Guild Wars 2

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Jaxs.5830:

nikitnq.7143:

No thanks, I like it the way it is.

Before you accuse me of <insert nasties for night-cappers here>…

• Sieged up assets, checked.
• Run dollies, checked.
• Pay for upgrades, checked.
• Died contesting cap from a zerg, checked.

Also,

• Lost fully upgraded camp, checked.
• Lost T3 sieged tower, checked.
• Lost sieged keep with WP, checked.

It’s WVW. An eternal 24/7 battleground. Keep it that way.

The current system makes WvW an entirely uncompetitive environment. It makes PPT a meaningless measuring stick of success. It makes for boring, stale meta that will not sustain itself in the long run. Glad you are enjoying it.

Sorry you feel that way but to me this is a game. Not an Olympic sport.

I do not need to have other people be deprived of certain things so I can have a larger slice of cake.

TYVM.

Who is being deprived of what, exactly?

Can you actually point to a sentence, can you quote it?

Or are you just making stuff up in your head?

Read the OP.

So you can’t find a quote.

Got it.

Maybe you should read it too.

Right. So the onus is not on the party demanding change to cover all angles.

Got it too.

I sure am glad none of these people are game designers for A-Net.

You said OP is trying to penalize off peak players.

I call you out on that, saying he infact isn’t asking for that. I ask you to show me where he does ask for that.

You then decide not to persue that, not to show me it. Because you can’t.

Then you go off on some tangent

You, sir, have lost.

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Jaxs.5830:

nikitnq.7143:

No thanks, I like it the way it is.

Before you accuse me of <insert nasties for night-cappers here>…

• Sieged up assets, checked.
• Run dollies, checked.
• Pay for upgrades, checked.
• Died contesting cap from a zerg, checked.

Also,

• Lost fully upgraded camp, checked.
• Lost T3 sieged tower, checked.
• Lost sieged keep with WP, checked.

It’s WVW. An eternal 24/7 battleground. Keep it that way.

The current system makes WvW an entirely uncompetitive environment. It makes PPT a meaningless measuring stick of success. It makes for boring, stale meta that will not sustain itself in the long run. Glad you are enjoying it.

Sorry you feel that way but to me this is a game. Not an Olympic sport.

I do not need to have other people be deprived of certain things so I can have a larger slice of cake.

TYVM.

Who is being deprived of what, exactly?

Can you actually point to a sentence, can you quote it?

Or are you just making stuff up in your head?

Read the OP.

So you can’t find a quote.

Got it.

Maybe you should read it too.

Right. So the onus is not on the party demanding change to cover all angles.

Got it too.

I sure am glad none of these people are game designers for A-Net.

You said OP is trying to penalize off peak players.

I call you out on that, saying he infact isn’t asking for that. I ask you to show me where he does ask for that.

You then decide not to persue that, not to show me it. Because you can’t.

Then you go off on some tangent

---

You, sir, have lost.

Lol.

I don’t have to. I’m confident people at A-Net aren’t ignorant. Hence, I can safely assume they can see the glaring flaws of what is proposed here and simply ignore these “suggestions”.

PS: I forgot. This is serious business. So I have to concede defeat before you lead a crusade against the likes of me. You win!

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Jaxs.5830:

nikitnq.7143:

No thanks, I like it the way it is.

Before you accuse me of <insert nasties for night-cappers here>…

• Sieged up assets, checked.
• Run dollies, checked.
• Pay for upgrades, checked.
• Died contesting cap from a zerg, checked.

Also,

• Lost fully upgraded camp, checked.
• Lost T3 sieged tower, checked.
• Lost sieged keep with WP, checked.

It’s WVW. An eternal 24/7 battleground. Keep it that way.

The current system makes WvW an entirely uncompetitive environment. It makes PPT a meaningless measuring stick of success. It makes for boring, stale meta that will not sustain itself in the long run. Glad you are enjoying it.

