Guild Wars 2

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

• 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

Those are the worse ideeas and will end a 24/7 game mode. You are aware of that, right?

“During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3”
Why would be that so called “prime time” treated differently, than the rest?!

“off-hours coverage will still matter, it just will no longer be…”
No, won’t matter.

I don’t think the vast majority of “off hour” players will accept it. Why would anyone play in a game that discriminates, based on time zones?
I will stop here, but it’s simply infuriating.

Treat ALL your players with the same measure or make it an NA time zone exclusive game. Or create 2 tiers (6 servers) NA evening exclusive, closed during “off hours”, and 3 servers that are closed during NA, or any variant… but in any case — same rule for everyone.

P.S. And don’t forget to balance population numbers, we frequently have outmanned vs. full map currently. It’s that a different topic? Score fixed first, balance only after?

lil devils x.6071:

The mindset that should ever be a way to win is what is ruining the game mode and making the players not care about score because with their current scoring system and the one proposed here , to win still means you PvD and siege hump REAL good. That is no way to reward a large scale PvP game mode. PvP should not be an after thought in a PvP game mode, it should be the focus and the reward.

And with the PPK > all mindset it will only mean this:

1 – People will siege hump more, because that give safe kills
2 – People will PvD more, because facing players may mean a defeat and loss of points
3 – People will only engage when outnumbering the enemy at least 5 to 1
4 – If you are not 5 to 1 on enemies, goto 1

Aeowia.7214:

“During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3”
Why would be that so called “prime time” treated differently, than the rest?!

Because they want to have equality for player time. One person in 60-man zerg during prime time contributes jack **** for score. Same person catapulting undefended keeps three in the morning would make their server win the matchup and create five thousand point difference in score. Been there, done that. It’s not fair way to give such power to players who play in different time periods. This is why score has to scale with general player activity.

Aeowia.7214:

Why would be that so called “prime time” treated differently, than the rest?!

Consider that NA players still outnumber OCX/SEA/EU players in total population across all NA datacenter servers. For the most part, all NA servers should experience activity level 3 during NA prime anyway, even the lower tier servers where only small pockets of OCX/SEA/EU are found. That said, I’m still not seeing a reason to set NA prime to max 3 level artificially. If activity level were implemented, it should only consider map population.

Zenith.6403:

Aeowia.7214:

“During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3”
Why would be that so called “prime time” treated differently, than the rest?!

Because they want to have equality for player time. One person in 60-man zerg during prime time contributes jack **** for score. Same person catapulting undefended keeps three in the morning would make their server win the matchup and create five thousand point difference in score. Been there, done that. It’s not fair way to give such power to players who play in different time periods. This is why score has to scale with general player activity.

Every server has their share of off peak players. I don’t think it is so simple as you put it.

Dawdler.8521:

lil devils x.6071:

The mindset that should ever be a way to win is what is ruining the game mode and making the players not care about score because with their current scoring system and the one proposed here , to win still means you PvD and siege hump REAL good. That is no way to reward a large scale PvP game mode. PvP should not be an after thought in a PvP game mode, it should be the focus and the reward.

And with the PPK > all mindset it will only mean this:

1 – People will siege hump more, because that give safe kills
2 – People will PvD more, because facing players may mean a defeat and loss of points
3 – People will only engage when outnumbering the enemy at least 5 to 1
4 – If you are not 5 to 1 on enemies, goto 1

I don’t think this is inevitable, but I guess that’s what a beta would prove.

Anyway, my suggestion to score ~50% of the matchup based on each team’s proportion of kills over the matchup would hopefully sort that anyway. You would need to be better at killing and hiding in a keep isn’t going to help that.

Roxanne.6140:

Every server has their share of off peak players. I don’t think it is so simple as you put it.

We’re talking about individuals here. Not zergs or anything of the sort.

Take a look at some graphs:
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/15/
Desolation has night-capping team that works 2:20 – 10:00. Evenings are hard-fought battles. Desolation wins the matchup by 90k points.

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/9/
Kodash has no night-capping team but fights well during evening hours. Losing by 55k points.

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/26/
Sunday May 8 Far Shiverpeaks overtook Riverside’s 8k score lead in just 4½ hours of uncontested PvD.

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/13/
Look at this graph! Every time Baruch Bay peaks it’s 1 in the night and this domination continues because nobody will capture stuff back. Players are sleeping. 90k win to Baruch Bay.

