Guild Wars 2

Population limit on the lowest pop server has probably to high abuse potential.

But a limit that no side may bring more people than the both other sides together may work. But it should not be a map-based cap, but a total match-limit, jumping from 1 map to the next should not be prohibited.

In your example it may be A=10 + B=10 resulting in C<21, if A or B increase, C may bring more as well.

There are many many many ways the population and coverage issues can be adressed. Ranging from simple to impliment PPT score scaling to very complex requiring brand new infrastructure.

Unfortunately, A-net is unwilling to do anything about this issue. So the biggest problem in coverage wars isn’t lack of solutions, but lack of willingness on part of A-net to work on this problem.

Tongku.5326:

There are many many many ways the population and coverage issues can be adressed. Ranging from simple to impliment PPT score scaling to very complex requiring brand new infrastructure.

Unfortunately, A-net is unwilling to do anything about this issue. So the biggest problem in coverage wars isn’t lack of solutions, but lack of willingness on part of A-net to work on this problem.

I completely agree with you. A-Net still sees WvW as a relax space for sPVP players. Even the new zone is again an addition about how Anet sees WvW. The new zone is even less competition based.

But it will help if people don’t give up, and say stuff like just play with the cards you get, or just join all on the top tier servers where you be on the winning side and there are queues 24/7.

Not sure about the American top servers, but for the European servers for the most part it means, the higher your server is the less skill most of the players has and the more they avoid fights.
Some top tier servers don’t even play any more during reset when they play against medium tier servers, because it will mean they cant hold more then 1 keep, and their zerg get killed in all open fights. They just wait till everyone goes asleep and take everything back and upgraded. So they can sit in their tier 3 keeps behind tons of siege, and hope they don’t loose to much, else they need to take it back again when everyone is asleep.

Playing only when there is almost no enemies in the zone, avoiding fights(not count killing 3 people with 40+ people as a fight) is the winning and most rewarding tactic of this game. Does ANET really want this part of their game like this???
What about all the ideas players gave in their post?

My personal best idea to fix PPT is:
-Lock a zone when one of the servers has less then 10 players (this means no point thick for all objectives in this zone)
People can still queue for it(or all locked zones), and as soon 15 people on each server are in queue it opens up a zone.
If there are more zones locked they will open in an order where the border of the server with the lowest points open up first and EB last.
– PPT is calculated according to the difference of the number of people of your server and both other servers divided by 2. So when your server has 30 people in a border and server B has 20 and server C has 40 the difference = 30 – ((20+40)/2) = 0 so normal point thick For server C it means 40 – ((30+20)/2)=15 what will mean their point thick for the objectives they own will be lowered. For B it means 20 – ((30+40)/2) = -15 what will mean the objectives will tick for more then normal. The bigger the difference the bigger or lower your PPT will be. (so no prime times or whatever just checking for differences 24 hours of each day, or the check will be every 15-20 minutes)
-If you get in a queue for one of the zones you will also queue for all the locked zones.

The easiest and laziest way to fix everything would be by removing the score completely.

Every night it’s the same jade sea and their night team takes it all, it makes no sense to keep it like it is. It’s broken, ppt might not be interesting for some but it does make you feel sometimes why do I do these things during the day when the night cappers just take it all.

A fundamental problem with player limits tied to population would be what to do when people log off?

If players from the undermanned side log off, does the server kick people from the more populous servers?

It’s a PR disaster in the making, and hence not viable in ANET’s eyes.

Scaled scoring based of relative populations on the other hand would appear to be a nice compromise.

However, economically how would ANET justify the expense of coding and the computing overhead needed for this?

Until Wvw has a gemstore vector, resources will always be scarce for wvw.

But do we want the gemstore in wvw, how can ANET encourage gem spending in wvw without turning it into p2win?

Rawr.5930:

However, economically how would ANET justify the expense of coding and the computing overhead needed for this?

That reminds me of the effort the community needed to convince ANet that the original match-making had a serious bug.

Uncountable many threads and posts over 1/2 a year, till they accepted they made a mistake. Then 2 month needed to implement: NR = R + rnd(-1,+1)(Dc1 +c2) instead of R.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/matchups/T1-EU-24-05-2013-Elona-Vizunah-Jade-Sea/2126487

A bunch of funny bug when they put it live: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/EU-T1-9-Battle-Royale

But finally we got it fixed

Replacing the current Score S by a new Score NS = S*|player in match|/c seems to be of similar complexity

Rawr.5930:

But do we want the gemstore in wvw, how can ANET encourage gem spending in wvw without turning it into p2win?

We even discussed that (I think even more than once, but I do not find it):
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/I-want-to-buy-things-with-gems-for-WvW/first#post2024820

I dont really see this as an issue, other games have had no penalty for off hours coverage and I did not see floods of posts about unfairness. There were a few complaining about alarm clock raids but I don’t remember any about unfair coverage.