Sorry you feel that way but to me this is a game. Not an Olympic sport.

I do not need to have other people be deprived of certain things so I can have a larger slice of cake.

TYVM.

Who is being deprived of what, exactly?

Can you actually point to a sentence, can you quote it?

Or are you just making stuff up in your head?

Read the OP.

So you can’t find a quote.

Got it.

Maybe you should read it too.

Right. So the onus is not on the party demanding change to cover all angles.

Got it too.

I sure am glad none of these people are game designers for A-Net.

You said OP is trying to penalize off peak players.

I call you out on that, saying he infact isn’t asking for that. I ask you to show me where he does ask for that.

You then decide not to persue that, not to show me it. Because you can’t.

Then you go off on some tangent

---

You, sir, have lost.

Lol.

I don’t have to. I’m confident people at A-Net aren’t ignorant. Hence, I can safely assume they can see the glaring flaws of what is proposed here and simply ignore these “suggestions”.

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

nikitnq.7143:

Jaxs.5830:

nikitnq.7143:

No thanks, I like it the way it is.

Before you accuse me of <insert nasties for night-cappers here>…

• Sieged up assets, checked.
• Run dollies, checked.
• Pay for upgrades, checked.
• Died contesting cap from a zerg, checked.

Also,

• Lost fully upgraded camp, checked.
• Lost T3 sieged tower, checked.
• Lost sieged keep with WP, checked.

It’s WVW. An eternal 24/7 battleground. Keep it that way.

The current system makes WvW an entirely uncompetitive environment. It makes PPT a meaningless measuring stick of success. It makes for boring, stale meta that will not sustain itself in the long run. Glad you are enjoying it.

Sorry you feel that way but to me this is a game. Not an Olympic sport.

I do not need to have other people be deprived of certain things so I can have a larger slice of cake.

TYVM.

Who is being deprived of what, exactly?

Can you actually point to a sentence, can you quote it?

Or are you just making stuff up in your head?

Read the OP.

So you can’t find a quote.

Got it.

Maybe you should read it too.

Right. So the onus is not on the party demanding change to cover all angles.

Got it too.

I sure am glad none of these people are game designers for A-Net.

You said OP is trying to penalize off peak players.

I call you out on that, saying he infact isn’t asking for that. I ask you to show me where he does ask for that.

You then decide not to persue that, not to show me it. Because you can’t.

Then you go off on some tangent

---

You, sir, have lost.

Lol.

I don’t have to. I’m confident people at A-Net aren’t ignorant. Hence, I can safely assume they can see the glaring flaws of what is proposed here and simply ignore these “suggestions”.

With all due respect, the system that you and by extension of your logic ANET is promoting only has two real fixes and one separate conclusion if you find yourself on a server that suffers from a coverage issue:

1. Recruit/buy guilds/players from another server, which could possibly create coverage issues with said server.
2. Leave your server in search for “greener pastures”.
3. (Conclusion) PPT means absolutely nothing in its current form, it is not a measure of skill but rather a measure of coverage. Therefore if you cannot/will not recruit players from another server, and are not willing to transfer, then you can only come to grips with the fact that PPT is a garbage metric.

Once you arrive to this level of understanding it quickly becomes apparent (to many people) that something needs to change.

Something needs changed, true. But not by punishing people based on geographical location and/or playing habits.

Pushing people into time slices will only segregate the player base. Some of these suggestions has been floating around since beta. They know. Extensive and complex tick calculations could be viable but cannot be implemented wholesale and linear like 50% for non-prime for example.

Scoring by participants or opposing force has been struck off over and over and I’m beginning to sound like a broken record. It’s too easy to exploit by an organized server. What is stopping a server from taking a healthy lead and simply pull their forces from a BL? This applies to any limit and/or multipliers applied on scoring based on population.

