Guild Wars 2

fishball.7204:

Please. TIME isn’t a WvW guild lmao. Good joke mate, you guys are more irrelevant than KOME and don’t pretend your entire guild steps in WvW when 90% of your guild are Pve players.

We isn’t, I didn’t say we are. I am a responsible leader and would like to to have my entire guild transferred instead of part of my guild. Could you be so kind to do that? For all of us, the thousands of SEA/OCX? We are just too poor to afford transferring to join up our guilds who are on the other side of the server wall, I mean, we didn’t choose any servers particularly for whatever reason, we just randomly chose it to play the game, it isn’t our fault we are left astray on random servers. We will all be really grateful to you if you can do that for all of us, for eternity. Please do not advocate for a punishment, we didn’t do any wrong to reward that.

On a side note, despite being a PvX, my guild fare much better than many wannabe WvW guilds. Btw, did you know? I had people from BG asking us to move there when JQ was at the peak. We are indeed more irrelevant than anyone, your home server is awesome to have you there.

PS: I have to delete my original post because I think I am on a borderline infraction there.
PS2: I didn’t know people still talks about KOME as they’re dead for 2 long years, I guess KOME was a really influential guild for people to still remember them and occasionally bring them up.

Edit: I think my time line on death date is wrong. should be 2 years or 2.5. kitten , i am bad server mate, i don’t even remember their death date, we started out in the same server afterall.
Edit2: I think is 3 years? Can’t be. I am not sure, anyone knows?
Edit3: Had whisper telling me to fix some grammars, fine, i will fix it.

Chaba.5410:

fishball.7204:

For example let’s take your example of Maguuma, a heavy NA server. They might score substantially well in NA to be on even ground even against BG/TC in those 6 hours and be PPT competitive. But their 15 or so Australians who play will NOT have fun at all. They’ll just be blobbed down and spawn camped by superior numbers despite the scores being close. They’ll see it’s futile and just either go PvP or logoff instead.

That’s why the time-based action level doesn’t make sense. Only the population-based one. At worse, favoring a primetime with action level is going to make players stack that timezone even more, which isn’t what I think a lot of us want.

Unfortunately, ANET does want our transfer dollars, they love it when alliances move around to try and stack servers to win…. Cha Ching!.

I usually don’t go in for conspiracy theories, but I really do think that ANET has designed WvW to milk the saps for transfer money. The whole point of WvW is to stack to win. Stacking servers is by far the most OP tactic there is in WvW. EVERYTHING else is just a useless sideshow, meant to distract the rubes.. oops, I meant “zerg wvw players” from the sad truth of WvW’s craptastic design.

And you have huge alliances foolish enough to throw their money at ANET just so they can win the “Stacking Game (WvW)”.

They (ANET and the fools that pay for transfers) don’t care about skill play or fun. They just try to stack a server with the most players so they can claim the “Stack Server Crown”.

It’s disgusting. I figured at launch it was just a design flaw that somehow made it out of beta. But now after 3 plus years of this stupidity, it is clear that ANET is only out to steal from the fools.

And it is working for them.

This was a thought I had. I’m sure there will be some intelligent rebuttals. So I will welcome all criticism.

FOCUS OF WvW
I’m assuming WvW was meant for a PvP oriented environment that is fought on objectives (keeps, towers, camps). So, I had a different approach to the scoring system that would be more rewarding for what seems like the primary theme for most people:

• PvP (PPK has more weight)
• Population imbalance (primarily the “Outnumbered” buff)
• Peak vs Non-Peak hours
• Siege kills made by the individual (not the server).

PROPOSED SCORING SYSTEM
Proposed Scoring Notes

1. This point system will assume a 5 minute tick cycle (I personally prefer 10 minutes)
2. The point scale can be adjusted per tier (upgrades) of the objective
3. Non-objective refers to the assault/defense quest NOT being triggered (usually in open field fights)
4. They can be adjusted according to the type and tier of the objectives (keeps, towers, camps).
5. Unnecessary points for kills as a result of siege use

Proposed Scoring Scale

1. Non-objective kills/Kills on successful assaults/Kills and higher tier loot on successful defenses (no PPK is awarded for unsuccessful assaults/defense. Just standard loot).
   1. Standard points – 1/3/2 and higher tier loot
   2. Outnumbered Points – 2/4/3 and higher tier loot
2. Holding objectives (per 5 min tick cycle) for camp/tower/keep/SMC
   1. Standard points – 2/3/5/7
   2. Outnumbered Points – 3/4/6/8

Reasoning of Approach

1. This could encourage people to fight on objectives which would achieve a fight for PPT and PPK at the same time.
2. Open field fights can exist. But you can give them the most reduced PPK since WvW is about both the objectives and the player kills, not just one or the other.
3. This could unite the purists PPT addicted and PPK addicted groups.
4. The reason defense gives less PPK is because you will receive higher tier loot in addition to the continuing PPT (This could go either way for attack vs defense).

