score.

I’m pretty sure Anet has said that, for technical reasons, they can’t do what you’re proposing. They can’t tell when an objective is “defended” accurately enough or who is “defending” it to award points or loot. They talked about this when people were asking for defenders to be better rewarded.

Now granted that was awhile ago but I haven’t seen anything from them to indicate that they have overcome this technical issue.

No, they can actually just the current system of when something is contested to and you are given xp for defending it to determine the radius. Of course some will be given xp/ loot when not defending but it is close enough to be effective considering it is still more valuable to own the actual objective due to the LOOT and PPK increase. You do not receive the actual benefits for PPK or LOOT unless you actually kill someone so it should work fine for what it would be used for. If people are getting a defender bonus and fighting near an objective is still close enough to consider that a bonus of owning the objective. If people fighting receive the bonus while fighting players near the objective, it isn;t going to harm the system.

The problem you are describing is they would give loot just for being in the area, but I think that is a terrible idea and rewards afkers for doing nothing, instead they should receive a buff the same way they receive current keep buffs. Since they are only receiving a buff to their PPK and LOOT increase and not an actual item at the time for it, they would actually have to kill players for them to receive actual rewards from it.

It is only a problem if you try to give them a straight up reward for it rather than an added buff to the buff system. What I propose would work as a buff.

JUGGERNAUT.5214:

I hate the night capping. If your server is kitten during NA Prime, there’s no chance of coming back cos the PPT will nerfed for Euro/ OCE/ SEA time, making American players more important than the rest of us.

And because they’re no Oceania/Asia servers, we’re kittening screwed no matter whether we’re in an european or american server.

That part is only a proposal at this stage and whether its implemented or not will depend on a poll to be run in the future and I guess anet’s interpretation of the feedback they have gotten.

Jax.1283:

Sidenote: Don’t know where these people get night capping as a OCX thing to do…

SoX……….

I posted a scoring model a few weeks ago that doesn’t use PPT. The only passive scoring is dolyaks. The rest of the scoring is based on activity (fighting, capturing, upgrades). Since we are making suggestions here …

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/PPT-less-Scoring-model-Fights-and-Dolyaks

henchmen.1856:

Jax.1283:

Sidenote: Don’t know where these people get night capping as a OCX thing to do…

SoX……….

Yes SoX do raid during the NA night so……………………

Baldrick.8967:

Draeyon.4392:

Like many have posted already, scoring being scaled to population (or lack there of) would be the best option presented.

I don’t like the idea of certain hours (timezones) contributing more to the score than others.

I disagree strongly with it being the best option.

If you score for action rather than passive ticks like it is now, then the population differences at different times of day are mitigated, and huge over night swings can no longer happen. See my earlier posts.

Any sort of ‘multiplier’ is a terrible idea which would lead to gaming of the system as well as a lot of ‘salt’.

R.I.P

Misread the first post, I thought the multiplier ideas were a certainty instead of a possibility.
Would rather not have it but if they forced it into he game, having it be based on population differences instead of a locked prime time would be the better of the 2.

@Blockhead Magee

Yes…Role Playing.

I was just being silly.

Just making a point that EoTM & its PvE related behavior should not contribute to War points.

Glad you caught that.

Diku

EoTM will always encourage Server Population Stacking behavior…due to the nature on how it does Match Ups…which isn’t good for long term health of WvW…imho.

ANet still needs to encourage the right behavior for the WvW ecosystem to thrive by Reward Tracks done right. This is only a part of the long term solution.

The Core Base Map Mechanic is the real thing that needs to be changed…for long term health of the WvW Game Mode…imho.

Draeyon.4392:

Baldrick.8967:

Draeyon.4392:

Like many have posted already, scoring being scaled to population (or lack there of) would be the best option presented.

I don’t like the idea of certain hours (timezones) contributing more to the score than others.

I disagree strongly with it being the best option.

If you score for action rather than passive ticks like it is now, then the population differences at different times of day are mitigated, and huge over night swings can no longer happen. See my earlier posts.

Any sort of ‘multiplier’ is a terrible idea which would lead to gaming of the system as well as a lot of ‘salt’.

R.I.P

Misread the first post, I thought the multiplier ideas were a certainty instead of a possibility.
Would rather not have it but if they forced it into he game, having it be based on population differences instead of a locked prime time would be the better of the 2.

A score is a measurement tool to evaluate teams’ performances (collective and indicudual skills) to define a winer.

In the score PPT is the Key Performance Indicator that evaluate the skill of a team to hold a territory. Of course it’s usefull in a such a game.

It’s easiest for a team with a lot of player to hold a territory than for a team with less people.

That’s why it could be a good idea to also think the PPT calculation on a evolving system, depending of the population trends (4 maps together, players travel) at each “tic”.

And an other advantage of that kind of approach would be to make day/night debat obsolete.

Draeyon.4392:

Baldrick.8967:

Draeyon.4392:

Like many have posted already, scoring being scaled to population (or lack there of) would be the best option presented.

I don’t like the idea of certain hours (timezones) contributing more to the score than others.

I disagree strongly with it being the best option.

If you score for action rather than passive ticks like it is now, then the population differences at different times of day are mitigated, and huge over night swings can no longer happen. See my earlier posts.

Any sort of ‘multiplier’ is a terrible idea which would lead to gaming of the system as well as a lot of ‘salt’.

R.I.P

Misread the first post, I thought the multiplier ideas were a certainty instead of a possibility.
Would rather not have it but if they forced it into he game, having it be based on population differences instead of a locked prime time would be the better of the 2.

A score is a measurement tool to evaluate teams’ performances (collective and indicudual skills) to define a winer.

In the score PPT is the Key Performance Indicator that evaluate the skill of a team to hold a territory. Of course it’s usefull in a such a game.

It’s easiest for a team with a lot of player to hold a territory than for a team with less people.

That’s why it could be a good idea to build the PPT calculation on a evolving system, depending of the population trends (The 4 maps together, players travel) at each “tic”.