Some people don’t think things through. I’m not pointing at the OP. I’m talking about people who has played this game long enough but only see things from a single perspective (like the guy on the ivory tower somewhere above this post :P).

nikitnq.7143:

Something needs changed, true. But not by punishing people based on geographical location and/or playing habits.

Pushing people into time slices will only segregate the player base. Some of these suggestions has been floating around since beta. They know. Extensive and complex tick calculations could be viable but cannot be implemented wholesale and linear like 50% for non-prime for example.

Scoring by participants or opposing force has been struck off over and over and I’m beginning to sound like a broken record. It’s too easy to exploit by an organized server. What is stopping a server from taking a healthy lead and simply pull their forces from a BL? This applies to any limit and/or multipliers applied on scoring based on population.

Some people don’t think things through. I’m not pointing at the OP. I’m talking about people who has played this game long enough but only see things from a single perspective (like the guy on the ivory tower somewhere above this post :P).

Hai there!

I note you still haven’t answered the question. Did you threaten to over-rule…. I mean… where does OP say he wants to punish offpeaks?

You keep saying that. Are you sure those words mean what you think they mean?

Ragnar.4257:

Are you sure those words mean what you think they mean?

Yes.

nikitnq.7143:

Ragnar.4257:

Are you sure those words mean what you think they mean?

Yes.

I note you still haven’t answered the question.

nikitnq.7143:

Scoring by participants or opposing force has been struck off over and over and I’m beginning to sound like a broken record. It’s too easy to exploit by an organized server. What is stopping a server from taking a healthy lead and simply pull their forces from a BL? This applies to any limit and/or multipliers applied on scoring based on population.

That’s why I made sure that never a single servers amount of players limits anything.
But the total sum of all three servers.

If not one from any of the three servers is in the game (on a specific map) why should it generate a score?

As soon as there are any people from any side (sum up over all sides) the score start.

They only thing you reach with a boycott of a map is: you will loose it.

The server that owns it can get score for it if he maintains his people there.

A single side can field up to around 400 people. If both other server boycott, this server scores 400:0:0, If only one server boycott, they can reach any maximum set by the available objectives easily, e.g. 350:350:0 or even 695:0:0 if the second server plays bad.

Dayra.7405:

That’s why I made sure that never a single servers amount of players limits anything.
But the total sum of all three servers.

If not one from any of the three servers is in the game (on a specific map) why should it generate a score?

As soon as there are any people from any side (sum up over all sides) the score start.

They only thing you reach with a boycott of a map is: you will loose it.

The server that owns it can get score for it if he maintains his people there.

Borderhopping and scouts.

That ANet is unable to handle trolls we all know.
Trolls can build siege where it is useless, they can start the wrong upgrades in times where the supplies are needed, they party the opponent to show position of zergs to the enemy, …., their simple presence on the map blocks slots needed by others.

Yes we would need troll handling too, but this is a different story.

I agree it should scale better with the population levels.

It makes sense that if you’re playing vs. more people you should be better rewarded (as it is harder to cap/hold). If you’re playing vs. fewer it shouldn’t be as rewarding (as it is easier to cap/hold). You would still have an advantage via bloodlust, but it would just limit the point advantage from coverage a bit more and better reward players for the increased/decreased difficulty.

Have it be for the total population of a server on all maps.

There should still be a good sized min. reward for objectives though… to prevent a server from just not showing up at all to totally deny points.

nikitnq.7143:

Dayra.7405:

That’s why I made sure that never a single servers amount of players limits anything.
But the total sum of all three servers.

If not one from any of the three servers is in the game (on a specific map) why should it generate a score?

As soon as there are any people from any side (sum up over all sides) the score start.

They only thing you reach with a boycott of a map is: you will loose it.

The server that owns it can get score for it if he maintains his people there.

Borderhopping and scouts.

What’s with borderhopping and scouts? They have zero influence in 1) and 2a) as both build the total of all sides over all maps and only use this a the total limit/factor.

They have an intended influence in 2b) 2c) and 2d) you may like this (I do) or you may not. That’s why they are possible alternatives to choose from.