POSSIBLE RESULT OF PROPOSED SCORING SYSTEM
In regards to satisfying the 4 aforementioned primary points to hit for WvW:

1. PvP – As it stands right now, servers are able to win a matchup with little to no PvP because of the main reliance on PPT. However, this approach to the scoring system makes PvP more relevant again. Regardless of size, contribution can be still be made by large groups or havoc groups. If a large group overruns a small havoc group of 5 outside of an objective, they receive reduced points per kill anyways.
2. The “outnumbered” buff is usually a pretty clear indication of the underdog position. So to prevent such an imbalance (as is assumed of off peak hour groups), this will give them a bit of a fighting chance. It is already difficult to take objectives when your map triggers the “outnumbered” buff. This system rewards taking/defending an objective more because it could be a fair assumption that it was a more difficult task to accomplish than doing so with a zerg of friendlies on the map with you. It may also encourage some strategic planning. This will also help alleviate servers that become stacked because their points will not count as much for queuing a map in WvW. With that said, it will challenge servers to use more than just a map blob to mow down the outnumbered forces so easily.
3. This could help the debate of the fluctuating populations throughout every timezone. It has been a theme that WvW is made up of 2 primary elements: Capturing/defending objectives versus player kills. With that said, off peak hour players typically see mostly just one side: capturing objectives and holding it. It is a given that they will not see as much PvP action as prime time players may see. Night capping is an issue because there is so much weight on just capturing objectives (not to mention some servers simply do not have the coverage during those hours). Peak or non-peak hours, capturing objectives will occur. It’s almost as if it completely ignores the higher activity of player kills that occur more so in prime time hours. This scoring system was thought with the intent to create a dynamic scoring system. Off peak hours simply do not see enough player activity for higher player kills so it resorts to one side of WvW: capturing and holding objectives throughout the off peak hours. With this proposed system it can now account for the higher amount of player kills with on peak players.
   1. This organically moves with the fluctuating level of activity that occurs on these maps at any minute of the day.
   2. It also organically applies to each unique server/tier that may differ from another server/tier.
   3. This will negate the need to create an absolute of a 6 hour period since the both PPT and PPK will count the same across the board in any time zone.
4. I personally dislike when there is a large group inside an objective and they rain down arrow cart fire on 5 of us when they could just easily run out of the tower and maul us (I honestly think it’s cowardly but that’s subjective). With that said, arrow cart fire should be nothing more than a deterrence. Each individual (not the entire group) that employs any siege to kill the enemy should nullify any player kill points and loot. If they want the kills to count for their server they must come out of the tower and fight off the threat. Of course the points will vary whether or not the assault/defense quest is triggered.

In the end, WvW needs to focus on the performance of player kills to be at least as much as gaining objectives. In my opinion, heavier weight on PPT discourages more fights than what I originally assumed was intended for a PvP oriented instance. Here’s to hoping for a more satisfactory future for this game :-)

Have a once a year “transfer window” and Anet then set alliances when it’s closed . Yes, I know people can create new accounts, but it should help a lot.

TorquedSoul.8097:

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.

Population problems are the real problem and the recent population “balance” by merging servers actually made the problem far worse in some cases. For many players it simply made it cheaper to transfer and stack a specific server which was otherwise full (by moving to the paired server).

Score blow outs during certain times of the day are primarily caused by people not caring about PPT at all (they don’t WvW to fight over pieces of a pie chart) and far worse, the population of the leading server’s non peak coverage is much larger than the losing server’s population.

This is a huge problem for people on the losing servers, not because they are losing large amounts of PPT – they don’t care about PPT when they are being spawn camped on four maps. Score blow outs represent players who are massively outnumbering their enemies and the losing servers don’t stand a chance, it kills morale, it kills a guild’s ability to recruit and it kills the fun of WvW. Even winning servers suffer from population imbalance because plent of us turn up to fight and we are bored out of our minds when there is no balanced population on the enemy server to fight back.

