So I am reading the latest Elder Scrolls Online AMA and came across this:
“There are also scoring incentives for alliances that are tailing behind when capturing resources and keep, from the winning Alliance if the score is imbalanced. You’ll get more points by taking keeps and resources from the winning alliance and holding your own keeps, helping you catch up in the overall score.”
I think that is really cool. I’d love to see this in WvW!
Estel Wolfheart
Norn Ranger Hardcorepwnograhpy [HARD] | Isle of Janthir
There is already an incentive for 2nd and 3rd place to both hit #1. At the same time. The incentive is: its twice as easy because they have to split their forces in half.
but the meta unfortunately seems to be #1 goes for #2 because they’re the “threat” and #3 goes for #2 because they’re the “opportunity” for points.
2nd place usually ends up between a rock and a hard place allowing 1st place to widen their lead. Every 2nd ranked server is de-evolving right now except IoJ which I assume is because A) heavy recruiting and their large oceanic presence is taking advantage of the other 2 servers’ lack thereof.
all ESO is doing is incentive people to have common sense
It is common sense, but I like the idea of having points actually worth more for capturing from the winning server. Maybe if the leading server is up by x amount, their points are worth more to the two other servers. Would really reinforce the idea of protecting your own BL too!
I also like how the losing server will get more pts if they can hold the points they have. So instead of trying to push out and get as many points as possible, they can focus on capturing a few and really holding those to yield a lot of pts.
Estel Wolfheart
Norn Ranger Hardcorepwnograhpy [HARD] | Isle of Janthir
It is common sense, but I like the idea of having points actually worth more for capturing from the winning server. Maybe if the leading server is up by x amount, their points are worth more to the two other servers. Would really reinforce the idea of protecting your own BL too!
I also like how the losing server will get more pts if they can hold the points they have. So instead of trying to push out and get as many points as possible, they can focus on capturing a few and really holding those to yield a lot of pts.
The problem is, it doesn’t actually solve any of the problems, it just sugar coats them with a larger number for the losing team… so that they have a larger Glicko2… so that they face more of the bad match-ups.
The devil is in the details:
How do you know when to reward a server with more points? If it just “down by >x” then that doesn’t do anything but pad their score, they will never be able to make up the <x portion of the score difference. (And if you are score padding… how can you possibly create a matchmaking system?)
It can possibly punish a server that has equal but simply harder playing population by making their playtime worth less (this is why “night capping” doesn’t reward less points).
Adverse affects on actual skill given the above. That is, in the case of a more skilled server fighting a lesser one (of equal pops), the more skilled server has to try harder to earn points when winning.
OK here’s the solution then. There is already an “expectation” factored into evolution. Meaning you don’t have to win to evolve you just have to do better than expected. How about they just apply that expectation directly to point value (a handicap basically) and then base evolution directly on who wins/overall score?
Exact same calculations just applying on the front end to PPT instead of on the back end to evolution score…..
It is common sense, but I like the idea of having points actually worth more for capturing from the winning server. Maybe if the leading server is up by x amount, their points are worth more to the two other servers. Would really reinforce the idea of protecting your own BL too!
I also like how the losing server will get more pts if they can hold the points they have. So instead of trying to push out and get as many points as possible, they can focus on capturing a few and really holding those to yield a lot of pts.
The problem is, it doesn’t actually solve any of the problems, it just sugar coats them with a larger number for the losing team… so that they have a larger Glicko2… so that they face more of the bad match-ups.
The devil is in the details:
How do you know when to reward a server with more points? If it just “down by >x” then that doesn’t do anything but pad their score, they will never be able to make up the <x portion of the score difference. (And if you are score padding… how can you possibly create a matchmaking system?)
It can possibly punish a server that has equal but simply harder playing population by making their playtime worth less (this is why “night capping” doesn’t reward less points).
Adverse affects on actual skill given the above. That is, in the case of a more skilled server fighting a lesser one (of equal pops), the more skilled server has to try harder to earn points when winning.
There is no “common sense” solution.
Very good points!
Estel Wolfheart
Norn Ranger Hardcorepwnograhpy [HARD] | Isle of Janthir
OK here’s the solution then. There is already an “expectation” factored into evolution. Meaning you don’t have to win to evolve you just have to do better than expected. How about they just apply that expectation directly to point value (a handicap basically) and then base evolution directly on who wins/overall score?
Exact same calculations just applying on the front end to PPT instead of on the back end to evolution score…..
“Winning” by not losing as badly as you were expected to just doesn’t sound much like winning to me.
OP’s idea seems reasonable to me. If I were Anet, I’d give it a shot for a few weeks to see how it’d turn out. But it’s unlikely this will happen.