I could go on and on, but the message is clear: bulk of points are made during night when theres just few individuals playing. It doesn’t matter what happens during prime time when there’s competition between the three servers.

scerevisiae.1972:

Skirmish idea is very clumsy. A far better solution would be to dynamically calculate and adjust score per tick based on a moving average of the number of active players per server over the past hour as a proportion of the active population of all 3 servers per tick.

eg:

• server A has 2K active players, B has 1.5K, C has 1.8K. PPT.
• server A is currently ticking at 300 PPT, B 100, C 200.
• actual awarded score is scaled as follows:
  # A = 300ppt * (5300/2000) / 3 = 265ppt
  # B = 100ppt * (5300/1500) / 3 = 117ppt
  # C = 200ppt * (5300/1800) / 3 = 196ppt

This is using a basic linear scaling whereas actual performance vs population size probably scales geometrically/logarithmically but you get the idea.

The rest of the changes are good.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t that make it so that having less players who are really skilled would be inherently better than more players who are not? Or, rather, this could “shine a light” (so to speak) on players who aren’t pulling their weight.

It could make it so that seeing more people fighting with you would mean less points, in a way.

Zenith.6403:

Roxanne.6140:

Every server has their share of off peak players. I don’t think it is so simple as you put it.

We’re talking about individuals here. Not zergs or anything of the sort.

Take a look at some graphs:
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/15/
Desolation has night-capping team that works 2:20 – 10:00. Evenings are hard-fought battles. Desolation wins the matchup by 90k points.

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/9/
Kodash has no night-capping team but fights well during evening hours. Losing by 55k points.

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/26/
Sunday May 8 Far Shiverpeaks overtook Riverside’s 8k score lead in just 4½ hours of uncontested PvD.

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/13/
Look at this graph! Every time Baruch Bay peaks it’s 1 in the night and this domination continues because nobody will capture stuff back. Players are sleeping. 90k win to Baruch Bay.

I could go on and on, but the message is clear: bulk of points are made during night when theres just few individuals playing. It doesn’t matter what happens during prime time when there’s competition between the three servers.

Have to give this attention.
100 vs 20 at night is not fair and any developer/staff should have know this.
(I wonder how many of the staff have player on Desolation, wtj’ers)

TorquedSoul.8097:

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

+1

Falsk.8193:

Zenith.6403:

Roxanne.6140:

Every server has their share of off peak players. I don’t think it is so simple as you put it.

We’re talking about individuals here. Not zergs or anything of the sort.

Take a look at some graphs:
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/15/
Desolation has night-capping team that works 2:20 – 10:00. Evenings are hard-fought battles. Desolation wins the matchup by 90k points.

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/9/
Kodash has no night-capping team but fights well during evening hours. Losing by 55k points.

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/26/
Sunday May 8 Far Shiverpeaks overtook Riverside’s 8k score lead in just 4½ hours of uncontested PvD.

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/13/
Look at this graph! Every time Baruch Bay peaks it’s 1 in the night and this domination continues because nobody will capture stuff back. Players are sleeping. 90k win to Baruch Bay.

I could go on and on, but the message is clear: bulk of points are made during night when theres just few individuals playing. It doesn’t matter what happens during prime time when there’s competition between the three servers.

Have to give this attention.
100 vs 20 at night is not fair and any developer/staff should have know this.
(I wonder how many of the staff have player on Desolation, wtj’ers)

100 vs 20 at anytime is not fair and any developer/staff should have know this.
FTFY

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll on this topic is up: https://feedback.guildwars2.com

Can you clarify what the first option means? is this just increasing the contribution of PPK, or is there more to it?

Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll on this topic is up: https://feedback.guildwars2.com

can you elaborate on these two poll options?

• Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)
  Does this include anything other PPK and yak kills and deliveries?

• Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)
  Would this be based on the population and activity at a given time or would it be based on a predicted population and activity?

Are you only going to implement one of the options? What Tyler Bearce said on opening post sounds great as a whole. It’s difficult to choose just one feature, because they’re tied together. I don’t quite understand this poll.

Unchecked yak score is biggest single contributor to large score discrepancies (option #6). This is caused by population differences during nightcapping (option #1) and makes recovering difficult (option #5). Putting focus on objective captures (option #2) would help this problem somewhat, since popular times would tick more. Changing tick to 5 minutes is convenience.

Ultimately it just comes down to this: does the scoring make sense or not?

might need to start posting in the new thread for this…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-13-May-Scoring/first#post6152794

“Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)”

It may be the longest to develop … but this is something that may have the most interesting impact for renewed interest in the match.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large) is the Skirmish idea Tyler explained in this thread.

