Guild Wars 2

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

Andrew Clear.1750:

My quesion is this…

You may have taken my rhetorical question out of context. Nowhere am I arguing that any servers’ points should be nerfed. I absolutely do NOT subscribe to any system which devalues the points earning potential of a server (whether it be population based, time based, etc.).

Instead, what I’m proposing is the points a server earns is based on equal reward for equal effort and which can be countered by an opponent . In very concrete terms, THIS is what I’m in support of:

• Stomp an opponent, earn a World Score point.

• Capture a supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle which is actively defended by real players, earn World Score points. The larger the objective and the more upgrades it has, the more World Score points earned.

• Build an upgrade to completion, earn PPT from the objective at which the upgrade was completed. The more upgrades built, the more PPT earned. Build no upgrades, earn no PPT.

This is what I’m NOT in support of:

• Earning PPT continuously over time for the one-time action of having captured an empty and undefended objective by PvDooring.

I don’t know what server you are from, but if any server lets someone go take their BL in the over night hours, then they really didn’t give a kitten about defending it.

I’m on SBI. We don’t have a large overnight presence (just ask anyone that has faced us lately), but we sure do have some dedicated people defending it. We might have a small 2-3 mall force take some camps, with an occasional tower at the most, on other BLs, but we aren’t offensive overnight. We just can’t PvD the servers we face with small numbers.

We also have people that will not leave EB, no matter what. I am pretty sure, most of the lower pop servers suffer from this. I’m sure that is what happens to CD for a few hours at night, as IoJ takes their whole BL. IoJ sends out a small group that will take camps, and if they capture a tower, then more of them will come to your map. They test the water first. We will sacrifice some stuff, if need be, in order to make the proper arrangements for this assault. Then we hold on, fight, and hopefully drive them from the BL. Sometimes we can get a few from EB to come and help.

We know how the system works, and we defend. But, by saying we have to keep a person in each tower, or complete upgrades to get points, is garbage. Also, the K-train crew already just runs from point-a to point-b capturing crap, why force more people into these trains in order to get points? There is hardly an incentive to get a lot of people to defend in wvw as it is now, and with constant PPT for held stuctures, you get more points for defending that you would in your model. So, you would just make defending useless, and it would be the k-train and no one caring about fighting, just pvdooring all night and avoiding each other to see who can get the most points.

Utopia is unrealistic, just as communism. No one wants to be equal, everyone wants to be better than everyone else. Everyone has their own will and will play the game the way they want. Anet gave us a system, and we need to quit complaining about that system and figure out how to win that system. Oh, and ESO uses the same PPT system stuff as well. Go figure.

My server has been spanked a lot recently, after losing some people and facing servers with more coverage. I understand the system. We do what we can, and that is all we can do. I still go out and have fun, kill some people, defend our stuff the best I can, etc. I will never agree with your system, as it is short sighted, and destroys the defensive portion of wvw. Maybe if people would utilize the numbers they have, in a better fashion, they will do better. But, ultimately, if you don’t have the numbers, then there is nothing you can do, and you have to realize that.

Mattargul.9235:

The assumption is that PPT is a reasonable measure of population/server strength. It can be calculated for small slices of time just as well as for 24 hours. This metric over 6 hours will be a much, much better predictor for the actual strengt of that server during that 6 hour period than the 24 hour score. It will be much better than averaging out a score over 24 hours when everyone agrees that population can vary wildly over that time.

No, PPT is a game mechanic that rewards you for taking and holding structures, and is calculated at a specific time that everyone is aware of.

Now, some people don’t care about PPT and just want to throw themselves into zergs and enjoy the fights. Some care about PPT and just PvDoor and avoid zergs. Some care about fights and PPT and will capture and defend stuff. Some care about PPT, and will solely defend and run supplies to stuff they captures.

PPT is what actually binds all of WvW together, and people complain about PPT when they don’t have it. If no one cared about PPT, no one would post about it. We care, because we like to win. Enough said.

If you have a strong NA, and the other servers do not, then that is exactly the same as a server that has a strong OCX or strong SEA, or strong EU, while their competition doesn’t.

SBI does not have a strong OCX/SEA compared to IoJ and CD. But we still fight and try to keep the score close during that time. Last night, a few homeland defenders held off IoJ at our Bay for 3 hours. They finally gave up. If PPT didn’t matter, do you think we would’ve cared? If we didn’t understand the coverage wars, do you think we would’ve cared? We know we are going to gain almost all our points in NA, and we have to lessen the bleeding at night, and we do what we can to accomplish that.

People need to upgrade their structures, place siege, and man siege. People need to be willing to leave EB in order to man that siege.

Sometimes there is nothign that can be done (like when we face HoD during the season), and we know that. But we try anyways, cause some of us like to show that we aren’t a pushover. We want them to work for those points, even though we know they will get them.

The assumption is that PPT is a reasonable measure of population/server strength. It can be calculated for small slices of time just as well as for 24 hours. This metric over 6 hours will be a much, much better predictor for the actual strengt of that server during that 6 hour period than the 24 hour score. It will be much better than averaging out a score over 24 hours when everyone agrees that population can vary wildly over that time.

I’m not clear on this part. What PPT are we using? The PPT from the previous 6 hours? The PPT from the same time period of the previous day? Both of these measures have their own issues, since they try to predict the strength of a server on a future date.