Dayra.7405:

That ANet is unable to handle trolls we all know.
Trolls can build siege where it is useless, they can start the wrong upgrades in times where the supplies are needed, they party the opponent to show position of zergs to the enemy, …., their simple presence on the map blocks slots needed by others.

Yes we would need troll handling too, but this is a different story.

It isn’t just about the spies.

If scoring is based on the population, all the winning server needs is a team of scouts in each BL and on VOIP. By pulling their forces into say, OS or EOTM, the remaining servers will be scoring low as long as important assets like certain towers or keeps are defended when required.

This means the mean scoring method in your proposal actually promote bursts play and then non-participation in order to secure wins. Hence, on the flipside, punishes players that want to just play.

PS: I should explain further on the scouts. Leaving minimum players on the map means as soon as an enemy force ports into the map, the undermanned buff will already give that away. Loads of lead time to counter.

Edit:
From Aberrant.6749, if the population mean method is applied with a hard minimum, it could work, but I think this value will differ from match-ups and could be hard to balance according to tiers.

nikitnq.7143:

Dayra.7405:

That ANet is unable to handle trolls we all know.
Trolls can build siege where it is useless, they can start the wrong upgrades in times where the supplies are needed, they party the opponent to show position of zergs to the enemy, …., their simple presence on the map blocks slots needed by others.

Yes we would need troll handling too, but this is a different story.

It isn’t just about the spies.

If scoring is based on the population, all the winning server needs is a team of scouts in each BL and on VOIP. By pulling their forces into say, OS or EOTM, the remaining servers will be scoring low as long as important assets like certain towers or keeps are defended when required.

This means the mean scoring method in your proposal actually promote bursts play and then non-participation in order to secure wins. Hence, on the flipside, punishes players that want to just play.

PS: I should explain further on the scouts. Leaving minimum players on the map means as soon as an enemy force ports into the map, the undermanned buff will already give that away. Loads of lead time to counter.

Edit:
From Aberrant.6749, if the population mean method is applied with a hard minimum, it could work, but I think this value will differ from match-ups and could be hard to balance according to tiers.

You have a nice fantasy, but why is this now different than today? If you manage to fake a force away you take their keep and the rest and score with it.
Anyhow the most effective trolling (also possible already) is:
send a large force to one of the opponents server.
They take all slots in prime-time and they help your home-force to crush the 3rd server

Aberrant.6749:

I agree it should scale better with the population levels.

Well you have a problem there. How does the game know what fights are “fair”?

If team A is outmanned but team B consist of kittens running around doing mostly nothing while a guild group from team B captures a keep from team A after a fantastic and lengthy battle… Does team B get nothing because team A was outmanned?

Nah, tbh its still really, really simple, because there is only one way.

Get rid of PPT.

New scoring system (incredibly simplistic idea with random numbers):

- Capturing a T1 keep = 10 points, T2 = 20 points, T3 = 30 points. Garrison/bay/hills/EB border keeps add +10 points, SM add +50 points.
- Every defense tick of a keep give the defenders +10 points but at the same time add + 10 points to the objective when it is captured (up to a limit of say +100 points.

The end.

Meaning, a scenario such as the following:

Team A (night shift) cap a wooden keep quickly, unopposed.
Team B (primetime) retake the now T3 ugraded keep after a battle and 3 defense ticks.

Score results: Team A capping that wooden keep during the night shift get 40 points (10 points for the cap, 30 points for defense). Team B capping the same T3 keep during primetime get 60 points for the cap

I did NOT put any balance issues in!!! And I did not put any event-scoring in as well!

It’s only coverage!
With my proposals: 1 player may score maximally 1 point (if his side also controls the necessary amount of objective).