Oh I’ll have one of those, thank you.

Zenith.6403:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large) is the Skirmish idea Tyler explained in this thread.

Oh I’ll have one of those, thank you.

Meanwhile the scoring problem directly related to population imbalances (PPT) will continue to imbalance things … just to a slightly lesser extent.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll on this topic is up: https://feedback.guildwars2.com

Moving forward can we get an option of “Need Another Solution”. This is different than no preference and might change the results or might show that all of the options present were targeted ones.

Still think that going with Active points only is the best solution, remove automatic upgraded and revert to old upgraded system were a player need to start upgraded and have 9 upgrades, if you like keep it so it dont cost supply, it needs x amount off dolys to get in.

So points will be gain form kills, stomps, upgrades on buildings, defending of buildings and capping building, cap give same amount off points as defenders gain on upgrades done.

If you don’t like the time slice scoring and prefer another method then don’t vote for it, vote for one of the other points options. Get your guild and server mates to vote now or forever hold your peace.

1. Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level
(Medium time frame)
-T3 upgraded structures will have a higher PPT.

2. Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick
(Small time frame)
-Increased points for PPK and killing yaks and sentries.

3. Implement scoring for objective capture
(Small time frame)
-Points for object captures, more points for a higher tier structure.

4. Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population
(Large time frame)
-The skirmish time slice scoring and possibly the controversial action level change.

5. Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities
(Medium time frame)
-Last Stand catch up mechanic.

6. Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes
(Small time frame)
-More ticks, more points.

7. No preference
-You like chocolate frosted vanilla cake with colored sprinkles.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large) is the Skirmish idea Tyler explained in this thread.

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

And PPK:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

*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.

This explanation really should have been included in the poll itself.

Zenith.6403:

Aeowia.7214:

“During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3”
Why would be that so called “prime time” treated differently, than the rest?!

Because they want to have equality for player time. One person in 60-man zerg during prime time contributes jack **** for score. Same person catapulting undefended keeps three in the morning would make their server win the matchup and create five thousand point difference in score. Been there, done that. It’s not fair way to give such power to players who play in different time periods. This is why score has to scale with general player activity.

I understand the reasons and agree that it is a problem, I even support changes and ask for changes. This part is fine and fair: “score has to scale with general player activity”.

What I’m against is any form of discrimination, based on a time zone one plays for example. Don’t make those players feel less.

The rule must be the same for every time zone: for example, based on activity level. Without favoring “prime time” time zone, based on server location, as in “During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3”. No. Let prime time have the same rules: unrestricted multiplier.

This is just the scoring though — this won’t bring players into outmanned maps. Without having close to equal numbers, all this scoring talk is futile: we will still know which server will win, before the match starts, or within a very short time afterwards – and all that will be because COVERAGE. That has to be distributed evenly FIRST of all, by resetting and then creating new servers, then all this transferring around kept under control.
If not, will still be outmanned vs full map.

Solve the coverage problem first: distribute the players evenly. That should be the first step. Even a perfect scoring is meaningless now, there can’t be “competition” while the current coverage differences are still in place.

Be ready when it comes. Get yo gas masks ready

Dawdler.8521:

lil devils x.6071:

The mindset that should ever be a way to win is what is ruining the game mode and making the players not care about score because with their current scoring system and the one proposed here , to win still means you PvD and siege hump REAL good. That is no way to reward a large scale PvP game mode. PvP should not be an after thought in a PvP game mode, it should be the focus and the reward.

And with the PPK > all mindset it will only mean this:

1 – People will siege hump more, because that give safe kills
2 – People will PvD more, because facing players may mean a defeat and loss of points
3 – People will only engage when outnumbering the enemy at least 5 to 1
4 – If you are not 5 to 1 on enemies, goto 1

1) You do realize that if you re read through what I posted in this thread, siege humping would mean you do not get any ppk at all or loot, so how does it give safe kills? In what I suggested, it forces players to make hard choices, yes an AC can do more damage than their character, however, if they so much as touch that AC they get no loot from anyone that dies that they hit with it and they get no PPK to their score. You have to sacrifice your loot and score to use it.

2)Pvd = get no points at all.

3) Outnumber buff could be used to give more benefits to offset and is too weak as it is.

Not sure you understood what you were addressing.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Next I’ll talk about how we plan to achieve those goals.