I don’t see anywhere that says ESO is going to shut off WvW during your off hours so what difference is it going to make to go there instead? I guess people could then flood their boards about how “unfair” it is.

As said above ANY scoring is fair as long as it is applied to all servers equally. Even random numbers as score are fair and as meaningful as the current score.

Fairness is not the issue.

The issues are:
- Equal impact of players
- Better match-balance

Dayra.7405:

As said above ANY scoring is fair as long as it is applied to all servers equally. Even random numbers as score are fair and as meaningful as the current score.

Fairness is not the issue.

The issues are:
- Equal impact of players
- Better match-balance

You’ll never get matchup balance because the SEA/OCX pop congregates on only a few specific servers. There’s not enough of them to go around, and you need at least a modicum of a presence in those time zones to survive in T1/T2. It’s not their fault, though. ANet, in their infinite wisdom, overlooked the fact that coverage is king when they made the game, and have been willfully ignorant ever since.

Time-slice matches will be more balanced, because they can be balance for each slice individually!

If the SEA/OCX will play their own ranking and match making they will be as balanced as possible due to equal performance in this time-slice!

And it does not affect the balance of other time-slices.

I rather see they remove PPT all together, and have all keep/towers/camps operate (points per kill) like the ruins system (points per stomps). This will help with reducing coverage dominance. Essentially, those with the most population may capture the most keep/tower but they wont exactly contribute anything (very little) to score because theres noone on the other side to kill to give them points

Nicely written up post, hopefully someone at anet is bright enough to listen to this.
The OP speaks wisdom.

There are huge logic holes in how wvw scoring is done at the moment and should be revised to allow equal opportunity to contribute no matter what time you play.

I have edited my previous post, sorry for my broken english.

How you guys think about introduction of EoTM effect on WvW?

As a non-prime time player in small server, I think EoTM is killing dominated servers from WvW further, as they are before. But EoTM provides a place to me to play on much fair basic. And we have chance to work together and learn from players with bigger servers.

In other words, EoTM randomize coverage problem.

Last word, imo, most WvW players have fun on competitive environment.

And I wake up yet another day that the nightcappers took it all. Makes you wonder why we even start to upgrade. Because of this nightcapping people have just given up on WvW against these servers. We used to put up a fight but what for, people spend so much gold on upgrades to see it is of no use at all.

Oh, did you saw this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dolyak-Express-Jan-24-2014/3608513

Q: Will we see further steps to let the total war score scale more with “player activity” and less with pure “coverage in the off hours”?
Devon: That is something we are actively working on. The strides we’ve made in AI in Edge of the Mists are part of a long term plan to start addressing this. Our long term goal is to make it so that WvW is determined mostly by when players are online, not coverage. WvW is at its best when there are a lot of players online and we want that to be the most valuable time in WvW.

I am curious what will happen there and when! Best of course would be if this would be ready for the next league. Such that the ranking adaptations need from the score-change can adapt based on the league matches. And the outcome of the league will be much more open, if it is based on a different scoring!

If you look at WvW in an extremely black/white way, the most fun you can get in a match is when the match is fair and balanced. A match of soccer with 11 against 2 wouldn’t be fun. Yes it would be fair for them to win if you think that the team of 11 had more money or a better motivation to find more players. But in that case you are probably a supporter of that team and not looking at the match in a neutral position.
So if we all agree that a fair match is the best and the most fun way to play WvW:

Something like:

Server = (Skill x Number of players)

Server1 = Server2 = Server3

where Number of players is equal in each Server.

That would be perfect. A soccer team of 11 vs 11 in without player leaving during the match. Or if he did he would get replaced by a reserve player. But sadly in WvW this is not the case.

And what I think is the most outrageous is the fact that there are still players saying: “No we have 11 players and another 11 players for the second half, you only have 2. Arbiter, lets play!”

Dayra.7405:

Oh, did you saw this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dolyak-Express-Jan-24-2014/3608513

Q: Will we see further steps to let the total war score scale more with “player activity” and less with pure “coverage in the off hours”?
Devon: That is something we are actively working on. The strides we’ve made in AI in Edge of the Mists are part of a long term plan to start addressing this. Our long term goal is to make it so that WvW is determined mostly by when players are online, not coverage. WvW is at its best when there are a lot of players online and we want that to be the most valuable time in WvW.

I am curious what will happen there and when! Best of course would be if this would be ready for the next league. Such that the ranking adaptations need from the score-change can adapt based on the league matches. And the outcome of the league will be much more open, if it is based on a different scoring!

This is really important. May we get a feedback from the devs on how is this going?

So when is this mysterious coverage fixing update coming?

I recall Arena Net saying back in 2013 January that they’re actively working on Precursor Hunt, more than a year, still nothing, and Arena Net admitted that it’s not their priority.

Nick.6972:

So when is this mysterious coverage fixing update coming?

I recall Arena Net saying back in 2013 January that they’re actively working on Precursor Hunt, more than a year, still nothing, and Arena Net admitted that it’s not their priority.