Scoring can’t be fixed until population is. The proposal to devalue the time and efforts of non-NA players doesn’t fix scoring, it just makes players during certain times of the day less relevant to the scoreboard of what is a 24/7 arena.

Why share a week long match with several other time zones if you are going to alter the formula to make most of those time zones less relevant for doing the same thing a “Prime Time” player does?

People talk about not liking fewer players having a bigger impact on score (this is BS – it’s population imbalance that has the biggest impact on score). WvW favours greater numbers, it always has. A T3 keep is much easier to take with a zerg of 50 people with enough supply for several rams and shield generators for both keeps. There are plenty of examples during the proposed “Prime Time” where fully upgraded maps are taken by huge zergs facing little to no defence, ninjaing keeps is the most common way anything flips in WvW and it doesn’t always happen during the time zone of the time zones played by the scapegoat players.

Implementing some kind of “Action Level” (something that was initially presented as a potential second stage expansion to the work on scoring but was shortly after weighted equally in the poll as a first step) is jumping the gun. It doesn’t solve the population problems (balanced populations during any time zone will dramatically reduce any score blow outs) and it is insulting to people who don’t have the privilege of playing in prime time. It doesn’t fit the identity of WvW – a 24/7 arena where the battle doesn’t end and every player on your side fights for the same thing, no boundaries, no barriers between time zones, just one big battle. It rewards a server less for doing identical things (holding an objective) based on the time of the day and it caters to the idea that WvW is about passive scoring (PPT) rather than active scoring (PPK).

WvW devs always defend the outnumbered buff’s weakness by saying they don’t want to create conflicts with players (everyone is helping out, you shouldn’t be unhappy to see more people). The spirit of Action Level is counter to this reasoning – not only does it discourage players who don’t capture and hold objectives from being on a map (it raises the action level without actually scoring any points) but it also sends the message to non-prime time players that they aren’t wanted in the match, that they should settle for scraps given to them.

Increase guard at sentry and give points when capture a sentry.

Give points when killing a guard, caravan

actuali scoring doesnt realy matter. this scirmish thing will make more problem. khmmm * cover wars * khmm
add ppk and more fun events to make points and break megablobbing

And give us a wiki page with all the scoring explain !
Actually except PPT for the structures it’s not very easy to know exactly how all of this work…

Chaba.5410:

joneirikb.7506:

The more I read on this one, the more obvious it becomes that we have absolutely no idea how it works. Would it be possible to get some more info on how this is intended to work ?

Especially how do you plan to calculate the active population ? Is it just more than say 200 players online at the same time over all 3 servers ? Is it when 2-3 sides are roughly equal in numbers ? Is this a single map or all 4 map thing ?

How quickly will it change/react to changes in population ? If all servers have 100 players online, and one side is losing and deciding to log out say 90 players, how quickly would the system react this this ? (Regarding gaming the system).

As said before, remove the “set” x3 multiplier in prime-time, and you’ll likely lose 90% of the complaints in this thread, even if this entire suggested rule is optional and all that.

Previously I wrote that the map population-based action level seemed to calculate population disparity and why. As in, when teams are closer to equal size, the activity level/multiplier is high. The thought occurred to me last night that it must also include a threshold, a minimum number of players. Population disparity alone would create some odd scores.

Why would population disparity not quite work? Take for example two low tier servers. Assume that during OCX, they both have only 10 players running around all four maps. Since they are both teams of roughly equal size, they’d end up with high activity level and score high even though they may hardly ever run into each other, which would be absurd; just as absurd as a threshold alone would be (i.e., 100 players running around chasing 10 is not high action).

Since the intent of action level seems to be to mute the effect of population imbalance (where one team cannot exit WvW to force the multiplier to be low), it’s gotta be that population-based action level would be determined by a combination of team sizes and size difference. For example, action level would not be considered high unless all sides had at least 60 players in WvW. It would stay low if one side had 60 players and another had only 10.

Lastly, Tyler wrote on Reddit that they’d make it much more difficult to manipulate than the outmanned buff. I thought I read somewhere else that action level could not be changed in the middle of a skirmish.