Changes to Match Structure:

• We’ll split the week long matches into 2 hour time slices we are calling ‘Skirmishes’

Here’s a thought that the math suggests and lines up with a lot of players’ initial reactions to the skirmish-block idea…

During each 24 hour day there are two periods~

• The first is a 6 hour “prime time” period that features three 2-hour skirmishes. This is maximum intensity get-in-get-out play.
• The second is the off-hours back and forth, broken into six 3-hour skirmishes.

By making the prime time skirmishes “tick” 50% faster you create rewards and intensity without having to apply hidden multipliers. A player coming in only needs to look at the clock to know how tight things are getting.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large) is the Skirmish idea Tyler explained in this thread.

And PPK:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

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.

So what you are saying is zerg should run off cliff and die every 5 min then get back in the fight? That is what that boils down to.. they had no problem running back to Sm for cloaking waters for every push, they will have no prob jumping off a cliff to ensure diminished returns for their opponents.

Using the system to their benefit = New Meta. That Is exactly what is being stated when you implement things like that.

lil devils x.6071:

Dawdler.8521:

lil devils x.6071:

The mindset that should ever be a way to win is what is ruining the game mode and making the players not care about score because with their current scoring system and the one proposed here , to win still means you PvD and siege hump REAL good. That is no way to reward a large scale PvP game mode. PvP should not be an after thought in a PvP game mode, it should be the focus and the reward.

And with the PPK > all mindset it will only mean this:

1 – People will siege hump more, because that give safe kills
2 – People will PvD more, because facing players may mean a defeat and loss of points
3 – People will only engage when outnumbering the enemy at least 5 to 1
4 – If you are not 5 to 1 on enemies, goto 1

1) You do realize that if you re read through what I posted in this thread, siege humping would mean you do not get any ppk at all or loot, so how does it give safe kills? In what I suggested, it forces players to make hard choices, yes an AC can do more damage than their character, however, if they so much as touch that AC they get no loot from anyone that dies that they hit with it and they get no PPK to their score. You have to sacrifice your loot and score to use it.

2)Pvd = get no points at all.

3) Outnumber buff could be used to give more benefits to offset and is too weak as it is.

Not sure you understood what you were addressing.

I agree ppk should be a much bigger contributor, but I don’t agree with what you say about siege. Siege is a part of the game. Who are these selfless heroes that will man siege for no rewards? And face rubbing a blob against siege should carry a big penalty! Small well-organised groups have always been able to mitigate siege damage while they bring it down. Yes, it can take a while, but it’s do-able.

lil devils x.6071:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large) is the Skirmish idea Tyler explained in this thread.

And PPK:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

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.

So what you are saying is zerg should run off cliff and die every 5 min then get back in the fight? That is what that boils down to.. they had no problem running back to Sm for cloaking waters for every push, they will have no prob jumping off a cliff to ensure diminished returns for their opponents.

Using the system to their benefit = New Meta. That Is exactly what is being stated when you implement things like that.

Yes, there should be no 5 min diminished returns. Don’t understand why this is even an idea!

…..anyway why are we still talking about all this, when it seems Anet are going ahead with Plan A regardless

Jong.5937:

lil devils x.6071:

Dawdler.8521:

lil devils x.6071:

The mindset that should ever be a way to win is what is ruining the game mode and making the players not care about score because with their current scoring system and the one proposed here , to win still means you PvD and siege hump REAL good. That is no way to reward a large scale PvP game mode. PvP should not be an after thought in a PvP game mode, it should be the focus and the reward.

And with the PPK > all mindset it will only mean this:

1 – People will siege hump more, because that give safe kills
2 – People will PvD more, because facing players may mean a defeat and loss of points
3 – People will only engage when outnumbering the enemy at least 5 to 1
4 – If you are not 5 to 1 on enemies, goto 1

1) You do realize that if you re read through what I posted in this thread, siege humping would mean you do not get any ppk at all or loot, so how does it give safe kills? In what I suggested, it forces players to make hard choices, yes an AC can do more damage than their character, however, if they so much as touch that AC they get no loot from anyone that dies that they hit with it and they get no PPK to their score. You have to sacrifice your loot and score to use it.

2)Pvd = get no points at all.

3) Outnumber buff could be used to give more benefits to offset and is too weak as it is.

Not sure you understood what you were addressing.