How is the better question no one has given any good suggestion beyond “stop counting ppt when i log off.” There just maybe no real fix and just a flaw of an RvRvR system.

Jski.6180:

Nick.6972:

So when is this mysterious coverage fixing update coming?

I recall Arena Net saying back in 2013 January that they’re actively working on Precursor Hunt, more than a year, still nothing, and Arena Net admitted that it’s not their priority.

How is the better question no one has given any good suggestion beyond “stop counting ppt when i log off.” There just maybe no real fix and just a flaw of an RvRvR system.

People have given a ton of different solutions.

For instance, if they simply made it so that you get points for capturing an objective rather than holding one, WvW would change dramatically and night-capping would become far less of an issue since you wouldn’t have servers ticking for 400+ on off-hours.

There’s literally dozens better solutions to coverage wars better than the actual system.

Flytrap.8075:

Jski.6180:

Nick.6972:

So when is this mysterious coverage fixing update coming?

I recall Arena Net saying back in 2013 January that they’re actively working on Precursor Hunt, more than a year, still nothing, and Arena Net admitted that it’s not their priority.

How is the better question no one has given any good suggestion beyond “stop counting ppt when i log off.” There just maybe no real fix and just a flaw of an RvRvR system.

People have given a ton of different solutions.

For instance, if they simply made it so that you get points for capturing an objective rather than holding one, WvW would change dramatically and night-capping would become far less of an issue since you wouldn’t have servers ticking for 400+ on off-hours.

Then ppl will cap them at night just the same unless the other side comply stop wvw they can simply starve out the other side if they are wining already. Wining though no actively is the worst way to win. You will be rewarded more from not taking something if your already wining. You can also “farm” another side for points by capping and letting the other side take it back over and over pushing out the 3ed group from being able to do nothing at all.

Its not about ppt its about the fact that there is no one on at all at odd times is the problem ppt is just a simpleton of the problem.

While I do understand that some prime-time players feel that off-time players contribute too much to the match scoring, none of the solutions that have been proposed are complete solutions.

Any “activity”-adjusted PPT solution simply has too many loopholes. The two most glaring ones are (1) players on the winning server are encouraged to afk in WvW on off-hours, (2) players on the losing server are discouraged from playing on off-hours. Both of these actions detract from actually playing the game, and should be avoided at all costs.

In my opinion (and anyone is free to disagree), the only complete solution is to equalize the coverage between the servers. The coverage issue is an artificial phenomena created due to the mismatch between the goals of WvW (24/7 three-way server contest) and the current structure of individual servers (region segregation, high variance in population density). The premise of WvW assumes equal strength of all servers in a match, but that is rarely the case given the issues above.

Anet should tackle either or both of the two coverage issues directly. Either get rid of the “prime-time” effect (international servers, NA-EU server tag-teams, etc.), or somehow equalize the population in each server (collapse lower-tier servers, free but time-gated transfers, etc).

In the end of the day though, I feel that none of the solutions Anet comes up with will satisfy the players. The players simply want too many things, including compensation for the times when they are not online (“activity”-scaled PPT). The easiest solution by the players is: If the player cares about points, they can transfer to a winning server. If they don’t care about points, then there’s not even an issue to begin with.

But of course, players want to stay on their own server, and still win in every mode. I wouldn’t be surprised if Anet just awards everyone with 500 tickets at the end of this tournament.

Players = the entire playerbase

WvW’ers = players that actively play WvW

Players care about winning, rewards, compensation etc…
WvW’ers care about a fair match

Even if none of the proposed fixes will fix it 100%, its still better than nothing.

Thank you.

Simple solution, make people play on the servers in which is closest to their local time.

You live in spain, you plain on EU servers, you do not play on NA servers. You live in Texas, you play in NA, you do not play on EU.

You live in Brazil, you play in NA (4hr difference to server time vs EU’s 5hr difference)

You live in China, you play in EU (6hr difference vs NA’s 9hr difference)

Do that and most of the coverage problems are solved (not all but most).

Hum alot of threads getting necro’d lately

Yup. necrothreads for the .. toast!? something like that….

I had a suggestion last summer on this topic that I’ve considered for a while, and it tends to use mechanics that are already in place, with a few alterations. Namely, the Outnumbered flag.

Basically, if a point of control is being controlled by the ‘native’ owner, and they are outmanned, they should get a ppt bonus of some sort. (50% extra credit maybe?) and if you’re holding a point away from a ‘native’ holder that is outmanned, you get half credit.

This is a basic implementation of ‘reward commensurate with risk’

If you’re not being seriously challenged, you should get less reward. This is a factor that Anet has stated is something they’re working on balancing game-wide, and in WvW, the risk vs. reward function comes down to coverage for the most part. Therefore, if green is outmanned, and you’re holding green garrison on green borderlands, you get some credit, but not as much, as there isn’t much actual risk/challenge being undertaken by the holding party.