OP’s idea seems reasonable to me. If I were Anet, I’d give it a shot for a few weeks to see how it’d turn out. But it’s unlikely this will happen.
It doesn’t work with Glicko2; what would be better would be to measure Glicko2 rating changes given the current math that we have and, in particular, when Leagues start. Its very hard for a “stacked” server to actually maintain its rating against lower opponents but its easy for them to win. If you reward (as well as winning, since you don’t want to screw over servers in tight match ups or somehow make winning seem like a bad thing) on rating improvements, then even CD can try and hold that one supply camp against all odds from hordes of ravenous SoRians, and end up being winners.
OK here’s the solution then. There is already an “expectation” factored into evolution. Meaning you don’t have to win to evolve you just have to do better than expected. How about they just apply that expectation directly to point value (a handicap basically) and then base evolution directly on who wins/overall score?
Exact same calculations just applying on the front end to PPT instead of on the back end to evolution score…..
“Winning” by not losing as badly as you were expected to just doesn’t sound much like winning to me.
OP’s idea seems reasonable to me. If I were Anet, I’d give it a shot for a few weeks to see how it’d turn out. But it’s unlikely this will happen.
Then apply the handicap at 80% instead of 100% and compensate the other 20% on the back end for evolution. Then your higher population and coverage gives you a 20% advantage and you’ll still likely win, but now you have to stay on your toes.
This way if things played out the same way, the same server would still win, but by only 20% as many points. Instead of 100k victory it would be 20k.
On the other hand it may play out differently because seeing the scores close together would make everyone fight a lot harder.
This way if things played out the same way, the same server would still win, but by only 20% as many points. Instead of 100k victory it would be 20k.
On the other hand it may play out differently because seeing the scores close together would make everyone fight a lot harder.
It won’t change anything but the numbers. Blackgate is still going to full cap Fort Aspenwood irregardless of how much you might pad their score. Moreover, your actually putting the strain on Blackgate to full cap Fort Aspenwood and make sure they never recap a single structure.
…Meanwhile, because FA got a much higher score, their Glicko2 evovles rapidly upwards, BGs evolves rapidly downards, and now you start having BGvsCD and FAvsSoR with even more regularity.
This way if things played out the same way, the same server would still win, but by only 20% as many points. Instead of 100k victory it would be 20k.
On the other hand it may play out differently because seeing the scores close together would make everyone fight a lot harder.
It won’t change anything but the numbers. Blackgate is still going to full cap Fort Aspenwood irregardless of how much you might pad their score. Moreover, your actually putting the strain on Blackgate to full cap Fort Aspenwood and make sure they never recap a single structure.
…Meanwhile, because FA got a much higher score, their Glicko2 evovles rapidly upwards, BGs evolves rapidly downards, and now you start having BGvsCD and FAvsSoR with even more regularity.
that’s not true you are missing the point. the Glicko2 would end up exactly the same it’s just being calculated up front rather than back-end.
instead of seeing 200k 150k 100k scores you would see 160 / 150 / 140
unless the scores being close made a server fight better than usual which is one of the main benefits of this system. Many players will see they are down by a ton of points and won’t even join WvW. Most don’t go check to see if their evolution is up or even give a kitten about evolution, they just want to see the score.
This is simply a way of reflecting your evolution into the score rather than having to go check it out on a website, and it helps eliminate the “we know who will win the season before it starts” scenario which let’s be honest is NOTHING anyone should be defending.
unless the scores being close made a server fight better than usual which is one of the main benefits of this system. Many players will see they are down by a ton of points and won’t even join WvW. Most don’t go check to see if their evolution is up or even give a kitten about evolution, they just want to see the score.
Won’t actually change anything in this regard because people still won’t enter when they see FA full capped by JQ/BG, facing T3-WP keeps on their own Borderland.
This is simply a way of reflecting your evolution into the score rather than having to go check it out on a website, and it helps eliminate the “we know who will win the season before it starts” scenario which let’s be honest is NOTHING anyone should be defending.
But yes, I have long since said that showing (and rewarding) rating evolution is the way to go about encouraging lower servers when facing bigger ones.
I just don’t like score padding especially since it encourages the stronger servers to be all the more lethal/brutal against their opponents. If you reward both winning and rating deltas, everyone wins (except the middle server, but screw them!).
We will always know “who will win before it starts”, no amount of padding on from Glicko2 rating deltas will ever actually allow a truly out-matched server to overcome its opponent unless the padding is so severe that the effort required to win becomes so daunting as to not even be fun.
their large oceanic presence is taking advantage of the other 2 servers’ lack thereof.