I agree ppk should be a much bigger contributor, but I don’t agree with what you say about siege. Siege is a part of the game. Who are these selfless heroes that will man siege for no rewards? And face rubbing a blob against siege should carry a big penalty! Small well-organised groups have always been able to mitigate siege damage while they bring it down. Yes, it can take a while, but it’s do-able.

lil devils x.6071:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large) is the Skirmish idea Tyler explained in this thread.

And PPK:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

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.

So what you are saying is zerg should run off cliff and die every 5 min then get back in the fight? That is what that boils down to.. they had no problem running back to Sm for cloaking waters for every push, they will have no prob jumping off a cliff to ensure diminished returns for their opponents.

Using the system to their benefit = New Meta. That Is exactly what is being stated when you implement things like that.

Yes, there should be no 5 min diminished returns. Don’t understand why this is even an idea!

Siege is a part of the game. Let Siege vs siege , not Siege vs Player. The end result is why many left the game. We currently have map Queue zergs run into towers and all jump on siege against the 5 players outside now and refuse to fight. The guilds run around in the fields and fight to stay away from the ACs . That is what made everyone get bored and leave the game..

This allows for the use of siege, but make a choice. They can choose to zerg siege hump or they can choose to get off their kitten and fight like everyone else. IF you want bags, earn them.

Jong.5937:

…..anyway why are we still talking about all this, when it seems Anet are going ahead with Plan A regardless

Because if we stop talking about it, it will just take another 6 months for them to go back and try to fix it after they realize players left over it.

They implemented HOT and DBL and if we had stopped talking we would still be sitting on those garbage DBL maps. People do not know how bad something is until they try it often because they are not discussing the playability and end game.

Making decisions without doing that and weighing the pros and cons of numerous choices before choosing the right one that has the most benefits with the least negative impact just causes a waste of resources, time and an increase in player loss. entire purpose of discussing this and polling was to prevent that from happening, however, that does not appear to be the intention here. Instead it is " we will just make it look like we gave them options but not really give any options and make them deal with the broken game anyways without actually trying to change what was broken in the first place". They could use this opportunity to turn it around, but would rather implement a system where players still do not acre about the score and will still leave game over it due to trying to further prop up a passive scoring system.

People often look at the symptom of the problem without looking for the cause. There will just be more symptoms as long as the cause is not addressed. The game mode will still die out faster if they implement the propose system. It does nothing to extend the game’s longevity.. at all.

I just do not see them looking to the cause and effect long term or thinking ahead at all..

lil devils x.6071:

Siege is a part of the game. Let Siege vs siege , not Siege vs Player. The end result is why many left the game. We currently have map Queue zergs run into towers and all jump on siege against the 5 players outside now and refuse to fight. The guilds run around in the fields and fight to stay away from the ACs . That is what made everyone get bored and leave the game..

This allows for the use of siege, but make a choice. They can choose to zerg siege hump or they can choose to get off their kitten and fight like everyone else. IF you want bags, earn them.

I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am more worried about the zergs that face-rub keeps, not giving a **** about siege.

Yes, it can be a pain trying to break into a well sieged keep but, as I said, a good offensive group should not be dying under it. It should just slow you down. People on siege should die just as much, if not more, to AOE from below. And, actually, trying to think your way into a bunkered keep is one of the more interesting challenges in the game.

lil devils x.6071:

Jong.5937:

…..anyway why are we still talking about all this, when it seems Anet are going ahead with Plan A regardless

Because if we stop talking about it, it will just take another 6 months for them to go back and try to fix it after they realize players left over it.

Didn’t you see my wink? It was more a nudge to Anet to actually engage more with the discussion they kindly started than a serious comment.

Jong.5937:

I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am more worried about the zergs that face-rub keeps, not giving a **** about siege.

Yes, it can be a pain trying to break into a well sieged keep but, as I said, a good offensive group should not be dying under it. It should just slow you down. People on siege die just as much to AOE from below. And, actually, trying to think your way into a bunkered keep is one of the more interesting challenges in the game.

YB had their entire Map queue on siege in keeps and towers vs anything that came at it. They would not even come out to fight against 5 people. That was why many left the game all together because that is the end game and the end game is boring, No siege does not die from AOE below if they actually siege it properly because you counter that siege with more siege. DO you have any idea how many people a map queue is on siege?

It doesn’t work like " think your way into a bunkered keep" at all. No one wants to spend the 6 hours it takes to wear down the keep to do it and wait for the nubs in there to get bored and leave. Players don’t work like that, they play to have fun, so they leave that and just go have fun fights with others in the field instead ( the current system).