That is some good points there, I guessed at some of them, but didn’t think of all the implications. I guess this is something they have as an idea, but not nailed down just yet, so they can change and adjust things depending on feedback.

Should this trigger in 2 or 3 servers at the same time ? I can see cases for both, and I can imagine servers such as SoS would not like it triggering on 2 during NA (if they removed the auto x3 in prime).

Well, even if they don’t give us exact numbers of how this would work, I’d like to see some examples and how they planned to use it, what it would accomplish and not etc. Just annoyed at how vague the original text on this is.

Anyway, still want to see Skirmish/Time Slice added first without this, so we can try/evaluate that stand alone. And see how much it evens out the score (or not)

I was a PvE-only player. I got involved in WvW heavily only recently because of the hypes from recent WvW changes. I do play in NA time but that’s also the time when PvE contents are less frustrating because of lacking of players. I would never have bothered to try WvW if a timezone-biased system was there.

Of course, that is only my personal experience. But the thing is, no data will help you understand people’s desires and motivations, especially unstated ones like mine a few weeks ago. And while you can control the external influences on players, you cannot control their responses, and therefore cannot always control the outcome as you desire. That’s exactly what happened to HoT maps: instead of large group play, we had empty maps after empty maps.

Put aside the debate of whether it is right to make players’ contribution from other timezone less relevant, you look tempted to use an extra complicated layer of rules to further address the “nightcapping” issue. It looks like wishful thinking, and is possible to create more problems.

joneirikb.7506:

Anyway, still want to see Skirmish/Time Slice added first without this, so we can try/evaluate that stand alone. And see how much it evens out the score (or not)

The proposed model will do nothing to even out the score. It may make things appear more even, but the underlying imbalances will still exist and will still lead to predictable outcomes. Anet knows this which is why the still propose both throttling the victory points during certain periods, and have the “last stand” comeback mechanic. Both of these variants indicate that reducing the competition to 84 scoring blocks will do nothing to fix the underlying problems.

All the victory points system will do is allow ego-tripping PvP’ers to get their squirt of dopamine after each two hour block when they win. It will certainly make the game more addictive to them if nothing else. Although those playing during the off hours will get a smaller squirt of dopamine.

The scarier part of the victory point implementation is that it could lead to a complete and total reduction of WvW matches to two hour blocks. As it stands they have no intention of resetting the maps between skirmishes. When you combine this with PPT’s passive scoring, some teams will be starting a skirmish with a scoring advantage. So in a following skirmish where the teams have equal numbers, some of the teams will be fighting an uphill battle.

The solution to this is to reset the map at the beginning of each skirmish to get rid of the advantage and once you have done that, you effectively have 2 hour WvW matches which is what people who want WvW to basically be a large scale sPvP would prefer.

Order of operations is important when the changes are made. If Anet moves to this skirmish format while adamant about not ditching PPT, we will be basically looking at an oversized sPvP match once they incorporate the map resets. Or some ridiculous comeback mechanic. Or point throttling during the off hours.

Pick one. With PPT’s passive scoring these are the only possible outcomes.

TorquedSoul.8097:

some teams will be starting a skirmish with a scoring advantage. So in a following skirmish where the teams have equal numbers, some of the teams will be fighting an uphill battle.

Eh. I don’t see this as something of a negative against the skirmish system since that advantage already exists in the current system. I.e. it isn’t something that is going to be introduced by the skirmish system.

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

some teams will be starting a skirmish with a scoring advantage. So in a following skirmish where the teams have equal numbers, some of the teams will be fighting an uphill battle.

Eh. I don’t see this as something of a negative against the skirmish system since that advantage already exists in the current system. I.e. it isn’t something that is going to be introduced by the skirmish system.

I agree, the skirmish system doesn’t introduce any new problems related to scoring imbalances.

Except these skirmish changes were specifically labelled a fix to the population based scoring problems imbalances … clearly they aren’t.

So what anet is doing is implementing a rather complicated change which they admit will take a large effort to accomplish that doesn’t really fix anything.

The only part that would even remotely attempt to correct the scoring problem is listed as optional and would upset a sizable chunk of the players.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

some teams will be starting a skirmish with a scoring advantage. So in a following skirmish where the teams have equal numbers, some of the teams will be fighting an uphill battle.

Eh. I don’t see this as something of a negative against the skirmish system since that advantage already exists in the current system. I.e. it isn’t something that is going to be introduced by the skirmish system.