Today 1 prime-time player can score 0.7 points per player (695 objective for around 1000 player),
1 off-time play can score around 14 points per player
(assuming 50 people are in the match at this off-time, if 100 are on, then he can score 7 points per player)

So Dawdler… you’re against players being better rewarded because they have more skill/organization? Shouldn’t all forms of PvP be based on that?

Dayra.7405:

You have a nice fantasy.
The most effective trolling is:
send a large force to one of the opponents server.
They take all slots in prime-time and they help your home-force to crush the 3rd server

Just so you know, there is at least one server doing exactly what I just described. The organization maybe unbelievable at times, but it works. With your suggestion, instead of actively playing, winning servers would go on attrition and turtle it since they can reduce your PPT by 33% if not more depending on the third server, by just not playing.

If anything it compounds PPT discrepancy further for server with less WVW coverage.

My servers score has only a meaning relative to the opponents score. After the match it is translated to Glicko and it’s total amount does not matter. And the total amount does not matter for translation into Glicko, only the relative amount is important.

So if they reduce my (and the 3rd) servers score by 33% and at the same time reduce their own score to 0. Great for me, bad for them.

And I also wrote average number of players over the time-frame of a tick, if 3 players are in the match 5min of a tick each they count the same as 1 player being on the whole 15min. As soon as they show presence they count for the minutes they are on. Only if they do not show presence et al, they do not count. But in this case they also likely loose everything.

And hey why not. Unbelievable good organization I prefer as match win-factor over masses of unorganized PvD players in off-time.

Dayra.7405:

My servers score has only a meaning relative to the opponents score. After the match it is translated to Glicko and it’s total amount does not matter. And the total amount does not matter for translation into Glicko, only the relative amount is important.

So if they reduce my (and the 3rd) servers score by 33% and at the same time reduce their own score to 0. Great for me, bad for them.

Not if the server in question has better coverage (you’re trying to address this) and is able to take your stuff on demand during your off-times. Then, it is back to square one. Big server takes your stuff, builds substantial lead then turtles for rest of the week. This is worse than the current since they are doing your points harm by essentially doing nothing on the map with a few scouts, afks and what-nots.

If they own the map, they get more score if they are on the map and do not hide btw.

Dawdler.8521:

Aberrant.6749:

I agree it should scale better with the population levels.

Well you have a problem there. How does the game know what fights are “fair”?

If team A is outmanned but team B consist of kittens running around doing mostly nothing while a guild group from team B captures a keep from team A after a fantastic and lengthy battle… Does team B get nothing because team A was outmanned?

Nah, tbh its still really, really simple, because there is only one way.

Get rid of PPT.

New scoring system (incredibly simplistic idea with random numbers):

- Capturing a T1 keep = 10 points, T2 = 20 points, T3 = 30 points. Garrison/bay/hills/EB border keeps add +10 points, SM add +50 points.
- Every defense tick of a keep give the defenders +10 points but at the same time add + 10 points to the objective when it is captured (up to a limit of say +100 points.

The end.

Meaning, a scenario such as the following:

Team A (night shift) cap a wooden keep quickly, unopposed.
Team B (primetime) retake the now T3 ugraded keep after a battle and 3 defense ticks.

Score results: Team A capping that wooden keep during the night shift get 40 points (10 points for the cap, 30 points for defense). Team B capping the same T3 keep during primetime get 60 points for the cap

Nice idea, coming from a server with better night coverage than day coverage I really like this (being facetious).

The daytime folks hold the objective for hours, upgrading it; and then it’s capped when few people are on at night, the night crew gets the extra points for cap; and of course won’t bother upgrading it since they won’t keep it during the day….

Look, it’s kinda a sucky deal; but you have to accept the fact that it’s a 24/7 game and if their server can cap your stuff when you have few people on; then they have the win.

Just do what you can do, with the people you have; and start there. If you are good, and the other folks on your server maintain a high level of skill; then other guilds will want to come there and eventually that will include off-hours folks.

In the end, all this thread does is make me want to form a guild on a low EU server called [PvD] and we’d dedicate ourselves to cheap karma trains.