Players are bored with siege wars, been there done that..and if Anet keeps " siege wars" in the game players will most definitely continue to leave the game in great numbers. The game has been hemorrhaging players out the top from the beginning. This is part of what is making that happen so frequently. They are actually running players out of the game with boredom due to the rewarding of lazy game play. That is what you are doing by rewarding siege humping and passive scoring.

lil devils x.6071:

It doesn’t work like " think your way into a bunkered keep" at all. .

Well mostly I’d say it does work that way in EU. I get your point. There are some servers who try to siege up and retire. But except during the dead period after HoT they don’t tend to do THAT well. And if we increase ppk to be a major contributor to the score I hope there will be less of it. But, yeah, I get the concern and a beta period where we see what happens and can tweak would be good.

I just don’t agree with the pessimism of those who fear that increasing ppk will lead to less fights, because people will not want to die. Although I know that’s not your position, this feels a bit of a variant on it. I prefer to think that a higher percentage of the score from fights will make people want to get better at them and engage in them more. But maybe I’m hopelessly naive!

Jong.5937:

lil devils x.6071:

It doesn’t work like " think your way into a bunkered keep" at all. .

Well mostly I’d say it does work that way in EU. I get your point. There are some servers who try to siege up and retire. But except during the dead period after HoT they don’t tend to do THAT well. And if we increase ppk to be a major contributor to the score I hope there will be less of it. But, yeah, I get the concern and a beta period where we see what happens and can tweak would be good.

I just don’t agree with the pessimism of those who fear that increasing ppk will lead to less fights, because people will not want to die. Although I know that’s not your position, this feels a bit of a variant on it. I prefer to think that a higher percentage of the score from fights will make people want to get better at them and engage in them more. But maybe I’m hopelessly naive!

We need to increase the PPK to help resolve the problems, but that PPK should encourage fun fights over objectives otherwise why leave the field ever? Either they need to debuff AC’s back to where they were prior to running everyone to the fields or take away their loot and PPK for using them. Either should be effective at helping to bring fights back to objectives in combination to PPK and LOOT buffs on objectives to have players fight over them.

Scaling back the damage, or, maybe better, reducing the number you can deploy in an area probably would be a good thing.

lil devils x.6071:

Either they need to debuff AC’s back to where they were prior to running everyone to the fields or take away their loot and PPK for using them.

taking away loot/ppk is simply untenable. it will never happen.

insanemaniac.2456:

lil devils x.6071:

Either they need to debuff AC’s back to where they were prior to running everyone to the fields or take away their loot and PPK for using them.

taking away loot/ppk is simply untenable. it will never happen.

Would be the best option to ensure they want to use it only as a last resort, not the " go to " action instead of playing their character. However, They should make walls where players can actually fight from them by giving them a larger radius and more defense as you would receive from being on real walls.. Players should have an actual benefit from attacking from walls since currently it is just a death trap.

Ac should not be considered the primary method of defense is the problem. It only is currently due to the lack of better options. Give better options to solve the problem rather than try to keep a bad mechanic.

I have to suggest some improvements .

- Points count only when I am online.
- When my server has the highest tick points count x10
- When we are outmanned no points are awarded .
- No PPK if we are losing fights.
- No points during the night if the other server is nightcapping . If we are nightcapping points are awarded as normal .

ykon.8214:

I have to suggest some improvements .

- Points count only when I am online.
- When my server has the highest tick points count x10
- When we are outmanned no points are awarded .
- No PPK if we are losing fights.
- No points during the night if the other server is nightcapping . If we are nightcapping points are awarded as normal .

It is funny, but many endorsing the proposed system think THIS is exactly how it should be since it is okay to devalue others time put in as long as it doe snot effect them. If at some point it starts to affect them, you can be sure they will be the first to complain about it.

The thing is I am ’ technically" a NA prime player. I choose to play during odd hours often though as well because it is fun for me when all odds are against me and people are logging out due to thinking it is hopeless.. Fighting against the odds IS what is fun for me, but that style of game play will not even matter since it matters not if you were fighting 12 vs 2 map queues, it is not within that 6 hour period so it must not be of significant contribution.

It sounds from your description of the action meter that you plan on having a pre-set primetime. Right after that you talk about having a multiplied scoring day. Both these ideas are drastically disconnected with what the game needs.

If you insist on doing an action meter, let it decide every timezone. Don’t force a primetime during specific hours, you will end up screwing up the times and giving a huge boost to some of the off hours players you are trying to stop.