I agree, the skirmish system doesn’t introduce any new problems related to scoring imbalances.

Except these skirmish changes were specifically labelled a fix to the population based scoring problems imbalances … clearly they aren’t.

So what anet is doing is implementing a rather complicated change which they admit will take a large effort to accomplish that doesn’t really fix anything.

The only part that would even remotely attempt to correct the scoring problem is listed as optional and would upset a sizable chunk of the players.

I was under the impression they said the skirmish system will reduce run-away scores due to population differences. Keeping scores closer make players feel like they have more of a fighting chance. Coverage still will matter, which was also said.

The majority of zerg players voted for the zerg…. who would have thunk it?

That’s why true democracies always fail. The majority always votes to enslave the minority.

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

some teams will be starting a skirmish with a scoring advantage. So in a following skirmish where the teams have equal numbers, some of the teams will be fighting an uphill battle.

Eh. I don’t see this as something of a negative against the skirmish system since that advantage already exists in the current system. I.e. it isn’t something that is going to be introduced by the skirmish system.

I agree, the skirmish system doesn’t introduce any new problems related to scoring imbalances.

Except these skirmish changes were specifically labelled a fix to the population based scoring problems imbalances … clearly they aren’t.

So what anet is doing is implementing a rather complicated change which they admit will take a large effort to accomplish that doesn’t really fix anything.

The only part that would even remotely attempt to correct the scoring problem is listed as optional and would upset a sizable chunk of the players.

I was under the impression they said the skirmish system will reduce run-away scores due to population differences. Keeping scores closer make players feel like they have more of a fighting chance. Coverage still will matter, which was also said.

Even if they use the same scores for all time zones, it will under-reward large disparities and over-reward close matches. I’m not sure that this will be enough to close the gap in a meaningful way.

I guess we are going to find out.

I don’t see any of this as a fix to a supposed problem in how time zoning works on a spherical planet.

I see it as a fix to a problem of stagnation and boredom.

:)

Missed the poll, but it looks like the most popular option was the most needed one.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Even if they use the same scores for all time zones, it will under-reward large disparities and over-reward close matches. I’m not sure that this will be enough to close the gap in a meaningful way.

I guess we are going to find out.

I see where you’re coming from – there are some issues with the skirmish system in that close doesn’t count. One server wins by a lot during some time zones, another wins by a little during others… and they come out with the same number of points.

But that could help this system too. You wouldn’t buy in more guilds to overstack SEA if you’re already winning the skirmishes during that time zone. And putting in more effort to take a small lead during NA would mean more than it has during the last four years.

I agree that we’ll have to try it to find out. This could have weird effects that I don’t foresee.

ok.

-population balance: is still the same issue as before. you linked servers, but you didn’t link them according to population.
- last stand: the team that is strongest during the week is also strongest on friday. when there is a balanced matchup, last stand is already the amount of people playing on friday, its simply not needed and will only allow for abuse if its actually a good enough multiplier that you can revert the scores of many days before.

→ think about dynamic map caps to prevent karma training by the server who outmans other.
→ link servers according to population next time

that is all. i like the rest of the stuff.

Grim West.3194:

The majority of zerg players voted for the zerg…. who would have thunk it?

That’s why true democracies always fail. The majority always votes to enslave the minority.

And if we do it the other way around, we got communism ruled by the elite. So it all equals out.

I am cautious of the changes but what won in the poll is what we have been complaining about for years. So that’s pretty fair.

I still think the best solution to the ‘night capping problem’ was my proposal to lower the points per tick of static objects whilst increasing points for the initial cap, so the points system rewards action rather than inaction.

If they put multiples on the busiest times that will alienate a large section of the playerbase that doesn’t play at prime time and make scores even worse.

It will also lead to people just thinking ‘I won’t bother, my time has been made almost worthless’ if they happen to play in an off peak time.

They need to be very careful how they implement any scoring discrimination or ‘multiplier’. Some would argue it’s a lot harder and takes a lot longer for a 5 man team to cap a keep off hours than a 50 man blob with 6 superior rams, but if you apply a multiplier to peak then easy capping will be worth more- which makes zero sense.

The problem is the changes to the scoring system (The Time Should Not Matter) what should matter is how many players are on the map at the time effects the score so for example if its 100 vs 50 the score for the 100 person server is reduced…

If there is a group of 20 people and only 5 on the other server then its (Very Very Limited) to points until the map is balanced.