In the same vein, you get less credit for stomps if you’re stomping someone who’s outmanned, and you should get a bonus if you’re outmanned stomping someone who isn’t. I understand there are all sort of weird situation where this goes out the window, as in 60 vs 8 and the 8 happens to find a solo roamer. Given how unlikely it is that those 8 will have bloodlust, if they .can. get stomp points, they’ve earned their bonus.

To addendum to this, however, I also feel that any character with the Determined bonus from being in spawn or citadel should not count towards the outmanned calculation in any factor. If you’re not playing, you shouldn’t be considered in the equation.

I think this very simply change, while not a solution, could easily alleviate some of the coverage woes without overly penalizing anyone, while pulling coverage issues more into line with proper reward vs. risk.

DeadlySynz.3471:

Do that and most of the coverage problems are solved (not all but most).

The main problem (at least in EU) of coverage is not that of time-zone’s but that of over/under-stacking. An over-stacked server has more coverage, simply because it has more people that want to play their amount of time per week. If queues hinder them to play prime they go to other times, and by that they generate coverage.

1) the amount of WvW-players need to be more fair distributed.

=> not more than X player may enter WvW for a server in a specific match, where X is computed from the total number of people (over all servers) that wanted to play in the last week divided by number of servers plus 10%.
If you were not able able to enter WvW due to this you can choose a free transfer to one of the servers with most free slots.

Kodaka.1960:

Any “activity”-adjusted PPT solution simply has too many loopholes.

2) Activity should generate points
Activity is not only
- attacking,
- fights and
- conquest,
activity is also:
- upgrading stuff,
- scouting (at least 1 person was inside every second of the whole tick) and
- defending (people where inside and/or attacked the attacker and won) stuff,
- escorting (a person was close all along the way and the dolyak reach target) and
- killing doylaks,
- killing/stomping players,
- opening walls/doors,
- closing walls doors,
- refreshing siege,
- getting (1st) bloodbuf
- denying (last) bloodbuf
- …
I cannot propose a good score-balance between these activities. I would need more data how often they occur currently. But ANet could measure them in nicely balance matches and correlate them to players currently active.

Especially scouting + defending are nice replacements for the “current score from tick”, but opposed to simply let the possessions tick, they require people being there.

Jski.6180:

Then ppl will cap them at night just the same unless the other side comply stop wvw they can simply starve out the other side if they are wining already. Wining though no actively is the worst way to win. You will be rewarded more from not taking something if your already wining. You can also “farm” another side for points by capping and letting the other side take it back over and over pushing out the 3ed group from being able to do nothing at all.

Its not about ppt its about the fact that there is no one on at all at odd times is the problem ppt is just a simpleton of the problem.

The solution has already been suggested in other threads.

• Modify PPT such that no points are earned from an un-upgraded objective.

• PPT is then earned along a scale based on the number of upgrades completed at an objective. For example, an un-upgraded supply camp earns zero PPT. Complete one upgrade and it earns 1 PPT, two upgrades 2 PPT, etc. (towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle would have a greater degree of scaling than supply camps).

• World Score points are earned from capturing objectives actively defended by real players. The larger the structure and more upgrades it has, the more points it will be worth on capture.

• World Score points are earned for each “Defend the X” event concluded at an objective actively under attack and actively defended by real players (no points awarded if no defenders were present during the event). An objective is considered “defended” if a real player was present when the “Defend the X” event is triggered; even if that defender runs away at some point during the siege.

• No “on capture” points are awarded for capturing undefended fortifications.

• One World Score point is awarded for each player kill (with this bonus stripped from Borderlands Bloodlust buff; it’s now awarded for any kill, any time, any where, under any conditions).

• Two World Score points are awarded for each player kill when under the influence of the Outnumbered buff. Armor repair costs are being eliminated with the April 15, 2014 Feature Pack. Having no armor repair costs as a benefit of being Outnumbered then becomes obsolete. That bonus is now replaced with an extra World Score point for each kill in recognition of the fact the outnumbered server is playing against a numerically superior force; to compensate, their kills are now worth more.

The majority of points earned would now come from battles/sieges between real players and upgrades to fortifications rather than playing PvDoor and absentee landlord. The score is a reflection of players actively engaging other players in combat and investing in their holdings rather than passively earning points by doing nothing but PvDoor while avoiding direct confrontation.

Though I’ve been a past advocate of the complete elimination of PPT, I understand its value as a motivator to get the server in the lead to continue to engage in WvW. Otherwise, in a system where points are exclusively earned through direct player interaction, a server could get into the lead then abandon WvW in an effort to deny their opponents fights and points. PPT ticking in the background is what allows the 2nd and 3rd place servers to threaten the 1st place server and keep them fighting to maintain their position.