Don’t give us a score multiplier day because that gives us two forced pushes every week. Reset day is already a push day, and how many servers do you see pushing for 24 hours even then? If you need a comeback mechanic, adjust your skirmish points to allow for it.

I can see the reasons behind your other suggestions, but these two are inconsistent with what you are aiming for and with what wvwers want.

BAITness.1083:

I can’t express how awful ideas like a forced primetime and a 3x scoring day are.

There is no such thing as a “forced primetime and daytime” multiplier. Stop making things up and read what it actually says instead.

The activity multiplier would scale on population and activity. If all three servers can gather 800+ players at 03:00 in the night then congrats, you just got high activity and thus a high multiplier. The time is irrelevant. Daytime is irrelevant. Primetime is irrelevant. Whether daytime or primetime naturally has more players on and thus higher activity is a whole other matter. Nightcappers always argue that boho it’s not their fault they play at night. Well its not primetime players fault you have low activity and population by the very definition of what nightcapping is either.

Dawdler.8521:

BAITness.1083:

I can’t express how awful ideas like a forced primetime and a 3x scoring day are.

There is no such thing as a “forced primetime and daytime” multiplier. Stop making things up and read what it actually says instead.

The activity multiplier would scale on population and activity. If all three servers can gather 800+ players at 03:00 in the night then congrats, you just got high activity and thus a high multiplier. The time is irrelevant. Daytime is irrelevant. Primetime is irrelevant. Whether daytime or primetime naturally has more players on and thus higher activity is a whole other matter. Nightcappers always argue that boho it’s not their fault they play at night. Well its not primetime players fault you have low activity and population by the very definition of what nightcapping is either.

You are wrong.

The first post says verbatim:

“During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3.”

It does not say “during high activity the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3.”

After that it also says:

“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”

Which seems to once again directly imply that preset times will always be at maximum multiplier.

In his next post he says:

“Prime Time would be universal per datacenter. For example, all worlds in NA would have the same 6 hour period (of highest activity) as their Prime Time hours. All EU woulds would have a different 6 hour range for their Prime Time.”

It literally says that they are setting one, then defends the decision to set one, then explains that it will be set based on where the datacenters are located. You need to reread it.

lil devils x.6071:

Jong.5937:

I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am more worried about the zergs that face-rub keeps, not giving a **** about siege.

Yes, it can be a pain trying to break into a well sieged keep but, as I said, a good offensive group should not be dying under it. It should just slow you down. People on siege die just as much to AOE from below. And, actually, trying to think your way into a bunkered keep is one of the more interesting challenges in the game.

YB had their entire Map queue on siege in keeps and towers vs anything that came at it.

exaggerate much? entire map queue sitting on siege LOL. so all you had to do was split up and hit multiple objectives of theirs to bring them out but you didn’t because you are JQ.. the biggest k-train server in NA

Dawdler.8521:

BAITness.1083:

I can’t express how awful ideas like a forced primetime and a 3x scoring day are.

There is no such thing as a “forced primetime and daytime” multiplier. Stop making things up and read what it actually says instead.

The activity multiplier would scale on population and activity. If all three servers can gather 800+ players at 03:00 in the night then congrats, you just got high activity and thus a high multiplier. The time is irrelevant. Daytime is irrelevant. Primetime is irrelevant. Whether daytime or primetime naturally has more players on and thus higher activity is a whole other matter. Nightcappers always argue that boho it’s not their fault they play at night. Well its not primetime players fault you have low activity and population by the very definition of what nightcapping is either.

You are mistaken, Tyler B. clarified the " activity" level being based on prime time about half way through the first page of posts on this Thread:

Prime Time would be universal per datacenter. For example, all worlds in NA would have the same 6 hour period (of highest activity) as their Prime Time hours. All EU woulds would have a different 6 hour range for their Prime Time.

It is not the actual activity level of your server, it is the activity level as designated in the 6 hour time zones as being “active”.

You can have high activity on all servers in the match and have that devalued due to it not being in the 6 hour allotted time. THIS is what people are voting for in the poll.. and ANET is going to tell you you asked for..

briggah.7910:

lil devils x.6071:

Jong.5937:

I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am more worried about the zergs that face-rub keeps, not giving a **** about siege.

Yes, it can be a pain trying to break into a well sieged keep but, as I said, a good offensive group should not be dying under it. It should just slow you down. People on siege die just as much to AOE from below. And, actually, trying to think your way into a bunkered keep is one of the more interesting challenges in the game.