I do not agree with the way A-Net has done this and this is the reason I have quit playing Guild Wars 2 because it just doesn’t feel anything like old MMORPG’s did in the day or Guild Wars 1 for that matter…

There will be no balance unless Arena Net uses a system like I have described above to the point where scores actually matter, as well as possibly points being lost for losing your stuff server based. (The problem with doing this is) losing 100 points for example when losing a fort or a tower vs gaining 30 per 5 minutes being held would be players intentionally Griefing using alts, bots, killing themselves over and over again to the enemy and such could provide unfair scoring and advantages.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Hey guys, the poll on Scoring has closed. I’ll repost my response on that thread here, for continued discussion:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-13-May-Scoring/page/2#post6161438

The poll has ended! The finals votes were:

• 38.4% – Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)
• 19.0% – Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities (Medium)
• 13.7% – Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level (Medium)
• 10.0% – Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes (Small)
• 8.3% – No preference
• 6.2% – Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)
• 4.3% – Implement scoring for objective capture (Small)

So what are our next steps? The team is going to prioritize work on the Skrimish (time-slice scoring) system that was outlined in the Let’s Talk Scoring… forum thread. This system will be a big step to resolving the community’s top voted priorities: Adjusting scoring to be relative to current activity, as well as increasing a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities. It’s also a prerequisite to work on the outlined Action Level system, which would multiply score during periods of high activity, further addressing the top voted concern. Also, we’ll likely be able to periodically deliver the small features, like reducing the tick timer, while we continue work on Skirmishes.

This is a living process, and we plan to continue polling players to determine our priorities, doing live beta testing of features, and then polling again to determine if players are happy with those features once they’ve had a chance to actually play with them. [..]Thank you to everyone who voted and left feedback!

Bumping for An Update: Late November 2016. Implementation Autopsy.

• Skirmishing was implemented. Consensus seems to be that Skirmishes are okay, but not a game-changer.
  Skirmishes do not fulfil the above remit of adjusting scoring relative to population size.
  Skirmishes do not fulfil the above remit of facilitating recovery from large point disparities.
  Why implement this?
• Only 13.7% thought that the new “more PPT for holding objectives” would be a good idea.
  Why implement this?
  The result is that it makes strong sides stronger. As was always going to be the case.

Conclusion:

• Arenanet have repeatedly implemented new systems, under the guise of solving problems, that don’t address the problems.

I propose that the problems identified must be tackled head on instead. It’s long past time that we had a metric for simply monitoring who is leading at any one time. Making scoring more awkward for the leading side would go a long way towards keeping the scores level and making reset day a dramatic conclusion rather than a welcome relief.

Svarty.8019:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Hey guys, the poll on Scoring has closed. I’ll repost my response on that thread here, for continued discussion:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-13-May-Scoring/page/2#post6161438

The poll has ended! The finals votes were:

• 38.4% – Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)
• 19.0% – Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities (Medium)
• 13.7% – Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level (Medium)
• 10.0% – Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes (Small)
• 8.3% – No preference
• 6.2% – Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)
• 4.3% – Implement scoring for objective capture (Small)

So what are our next steps? The team is going to prioritize work on the Skrimish (time-slice scoring) system that was outlined in the Let’s Talk Scoring… forum thread. This system will be a big step to resolving the community’s top voted priorities: Adjusting scoring to be relative to current activity, as well as increasing a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities. It’s also a prerequisite to work on the outlined Action Level system, which would multiply score during periods of high activity, further addressing the top voted concern. Also, we’ll likely be able to periodically deliver the small features, like reducing the tick timer, while we continue work on Skirmishes.

This is a living process, and we plan to continue polling players to determine our priorities, doing live beta testing of features, and then polling again to determine if players are happy with those features once they’ve had a chance to actually play with them. [..]Thank you to everyone who voted and left feedback!

Bumping for An Update: Late November 2016. Implementation Autopsy.

• Skirmishing was implemented. Consensus seems to be that Skirmishes are okay, but not a game-changer.
  Skirmishes do not fulfil the above remit of adjusting scoring relative to population size.
  Skirmishes do not fulfil the above remit of facilitating recovery from large point disparities.
  Why implement this?
• Only 13.7% thought that the new “more PPT for holding objectives” would be a good idea.
  Why implement this?
  The result is that it makes strong sides stronger. As was always going to be the case.