However, with the modifications above, the 1st place server won’t be able to stay in first exclusively through PvDoor, as that activity – in its purest form – will award zero points (capturing an undefended objective and abandoning it without upgrading will earn no PPT). They will have to fight real players, capture actively defended fortifications, and/or upgrade their fortifications if they want to earn PPT and hold onto their lead.

With regards to the OP, this addresses the coverage wars to the extent that is possible in an unbalanced 24/7 arena. The suggestions above won’t stop a server from “night capping” all of an opponent’s fortifications. It will, however, slow down the PPT that server earns from such activity as no points are earned until those captured objectives are upgraded.

The server which is outnumbered at this point in the cycle then has a fighting chance. They can engage in supply denial by flipping camps and killing Dolyaks, slowing or even preventing the upgrades from completing along with the PPT that comes from those upgrades.

It’s all about rewarding player action while punishing inaction in the context of a PvP arena. PvDoor as a result of lopsided coverage doesn’t count as an “action” under this definition; thus it’s not rewarded. The server that PvDoors can still earn PPT if they upgrade their fortifications, recognizing they’ve made at least some marginal effort. But karma trains flipping empty towers and keeps without upgrading them will no longer be rewarded with PPT (and in other posts I’ve even gone so far as to suggest no loot or coin rewards, either).

@ Kraag Deadsoul.2789 non of that fixes night capping lol. What your suggesting only fixes karma training.

Jski.6180:

@ Kraag Deadsoul.2789 non of that fixes night capping lol. What your suggesting only fixes karma training.

Is there a difference between current night-capping and karma-train?
Currently, who caps faster in off-time wins and the one with more people caps faster.
But if capping undefended stuff generates much less or even no points, things become different.

If it is a solution to night-capping strongly depends on the balance between the scores for different activity.

Another point of course is: Off-time is characterized by less people. Currently less people means higher score differences, but in an activity model it could mean: a few people can do less activities than many people. conquest is fast, and if you get your points just for being the last conqueror you can get many points, but if you are required to actively garrisoning and defending your possession to get points you get much less from it.

Dayra.7405:

Jski.6180:

@ Kraag Deadsoul.2789 non of that fixes night capping lol. What your suggesting only fixes karma training.

Is there a difference between current night-capping and karma-train?
Currently, who caps faster in off-time wins and the one with more people caps faster.
But if capping undefended stuff generates much less or even no points, things become different.

If it is a solution to night-capping strongly depends on the balance between the scores for different activity.

Another point of course is: Off-time is characterized by less people. Currently less people means higher score differences, but in an activity model it could mean: a few people can do less activities than many people. conquest is fast, and if you get your points just for being the last conqueror you can get many points, but if you are required to actively garrisoning and defending your possession to get points you get much less from it.

There is a vast different what ppl are annoyed about is working all day fighting for ground but only to lose it all during the night. This is also know as night capping. In a lot of ways this is saying a worlds work means nothing if they do not have the coverage to deal with night capping.

Karma training is purely for exp gold etc.. with no intersection of holding its not realty a big deal to ppt or to the match it just happens from time to time during the early part of the week but often happens a lot near the end of the week.

Jski.6180:

@ Kraag Deadsoul.2789 non of that fixes night capping lol. What your suggesting only fixes karma training.

Of course it fixes “night capping”; to the extent possible in an unbalanced 24/7 arena (and as I admitted in my post).

First of all, there is no such thing as “night capping”. It’s a misnomer and anyone using it clearly doesn’t understand WvW. One person’s day is another’s night.

What does exist are cyclical disparities in coverage. As this thread is titled “Nerf the domination of Coverage”, that is what I’m speaking to and not to the concept of “night capping”.

As such, my suggestion does address coverage disparities (as well as karma training). In a coverage disparity, one server has more players present than another server, agreed? They then use these superior numbers to capture a great deal of the map with little to no opposition, right? This situation will never be corrected in a 24/7 format; period. We can’t change the coverage issue. What we can change is how it’s rewarded.

Some suggestions for doing so seek to devalue the points contribution of the numerically superior server. This is proposed through convoluted formulas based on population X versus population Y, time slices, decreasing PPT by some ratio during certain times, etc.

All of them fail because all them – fundamentally – devalue the contribution of a player in one way or another. People don’t like being devalued, thus none of these suggestions will ever work; no matter how logical or rational they appear from a certain perspective.

The suggestions I made above do not devalue any one player’s contribution to the score. Instead, by shifting the method by which the points are awarded, it reduces the domination of coverage; which is what this thread is about.

With the system I proposed, PPT is earned by the same methods and with the same values by all servers at all times; no one’s contribution is devalued. However, by making points more dependent on action rather than inaction (it IS a PvP game mode afterall), it reduces the influence of coverage in the equation. Coverage, too, will still have value; but it will no longer be the primary contributor to PPT to the extent possible in a 24/7 format.