Too bad I like being in an NA guild on a NA server that has more non-NA than NA players.

It’s like OP wants to play in a T1/T2 server without having to transfer servers.

This sounds like socialism to me.

Reverence.6915:

It’s like OP wants to play in a T1/T2 server without having to transfer servers.

Wrong the OP is on a EU T1/T2 server. But he prefers to win according to a more meaningful criteria than no of people PVDing in off-time.

OP you are over thinking this. Just have Server team WvW high pop NA/EU server with low pop EU/NA server. Cycle the left overs. TADA suddenly “off time” is greatly reduced or ceases to exist. Lets face it, Anet released that flow chart that show you’ll never face some of the servers so why not just make teams for coverage reasons?

ANet said that their Server-structure is unable to mix EU and NA population.

But I guess they should be able to count how many people are in WvW and implement a multiplication. And as they already have a save/restore map (neded for maintenance) time-sliced matches are also not a big deal.

But yes an Alliance vs Alliance ( with team-building neither restricted by server nor by ladder) instead of world vs world would probably be solution 5.

I think the simpler solution would be for people to either transfer to servers with better coverage or try to recruit more people to shore up their server’s weak coverage spots.

I’ve been playing on Blackgate for most of the time I’ve played GW2 and it’s nice to know that my contribution will be meaningful regardless of the timezone I choose to play in because my server has 24/7 coverage.

Israel.7056:

I think the simpler solution would be for people to either transfer to servers with better coverage or try to recruit more people to shore up their server’s weak coverage spots.

This is part of the problem! The prime-time queue would be horrible btw. if anyone that plays WvW would transfer to a T1-server.

Israel.7056:

I’ve been playing on Blackgate for most of the time I’ve played GW2 and it’s nice to know that my contribution will be meaningful regardless of the timezone I choose to play in because my server has 24/7 coverage.

No, your prime-time does not matter et al currently, it’s the off-time that keep you in T1. Your prime-time is probably only mediocre as it is irrelevant for match outcome anyway.

If you day shift is superior your prime-time sits in T3 while the opponents sit in wood. Doesn’t require more than karma-train quality to not loose prime-time.

Only with time-sliced matches you would know how good your prime-time is.

Dayra.7405:

This is part of the problem! The prime-time queue would be horrible btw. if anyone that plays WvW would transfer to a T1-server.

As I understand it we still have plenty of room even during NA prime and we’re one of if not the most heavily populated server in NA. I play SEA/EU timezone on BG and we don’t have queues.

Dayra.7405:

No, your prime-time does not matter et al currently, it’s the off-time that keep you in T1. Your primetime is probably only medicoere as it is irrelevant for Match outcome Anyway.

Mediocre compared to whom? SoR NA is the strongest NA in the game and we can hang PPT-wise against them so I dunno who you’re comparing us to.

Moreover T1 NA is a 24/7 game, every timezone matters, you can’t be really weak in any timezone and have any hope of winning the overall match.

Don’t ask me for details on NA, I play EU.

But the simple fact is: no challenge = no quality (at least no measure of quality).

And as prime-time is not required to do more than not loose everything that off-time acquired it is not really challenged.

And to give you an example from EU: Vizunah did not won a medal every week since the start of GW2, because they have such a good prime-time. In fact, anyone that played against Vizunah wondered how they can be that successful with such a bad prime-time. But it’s easy: they won because they went up at 4am (CET, most EU players are CET +/- 1), turned all the opponents into wood and them selfs into T3, such that even their bad prime-time was competitive.

Well we’re kind of comparing apples and oranges here I think.

EDIT: It seems like in EU there is a big divide between what is considered “prime-time” and what is considered “off-time” but this is not the case for those of us in T1 NA and perhaps in other tiers as well I’m not entirely sure though.

Israel.7056:

Well we’re kind of comparing apples and oranges here I think.