Conclusion:

• Arenanet have repeatedly implemented new systems, under the guise of solving problems, that don’t address the problems.

I propose that the problems identified must be tackled head on instead. It’s long past time that we had a metric for simply monitoring who is leading at any one time. Making scoring more awkward for the leading side would go a long way towards keeping the scores level and making reset day a dramatic conclusion rather than a welcome relief.

Interesting that they would go that way, ignore the poll results and implement a “solution” that will ultimately not work at all and create more unbalance.

“38.4% – Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population”

Seems pretty clear they had to take that path. However I think it would be easier to adjust scoring by giving the winning/losing servers a % modifier that changes dynamically according to the gap between total points.

Xillllix.3485:

Svarty.8019:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Hey guys, the poll on Scoring has closed. I’ll repost my response on that thread here, for continued discussion:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-13-May-Scoring/page/2#post6161438

The poll has ended! The finals votes were:

• 38.4% – Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)
• 19.0% – Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities (Medium)
• 13.7% – Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level (Medium)
• 10.0% – Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes (Small)
• 8.3% – No preference
• 6.2% – Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)
• 4.3% – Implement scoring for objective capture (Small)

So what are our next steps? The team is going to prioritize work on the Skrimish (time-slice scoring) system that was outlined in the Let’s Talk Scoring… forum thread. This system will be a big step to resolving the community’s top voted priorities: Adjusting scoring to be relative to current activity, as well as increasing a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities. It’s also a prerequisite to work on the outlined Action Level system, which would multiply score during periods of high activity, further addressing the top voted concern. Also, we’ll likely be able to periodically deliver the small features, like reducing the tick timer, while we continue work on Skirmishes.

This is a living process, and we plan to continue polling players to determine our priorities, doing live beta testing of features, and then polling again to determine if players are happy with those features once they’ve had a chance to actually play with them. [..]Thank you to everyone who voted and left feedback!

Bumping for An Update: Late November 2016. Implementation Autopsy.

• Skirmishing was implemented. Consensus seems to be that Skirmishes are okay, but not a game-changer.
  Skirmishes do not fulfil the above remit of adjusting scoring relative to population size.
  Skirmishes do not fulfil the above remit of facilitating recovery from large point disparities.
  Why implement this?
• Only 13.7% thought that the new “more PPT for holding objectives” would be a good idea.
  Why implement this?
  The result is that it makes strong sides stronger. As was always going to be the case.

Conclusion:

• Arenanet have repeatedly implemented new systems, under the guise of solving problems, that don’t address the problems.

I propose that the problems identified must be tackled head on instead. It’s long past time that we had a metric for simply monitoring who is leading at any one time. Making scoring more awkward for the leading side would go a long way towards keeping the scores level and making reset day a dramatic conclusion rather than a welcome relief.

Interesting that they would go that way, ignore the poll results and implement a “solution” that will ultimately not work at all and create more unbalance.

“38.4% – Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population”

Seems pretty clear they had to take that path. However I think it would be easier to adjust scoring by giving the winning/losing servers a % modifier that changes dynamically according to the gap between total points.

Skirmishes does adjust scoring when there’s a huge imbalance in population aka “night capping”. Instead of winning by 5-1 or 6-1 relative to the third place server, now it’s capped at 3-1. Of course when the third place server finally shows up, they used to lose 1.5-1 or even get it to close to 1-1, but now they lose 3-1.

In the end skirmish scoring puts a bigger gap between first and third.

Ah yes, you’re right. Skirmishes help reduce the impact nightcapping.

Sadly, the score disparity is not often enough impacted by nightcapping anymore. This appears to have clarified that many matchups are blowouts due to across-the-board dominance via map coverage/overall population thanks to server stacking.

Despite my many criticisms, I appreciate that Arenanet have made efforts towards solving these issues.

I am inclined to agree with one commentator who suggested blowing up WvW. Even Arenanet suggested doing so: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/New-Worlds/first

Svarty.8019:

Ah yes, you’re right. Skirmishes help reduce the impact nightcapping.
(…)

I am inclined to agree with one commentator who suggested blowing up WvW. Even Arenanet suggested doing so: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/New-Worlds/first

AH that was Scarlet and Queen Jena plan!

We (players) saved EOTM and WvW…. it was our mistake…

Is there any way to bring Scarlet back? possible a warrior banner???