Coverage isn’t going away. That’s fine. Where the problem lies is that coverage has no counters to it. A well-balanced game mode which promotes enjoyment of the game for everyone has counters to everything. Doing so gives players’ actions value and meaning. It’s why the rewarding of coverage in its current incarnation is so disheartening for players faced with it; there’s no counter-play available.

A server’s players can work their kittens off to capture and upgrade everything only to have lost it all when next they log in. This isn’t the real issue though. The real problem is the other server with the better coverage is able to leap ahead in points due to a scoring system which rewards PvDoor in a PvP arena and the first server can do nothing to counter it. That’s where the problem lies.

With the suggestions I’ve made, the server which faces a coverage issue can still counter the potential PPT earned by the server with the better coverage. With PPT linked to how many upgrades are completed at an objective, the outnumbered server can counter by killing yaks and flipping camps. With no supply with which to complete their upgrades, the server with the better coverage won’t be able to earn PPT from their fortifications unless they actively engage in stopping the camp flippers and yak killers. A small guerilla force fighting smart can stop an army several times their size from earning points; counter-play.

The battle is now fought over the PPT earning potential of objectives, with the outnumbered server having a counter-play option available to them where before it didn’t exist. No longer will servers earn points by capturing then abandoning objectives left un-upgraded (passive play). Now, earning points becomes an active endeavor which can be countered by your opponents; even in the face of coverage disparities.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

Jski.6180:

@ Kraag Deadsoul.2789 non of that fixes night capping lol. What your suggesting only fixes karma training.

First of all, there is no such thing as “night capping”. It’s a misnomer and anyone using it clearly doesn’t understand WvW. One person’s day is another’s night.

What does exist are cyclical disparities in coverage. As this thread is titled “Nerf the domination of Coverage”, that is what I’m speaking to and not to the concept of “night capping”.

As such, my suggestion does address coverage disparities (as well as karma training). In a coverage disparity, one server has more players present than another server, agreed? They then use these superior numbers to capture a great deal of the map with little to no opposition, right? This situation will never be corrected in a 24/7 format; period. We can’t change the coverage issue. What we can change is how it’s rewarded.

Some suggestions for doing so seek to devalue the points contribution of the numerically superior server. This is proposed through convoluted formulas based on population X versus population Y, time slices, decreasing PPT by some ratio during certain times, etc.

All of them fail because all them – fundamentally – devalue the contribution of a player in one way or another. People don’t like being devalued, thus none of these suggestions will ever work; no matter how logical or rational they appear from a certain perspective.

This is excellent post i for one don’t mind people taking stuff at night its when they can play. I have been on server were we did not win a wvw in almost 3 months (those who played from launch should be able to guess the server.) constantly being beat out by overnight crews and well just all around coverage. I did not QQ about it i sucked it up and played. Anet has made it clear this will be 24/7 with no restriction. We should just get on with life or you can always switch games.

Night capping is a bull hockey term.

There is nothing to be done about it. If you feel your server has a problem, then as I see it, it is your fault. You should spend less time in the forums trying to change a game mode that forces everyone else to suffer, for what you perceive as a problem. And spend more time training interested players to hold real estate or recruiting players to aid in holding it.

@ Kraag Deadsoul.2789
Your ideal would favor world with more coverage that what we are talking about. A world that can cover a keep at all times giving it time to upgrade and to hold in an upgraded state would win all the time the side that can only take a tower or keep from time to time and only hold it for a tick due to there lack of numbers over time would be more likely to get nothing at all.

Your mixing up 2 comply different problems in wvw or in rvrvr type of game play. Fast cap for a tick is not how you win a week its how you make gold and remove upgrades. Being able to hold tower / keeps over night in a full upgraded state due to having higher numbers then the other team is what is know as “night” capping it has nothing to realty do with what time it happens but it happens during the worlds OFF times.

DB dose this a lot and its the only reason why its in gold atm (wish FA made it but there just no one playing at times) what DB has is a powerful SEA presents at times when other worlds lacking in this do not have any major forces to compete therefor the other worlds lack COVERAGE.

The time-slicing solution is the best one imo. That would at least ensure fair matchups at all times.

A more complicated solution that could work is to change the capping mechanics so that decapping becomes possible on ppt earning points, but to cap you need to supply a resource only available from player kills or from limited non-ppt objectives when players aren’t available to kill.

Anet should add an NPC that sells tick points, that way everyone who wants to contribute can do so at their own pace.

You can pay by gems, gold, or cash. There would also be a system in place that automatically draws funds from your bank account to support your server.

@Jski.6180

No, Jski, I am not mixing up two completely different problems. I am addressing both problems – “night capping” (or coverage disparity as would be more appropriate to call it) and karma training – with one solution.

The problem as you define it is:

“Being able to hold tower / keeps over night in a full upgraded state due to having higher numbers then the other team is what is know as “night” capping it has nothing to realty do with what time it happens but it happens during the worlds OFF times."