Not sure. If I look at blackgates score in the current match averaged per hour of the day
http://www.gw2score.com/server/Blackgate
It looks like your NA-afternoon/evening (is that your prime? Note that the time in the picture is my time i.e. CET, NYC is -6 and Seatle is -9) is loosing every advantage you gained over the other 16h (is that your off-time?).

And look at the 2nd screen, SoS is only competitive in T3 because of it’s 3am-6am (NYC) off-time advantage

Same picture in NA as in EU, you do not win as well because your prime-time is better, but because your off-time is better. In fact NA-prime-time seem to be as irrelevant for match-result as EU-prime-time is.

1st screen BG-SoR-JQ
2nd screen SoS-SI-YB

Dayra.7405:

Israel.7056:

Well we’re kind of comparing apples and oranges here I think.

Not sure. If I look at blackgates score in the current match averaged per hour of the day
http://www.gw2score.com/server/Blackgate
It looks like your NA-afternoon/evening (is that your prime? Note that the time in the picture is my time i.e. CET, NYC is -6 and Seatle is -9) is loosing every advantage you gained over the other 16h (is that your off-time?).

And look at the 2nd screen, SoS is only competitive in T3 because of it’s 3am-6am (NYC) off-time advantage

Same picture in NA as in EU, you do not win as well because your prime-time is better, but because your off-time is better. In fact NA-prime-time seem to be as irrelevant for match-result as EU-prime-time is.

1st screen BG-SoR-JQ
2nd screen SoS-SI-YB

Transfer to T1 NA for a month or two and try it out. You’ll see that what you’re talking about in BG is pretty irrelevant. Yes, we have greater numbers during those hours (OCE-SEA), but it’s not exactly beating on empty keeps (I should record some of our 50vs50vs50 fights during SEA).

With SoS, they are a majority Oceanic populated server (NA is not their prime), which again, makes your point irrelevant because they’re outnumbered in other time zones.

Sounds like in a time-sliced match system SoS could be fighting to be number 1 in the Pacific-Prime slice AND have interesting fights with other servers strong in that time.

In the current system they are doomed to PvD in their strong time and being overrun in their weaker time, because the current scoring and ranking only takes the average performance over time.

Dayra.7405:

It looks like your NA-afternoon/evening (is that your prime? Note that the time in the picture is my time i.e. CET, NYC is -6 and Seatle is -9) is losing every advantage you gained over the other 16h (is that your off-time?).

Right well that’s our weakest timezone usually. I can’t say if we lose “every advantage” but I’m sure we get hit pretty hard, SoR and JQ have very strong NA forces. The major comparison problem is that we don’t just make two distinctions of “prime/not-prime,” we make 4 major distinctions (OCX, SEA, EU, NA) which are themselves divided into “early” and “late.” All three servers have people on at all times of the day however not all servers are equally strong at all times of the day. Several guilds play overlapping timezones so there’s almost always a steady handing off of leadership from one timezone to another. T1 NA is competitive 24/7. Could it be even more competitive than it already is? Absolutely. But that’s a problem that can be solved by us, I don’t think it requires developer intervention.

I think that before we try a heavy handed (and likely flawed) developer-based intervention to minimize the effect of “overpowered” guilds on so called “weak-zone” PPT there should instead be a player-based push to consolidate the servers to the point where we start having only mega servers with 24/7 coverage. Hopefully it will become meaningless to talk of “prime and off” because every timezone will be competitive as has already largely occurred in T1 NA.

If this sort of player-based initiative isn’t feasible for the EU servers then I would hope that developer intervention would just focus on EU rather than including us as well.

If your matches have more or less equal amounts of people all around the clock, the implementation of proposal 1 or 2 would not have much effect on you. It only would make a substantial difference in scoring when there are times with substantial differences in players, e.g. with proposal 2a) when your match has 695+ people in WvW (sum all three sides!) all around the clock there would be zero difference to today.