YB had their entire Map queue on siege in keeps and towers vs anything that came at it.

exaggerate much? entire map queue sitting on siege LOL. so all you had to do was split up and hit multiple objectives of theirs to bring them out but you didn’t because you are JQ.. the biggest k-train server in NA

Nope, not exaggerated at all.. Had people on YB telling me they were. ( surely you remember there were players with accounts on YB and JQ at the time). and ya this was why BOTH JQ and BG just started fighting each other and ignoring YB for a while lol. The so called JQ “K train commanders” were on YB at the time..

When we were on JQ vs YB, we were busy fighting in the field with BG at the time, not K -raining TYVM lol

lil devils x.6071:

briggah.7910:

lil devils x.6071:

Jong.5937:

I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am more worried about the zergs that face-rub keeps, not giving a **** about siege.

Yes, it can be a pain trying to break into a well sieged keep but, as I said, a good offensive group should not be dying under it. It should just slow you down. People on siege die just as much to AOE from below. And, actually, trying to think your way into a bunkered keep is one of the more interesting challenges in the game.

YB had their entire Map queue on siege in keeps and towers vs anything that came at it.

exaggerate much? entire map queue sitting on siege LOL. so all you had to do was split up and hit multiple objectives of theirs to bring them out but you didn’t because you are JQ.. the biggest k-train server in NA

Nope, not exaggerated at all.. Had people on YB telling me they were. ( surely you remember there were players with accounts on YB and JQ at the time). and ya this was why BOTH JQ and BG just started fighting each other and ignoring YB for a while lol. The so called JQ “K train commanders” were on YB at the time..

When we were on JQ vs YB, we were busy fighting in the field with BG at the time, not K -raining TYVM lol

well you sure do not use your numbers right or the other servers have good scouts.. if every tower you go to has a map queue in it on siege i don’t even know what to say.. its not even possible. servers change over times and you keep bringing up the same thing over and over again.. last week JQ jumped out of their t3 keep soon as inner went down.. didn’t even put up a fight.. guess from now on when someone talks about JQ i’ll bring this up for years

there is another forum you can go to and and say the same thing everyone says about every server.. i dont see the need for you to keep calling out other servers on these forums. it gets annoying

briggah.7910:

lil devils x.6071:

briggah.7910:

lil devils x.6071:

Jong.5937:

I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am more worried about the zergs that face-rub keeps, not giving a **** about siege.

Yes, it can be a pain trying to break into a well sieged keep but, as I said, a good offensive group should not be dying under it. It should just slow you down. People on siege die just as much to AOE from below. And, actually, trying to think your way into a bunkered keep is one of the more interesting challenges in the game.

YB had their entire Map queue on siege in keeps and towers vs anything that came at it.

exaggerate much? entire map queue sitting on siege LOL. so all you had to do was split up and hit multiple objectives of theirs to bring them out but you didn’t because you are JQ.. the biggest k-train server in NA

Nope, not exaggerated at all.. Had people on YB telling me they were. ( surely you remember there were players with accounts on YB and JQ at the time). and ya this was why BOTH JQ and BG just started fighting each other and ignoring YB for a while lol. The so called JQ “K train commanders” were on YB at the time..

When we were on JQ vs YB, we were busy fighting in the field with BG at the time, not K -raining TYVM lol

well you sure do not use your numbers right or the other servers have good scouts.. if every tower you go to has a map queue in it on siege i don’t even know what to say.. its not even possible. servers change over times and you keep bringing up the same thing over and over again.. last week JQ jumped out of their t3 keep soon as inner went down.. didn’t even put up a fight.. guess from now one someone talks about JQ i’ll bring this up for years

[KILL] Moved off of JQ prior to BETA and wasn’t there last week( except our players who got locked out of full server due to mergers and are coming when we open).

[KILL] went inactive on JQ months ago outside of fun fights with BG for the most part. I am talking about what made BG and JQ not care about playing the game last year..
This was not a one time thing, you can thank DK for this reputation they have upheld for YEARS. It isn’t like YB isn’t known for this by all of NA population regardless of what tier they were on. They earned the ‘KING siege humper’s crown" long ago… TC was only second to YB haha.

Think you came to YB AFTER they had earned that crown, they have had that crown for over 2 years BTW with their whole " fight guilds are not welcome here" nonsense they used to have on their forums as they died as fast s they could just to go back and PvD something way back when they were in T4.