However, that’s not the core problem. Ask yourself this: if holding a fully upgraded tower or keep earned no PPT, would “night capping” be a problem? The answer would be “No.” So the problem isn’t the holding of a fully upgraded tower or keep for extended periods of time while one’s opponents have a decreased presence on the map.

The problem is points passively earned in the absence of any counter-play. Which is to say, a grossly outnumbered server has little to no chance of capturing towers or keeps to deny their enemy PPT or earn it for themselves. This is bad game design because:

(a) coverage is not under the player’s control

(b) a factor not under a player’s control gives a reward to the opponent (PPT)

(c ) there are no counters available to (a) and (b)

The solution I offered directly addresses this shortcoming. It introduces a form of counter-play which – if the outnumbered server chooses to avail themselves of it – allows them to slow or even prevent their opponent from earning PPT by preventing supply from reaching fortifications.

As there must be counters to everything, the server being denied points has counters available to them, as well; namely, successfully hunting down their outnumbered opponent and/or guarding their supply camps and Dolyaks.

Rather than discuss it in the abstract, let’s use examples:

The Current Scoring System

• Server A’s population decreases at some point in the 24 hour cycle.

• Server B’s population may fluctuate as well, but is significantly larger than Server A’s during the time frame under consideration.

• Server B begins to capture a majority of Server A’s fortifications, reverting them to an un-upgraded state.

• Under the current scoring system, Server B begins earning PPT immediately from each captured objective.

• Server A, outnumbered and unable to successfully capture back their fortifications for this reason, is helpless to stop Server B from amassing a runaway lead in World Score. Not because they’re bad players, not because Server B is more skilled, but because the scoring mechanic rewards outnumbering one’s opponent, the passive amassing of points, and no counter-play to this scenario.

• Server A’s efforts are devalued or even completely irrelevant while Server B’s coverage advantage is disproportionately and passively rewarded.

Now, let’s look at how the situation changes when PPT is earned based on how many upgrades are completed at an objective:

The Proposed Scoring System

• Server A’s population decreases at some point in the 24 hour cycle.

• Server B’s population may fluctuate as well, but is significantly larger than Server A’s during the time frame under consideration.

• Server B begins to capture a majority of Server A’s fortifications, reverting them to an un-upgraded state.

• These captured objectives do not earn Server B any PPT as they are un-upgraded.

• Server B begins ordering upgrades at all of the captured objectives.

• Server A, outnumbered and unable to mount successful direct assaults on these towers and keeps, chooses, instead, to kill Dolyaks and capture supply camps feeding these fortifications.

• The outcome is now undecided. Server A may be successful in denying Server B any PPT from the captured objectives due to lack of supply preventing the completion of upgrades. Server A may be marginally successful; they prevent upgrades from being completed at some fortifications, but not all of them. Server A may fail to deny Server B points as Server B assigns players guard duty at supply camps and escort duty of Dolyaks in an effort to complete their upgrades.

• Counter-play options exist and Server B’s increased coverage over Server A is not an automatic guarantee of earning runaway PPT.

• Neither server is being punished nor devalued. Both servers have options to either earn points or prevent their opponent from earning points, even in the face of a coverage disparity.

(continued)

(continued)

I can appreciate the potential counter-argument that Server B’s effort in capturing all those towers and keeps is being devalued. It isn’t being devalued; it’s correcting an imbalance which has been devaluing the effort of the opposing server since launch. Furthermore, I added a mechanic which does reward Server B’s efforts by giving them World Score points at the time of capture (provided Server A puts up an active defense).

Following the capture, Server B can potentially earn the same PPT they did under the old scoring system; but only by actively upgrading what they’ve captured. No longer will servers be awarded passive PPT without consciously making a periodic investment in upgrades. They must take a pro-active role in managing how their points are earned.

This is a hallmark of good game design; the cause-and-effect of skillfully performing action X to receive reward Y or achieve desirable outcome Z. PPT in its current incarnation breaks with this paradigm through the continual rewarding of points in the absence of continued action; sitting on empty fortifications to passively earn points over time.

This proposed change encourages players and servers to act if they want to earn World Score, while introducing counter-play which adds meaning and value to their actions regardless of coverage disparities.

To me it seems obvious ArenaNet doesn’t care about WvW coverage imbalance. They had more than a year to do something. They knew it was a problem but they launched their WvW season anyway, knowing full well that servers with no night coverage would get crushed.

All is fair in war. If your server is too small or doesn’t have night teams, well too bad.

Zanshin.5379:

To me it seems obvious ArenaNet doesn’t care about WvW coverage imbalance. They had more than a year to do something. They knew it was a problem but they launched their WvW season anyway, knowing full well that servers with no night coverage would get crushed.

All is fair in war. If your server is too small or doesn’t have night teams, well too bad.

Same tired argument trotted out time and again.