You use SoS as an example ( I play there). Most of these proposals would unfairly punish our OCX and SEA.
You say “they are only in T3 because of their Oceanic”; but it’s just as easy to say that we are “down in T3 because of our EU and NA”

You say that is an error, but if SoS were to gain a late EU guild or a very early NA group, our ppt would increase to the point where we would push out of T3 and be back in T2; where the two higher servers in that tier have a lot of off hours coverage as well; and no one would be complaining like they do now about coverage differences.

TL;DR servers will either find equilibrium, grow, or shrink. It’s just off right now because of the Season One debacle where too many server communities were devastated and population shifts through everyone off.

Chris.3290:

Most of these proposals would unfairly punish our OCX and SEA.

Of course, there would be another interesting option:

We all know the current scoring/match system very well, and in 90% of matches (probably close to 100 if we knew all transfers) we are able to predict the outcome correctly before the match started (if you consider close race between A and B as a valid prediction as well).

No single proposal (nor the current system) would be equally fair to everyone.

How about having leagues (probably best swiss-tournament with all servers) with different proposals (and the current one) in rotation?

There are many, many solutions and steps which can be done to improve the game on this aspect and which have been brought up by many players multiple times. The problem is not lack of solutions. The problem is unwillingness on part of a-net to impliment them.

I am on GH server and the only reason we are on first place during this matchup is night coverage. Perhaps it’s time to stop the tick in the nighttime so people in the relevant timezone can make a difference.

A ticker stop would be to much, as it would really discriminate the night-player.
But I do not want to discriminate them. I only want that the discriminatin of the prime-time players ends.

Therefore I am in favor of a correspondence of
No of people playing = no of objectives/score achievable
Such that effort is rewarded equally.

Imo they should break down the lousy ‘server vs. server’ system. Kill servers, make it alliances in one big kettle.

Sirendor.1394:

Imo they should break down the lousy ‘server vs. server’ system. Kill servers, make it alliances in one big kettle.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/suggestions/Separate-Casual-and-Ranking-WvW

Proposed and ignored (moved to general suggestions trash-can) long time ago
Refined and updated in the german CDI-thread on world-population as well:
https://forum-de.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Gemeinsame-Entwicklung-Euer-Thema-Welt-Bev-lkerung/334931

Dayra.7405:

A ticker stop would be to much, as it would really discriminate the night-player.
But I do not want to discriminate them. I only want that the discriminatin of the prime-time players ends.

Therefore I am in favor of a correspondence of
No of people playing = no of objectives/score achievable
Such that effort is rewarded equally.

I get what you’re saying. The only issue is, WvW is a numbers game. Unless you massively nerf points scored during hours outside of 6pm-12pm server time, you won’t have balance.

The way to balance WvW is to balance the server populations. To do that, you could give some small underdog bonuses (something similar to the outmanned buff) to the lowest ranked server of the matchup as well as a small head start in points(scaled based on the performance of the previous week).

I think EU servers also need to change their WvW culture and make it far more pug friendly. This is only from what I’ve read and seen with EU guilds in NA, but you guys rarely accept pugs running with guild zergs. NA guilds are very different in this regard, and this allows for far closer populations in each matchup.

Balance between servers is a different issue than balance of off- and prime-time player impact.

In fact I am against any balance methods of servers, it violates the idea of competition in a match. (However, things like: half the capacity of all WvW-maps would probably be good to counter the “concentration on a few servers”-process)

But prime-time and off-time aren’t in a competition (they cannot fight each other), they simply both exist, therefore I a prefer balanced set-up with respect to them.

Dayra.7405:

But prime-time and off-time aren’t in a competition (they cannot fight each other), they simply both exist, therefore I a prefer balanced set-up with respect to them.

Not quite true in kitten and to a smaller extent, T3 NA. There’s no “off hours”. There’s stronger and weaker hours, which vary wildly as guilds transfer in and out.

5) make a new map that isn’t PPT driven

oh wait