Guild Wars 2

I’ve posted this previously in a couple other threads, but I figured I’d make an actual thread for it. See what people think.

My idea would be based on population per point tick. This would be at all times, not just during a certain time zone. However many people participated in an event or attacked a defeated enemy. Not necessarily how many people entered WvW, because why count them if they did not participate?

So lets say we are Blackgate, we have 100 people in WvW and have 400 ppt. Dragonbrand has 40 people in WvW and has 100ppt, Yaks bend has 195ppt and has 60 people. (Just 3 random example servers with example populations for science.)

Blackgate retains 400 points for this tick, they have 100 players and 100 enemies.

Dragonbrand has 160 enemies to their 40 players, they gain +75% points because they’re outnumbered by 75%, 175 points for this tick.

Yaks Bend has 140 enemies to their 60 players, they gain 57%~ points because they’re outnumbered by 57%~, so they get 306 points for this tick.

Each point tick would basically start a new list of players who participated and throw them into a list.

Thoughts?

It doesn’t work with small player numbers and creates strange scoring scenarios.

I also suspect this may end up with people telling to other players leave the WvW so the tick increases.

Zenith.6403:

It doesn’t work with small player numbers and creates strange scoring scenarios.

What would stop it from working? If one server has 2 people in WvW and between the 2 others have 100, that server gets +98% their point tick. I don’t see why that would create any strange scoring scenario or why it wouldn’t work with smaller player numbers. It is designed to balance scoring based on population. If anything, it would punish a server for stacking a time zone.

FogLeg.9354:

I also suspect this may end up with people telling to other players leave the WvW so the tick increases.

If people want to leave WvW for 15+ minutes so that they are not a part of the point ticks, then that isn’t a problem. And I don’t know about you, but if someone asked me to leave WvW, I’d tell them where they can stick that idea lol.

To be honest, I disagree with the main premise behind this suggestion. One of the main challenges in WvW is to rally forces and overwhelm the opposition. A server that cannot get it’s forces on the field should not be helped out by the scoring system.

The problem, IMO, is not that servers with genuinely greater forces beat their opposition, but that servers can lose almost every fight in prime time, maybe ticking only 150-180 for 4 hours, yet cap with a fraction of the numbers, against no opposition, out-of-hours, hold the tick for 8 hours until someone shows up and win.

I realise your proposal might help in that situation but quite often, especially off-peak, the servers will have similar numbers overall but one will have a commander and 20 people, the other team will be dispersed, so, under your system, there will be no population handicap. And then the commander logs off, the populations are still equal, but no one can recap. The server that had the commander keeps ticking high. Fair enough, you might say, because one server was better organised. But still 20 people for an hour (say) are having a greater impact on the final result, fighting no one, than 200 people had in prime-time.

So I want something much simpler (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Scoring-option-for-Night-cappers/first#post6131431) – a system where kills are a far bigger percentage of the final score, so a group running around taking stuff against no opposition has far less impact on the outcome than those fighting through significant forces and winning.

You might think this would encourage “blobbing”, but a rubbish map blob probably won’t even do well under such a system – you only get kills by fighting, not by rolling over a handful of enemy as you stomp across the map! And you can imagine the losses they might take rubbing up against well sieged objectives, eventually taking them with shear numbers but losing dozens of lives in the process only to find just a handful of enemy to kill in the end! Also, it would be pretty easy for small groups to pick off zerglings at the back, killing more than the blob itself!

Changing the points based on it being “out of prime time” is unfair to those who are playing out of prime time. If there is a system in place that effects all time zones evenly, it would be more fair of a handicap.

That’s exactly why my proposal doesn’t change the points per tick or the points per kill, depending on time of day at all. No need to divide the day up into high scoring times and low scoring times, arbitrarily based on someone’s view of prime-time. All that matters is actual activity. If OCX have their own prime-time at 5AM EST that would count every bit as much. The relative importance of those 2 prime times would be very closely tied to the population at each time. On an OCX-heavy server their prime might even matter more.

Seriously… it’s not like we’re winning money for these matches… At the end of the day does the score even matter other than hopefully matching servers up with similar server levels? I don’t look at the score, don’t look at the tick… it’s about the fights and the fun. Man if I spent my time stressing about the !@#$ score there would be no fun in this game at all. The current scoring system isn’t a problem imo… Coverage is the problem here and there and there’s NOTHING anyone can do about that unless ANet wants to force NA and EU people to play on their own geographic server locations instead of swapping around.

It’s fair that you think that, but the majority did vote for scoring changes and there is a lot of frustration when people win against opposition only to lose when no one is playing.

Personally I think a lot of the reason people do not care about the score ATM is precisely because it is so ludicrous! A better scoring system might just get people re-engaged. And if the scoring actually made sense it might be fair to base more rewards on it!

I voted for scoring changes even though I don’t care at all about PPT. I think it would just be more accurate to “who did what” if the scoring was more accurate.

The other option was all cosmetic stuff that I don’t care at all about, which is probably why a lot of people voted for scoring like I did.

Interesting concept, any idea that does not involve actually penalizing points is a good one to start with.

I always thought the outnumbered buff should provide bonus points for the team with the lower numbers. Mind you that would only account for 1 side and individual zones, while your concept is for the 2 lower server numbers in all maps entirely.

You would also have to count participation for every player for the 15 minute periods, maybe it would only need to count 1 event and flag the person as participated in that period rather than having to calculate multiple events or points.

This could run into trouble with the bigger populations that maybe run more non ppt groups in regards to population. There’s a lot more scenarios that need to be run to see if the idea holds up.

Handing out more ppk for the outnumbered is also ok in my book.

I would do 3 things to the scoring system:

1. Adjust the PPT “holding” value. Cut it in half perhaps, or around there, while boosting cap and defense points 2 fold. In addition, add some extra points to the score, if there were orange swords present within the cap/defend event for X amount of time.

Simple concept, the more effort and longer it takes to take or defend the objective, the higher the score should be.

2. Give some points from earning reward tracks. Thats right. Why ? Because reward tracks are earned faster through more active gameplay, regardless of how that activity is accomplished (fights vs caps) and regardless of timezones and populations. It is a very neutral way of scoring which focuses on active rather then passive gameplay.

3. Give extra score points while under effect of the outnumbered buff, and perhaps introduce a “local” outnumbered buff. This would go a long way to reflect challenge / effort and even skill on part of the disadvantaged players.

Anything they do should be simple, so the team can move on to other stuff we value ASAP. The leaked “draft” release notes, before the 19th, proposed increasing ppk AND dividing the day up into time slices and scoring according to the victor in each time slice AND changing the value of each slice so prime-time was more valuable than “the middle of the night” AND giving more points on the last day to give teams a chance to come back. That kind of complexity is, I fear, how we get to a choice between scoring or a load of QoL changes, rather than scoring being just one thing to prioritise alongside everything else.