For all you armchair Napoleans, this isn’t war; it’s a game. The goal of which is entertainment and recreation for everyone who plays; not just a select few. If a portion of the game’s population is prevented from achieving that goal due to poor design, either the game needs changing to bring it into better alignment with the goal or the players walk. This has been borne out time and time again with games which have failed to achieve that goal and GW2 is no exception.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

This is bad game design because:

(a) coverage is not under the player’s control

(b) a factor not under a player’s control gives a reward to the opponent (PPT)

(c ) there are no counters available to (a) and (b)

False.

(a ) “Coverage” is exclusively a player-driven mechanic, which can no more be removed than can the human need for clocks, time zones, and sleep.

(b ) Not everyone wins in competition.

(c ) It is addressed by human interaction through social networking.

The solution is simpler and more plausible.

Virtute.8251:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

This is bad game design because:

(a) coverage is not under the player’s control

(b) a factor not under a player’s control gives a reward to the opponent (PPT)

(c ) there are no counters available to (a) and (b)

False.

(a ) “Coverage” is exclusively a player-driven mechanic, which can no more be removed than can the human need for clocks, time zones, and sleep.

(b ) Not everyone wins in competition.

(c ) It is addressed by human interaction through social networking.

The solution is simpler and more plausible.

(a) The moon drives the tides, but no one would say it controls it as control means you can change it. And a single player cannot change coverage.

(b) The problem is not that some are loosing, the problem is that much to often the result is clear before start, i.e. there is simply no competition.

Dayra.7405:

(a) The moon drives the tides, but no one would say it controls it

False.

“Why does the gravitational pull of the moon control the tides of the sea?” — Cornell Center for Materials Research

“Although it is often asserted that the moon “controls” the tides, this is really an oversimplification of the tidal system. In fact there are many factors which determine the tides, including the moon, the sun, the rotation of the earth, the geomorphology of the ocean basin, and the location of the particular spot where you’re measuring the tide along that basin." — UC Santa Barbara

Dayra.7405:

(a) as control means you can change it. And a single player cannot change coverage.

Yours is also a gross oversimplification of “control”. A single player should not expect anything of the magnitude of what you posit. Yet, in limited circumstances, an individual can accomplish smaller measures of control and victory, even in Gold League. I’ve done it and seen it.

Dayra.7405:

(b) The problem is not that some are loosing, the problem is that much to often the result is clear before start, i.e. there is simply no competition.

That is why the number of servers should be dropped. Reduce the variance on that variable, while increasing and leveling relative team sizes.

Virtute.8251:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

This is bad game design because:

(a) coverage is not under the player’s control

(b) a factor not under a player’s control gives a reward to the opponent (PPT)

(c ) there are no counters available to (a) and (b)

False.

(a ) “Coverage” is exclusively a player-driven mechanic, which can no more be removed than can the human need for clocks, time zones, and sleep.

(b ) Not everyone wins in competition.

(c ) It is addressed by human interaction through social networking.

The solution is simpler and more plausible.

(a) Coverage is not under the control of the individual player playing WvW at any specific time of the day. It being “player-driven” is not the same as it being under “player control”. The individual player has no control over the coverage disparity and the negative impact it has on their play experience when they log into the game.

(b) Competition is about pitting one’s skill against opponents in an environment in which every effort is made to eliminate all variables except skill.

Using your logic, then it would be perfectly acceptable to have professional sports competitions such as football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, rugby, etc. in which one team is outnumbered two-to-one by the other team. We don’t have such lopsided teams in professional sports because the contest is a measure of human skill, not who fields more players than their opponents.

Furthermore, we don’t automatically award free points to one team for simply standing on the field doing nothing for 15 minutes. Your definition of competition is invalid in the context of WvW.

(c ) Ah, yes, the old “we deserve to win because we’re so uber godly at recruiting players to our server” argument. The fact that one server greatly outnumbers or outcovers their opponent is due to a number of factors; most of them having nothing to do with recruitment efforts. Players are as likely to join a high population server because they like the name or because it already was listed as “high population” in the server list as they are because of a WvW-oriented recruitment effort.

Furthermore, because of the way in which the tournament reward system, transfer fees, and the scoring mechanics of WvW are set up, players gravitate to higher population servers as a result of a self-perpetuating cycle that has nothing to do with social networking. The belief that servers with good WvW coverage got that way due to exhaustive recruiting efforts and social networking is a falsehood. They’re high population for dozens of reasons besides recruiting and social networking.

Your arguments have been dismantled and found to rely on specious and self-serving reasoning.

Anet should close a number of the borderlands depending on the size of the WvW population during off hours.

“Anet should close a number of the borderlands depending on the size of the WvW population during off hours.”

how does that make sense?

KOPPER.1458:

“Anet should close a number of the borderlands depending on the size of the WvW population during off hours.”

how does that make sense?

Not my favored solution, but it makes sense as well:
It improves the correlation between “people playing” and “objectives available”.

Curently, in prime there are 0.7 objective-points per player and in the middle of off-time there are 20 objective-points per player. Closing parts of the maps, help to make it more balanced.