True. Predicting from one day to the next can still yield results that are off. To get the best results you’d have to slice the day very thinly. Running with a 4, 6 or 8 hour slice instead is a trade off between having a match that has a reasonable length vs. preventing off-hour coverage from having too much of an effect.

Maybe having a separate match for weekday and weekends would also make sense.

Slicing the 24 hour day into smaller slices, especially if these can be aligned with “prime times”, will yield matches with more even populations for the majority of the players.

There’s simply no evidence for this. In most cases, a server will have more players at all times, or less players at all times.

You doubt there are servers that run heavy NA, or only OCX, while next to nothing during their off-hours?

Andrew Clear.1750:

Mattargul.9235:

The assumption is that PPT is a reasonable measure of population/server strength. It can be calculated for small slices of time just as well as for 24 hours. This metric over 6 hours will be a much, much better predictor for the actual strengt of that server during that 6 hour period than the 24 hour score. It will be much better than averaging out a score over 24 hours when everyone agrees that population can vary wildly over that time.

No, PPT is a game mechanic that rewards you for taking and holding structures, and is calculated at a specific time that everyone is aware of.

Yes. And if you have more people on you will have a higher PPT, leaving aside the time it takes to grind down a T3 structure with full supply, or vastly better players.

(…)PPT is what actually binds all of WvW together, and people complain about PPT when they don’t have it. (…)

People complain, when they get overrun by a zerg facing 5 to 1 odds. That usually leads to less PPT down the road. Conversely, people complain, when they are on the winning side of a 5v1 match up, albeit a little less, since at least that are “winning”.

If you have a strong NA, and the other servers do not, then that is exactly the same as a server that has a strong OCX or strong SEA, or strong EU, while their competition doesn’t.

Yea…?

(…)Sometimes there is nothign that can be done (like when we face HoD during the season), and we know that. (…)

And this is what “off hour coverage” leads to , nothing you can do about it. Which arguably sucks. That’s what we’re discussing here, how to fix the “nothing can be done about it”, because that’s not a good state of affairs.

yanniell.1236:

If the megaserver system is not 100% functional yet (i.e putting players on wrong instances, not with his guildmates, parties, etc), it’s just a matter of fixing it. It’s a really new system, and it’s expected some problems.

And how fun even matches 24/7 is “nothing to show for it”? It’s just everything WvW was supposed to be.

There is no way to fix it – that’s the point. You’re making the assumption that there is only ever one desirable map choice for each player. Reality isn’t that simple. Friends/guildies/contacts/whatever can potentially be spread across several different maps. A call for reinforcements can obligate players to join a different map than they would otherwise. Or perhaps players might want to attack a new map due to strategic reasons. And so on, and so on. Players may want to join another map than the one the system assigns to them for a multitude of different reasons and there simply is no way for the system to always make the right call. It’s bound to go wrong, the flaw is inherent to the system.

As for balanced matches, you already have that in an alliance system where players are allowed to choose where they play – there is no reason to introduce semi-random algorithms into the mix. It’s a straight up loss compared to the alternative. Forced map assignments inhibit the ability to conduct organized warfare. Voluntary map assignments do not.

@Andrew Clear.1750

If you want to accept the system as is, that’s your right. Just as it is my right and the right of others to suggest changes to it.

Never at any point have I said that a server has to keep a player in each tower. Upgrades can be ordered (or not) and you can leave a tower; there’s no requirement to stay. That may negatively impact the chances of successfully upgrading the fortification in question, but the choice is still there.

Upgrade sufficiently, and a server can be earning as much (and maybe even more) PPT as they do under the current system. Add in the suggestion made by neonreaper of bonus World Score points as each upgrade is completed, and there’s potential for even more points on top of that PPT.

The system I’m proposing does more to reward defense than the current system. Servers would earn World Score points for each “Defend the X” event they successfully complete when a supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle comes under attack and there are players there to defend it. It’s a direct reward for their effort of defending. In a prolonged siege, they may even potentially out-earn the attackers in terms of World Score points.

LOL at your Utopia/communism comment. It’s clear by that comment alone how far off the mark you are in understanding what is being proposed. The current system is the communist-like system; passively earning PPT over time for little to no effort. In short, being given a free handout earned simply by players becoming homogenized into playing the same blobby and coverage-wins-all meta.

By contrast, the system I’ve suggested is almost entirely merit-based; you earn more World Score and PPT points by taking action in the game against other players as opposed to PvDooring and just sitting there passively earning PPT for little to no effort. Especially since the outnumbered players would have a counter to amassing runaway PPT; if they play smart, they can stop the flow of supply into a fortification, preventing upgrades – and, by extension, the PPT that comes with them – from ever reaching completion.

With regards to karma trains, they would earn almost nothing from engaging in their current behavior under the proposed system; namely, PvDooring down empty, undefended keeps and then abandoning them without upgrading. That action would not be rewarded World Score points on capture nor would it earn PPT over time since they don’t, as a general rule, upgrade.

World Score is only awarded on capturing actively defended fortifications. Since karma trains tend to take the path of least resistance, they will avoid heavily defended fortifications; in turn, earning no points. So this becomes a disincentive to karma train or, at the very least, no longer rewards servers points for doing so.

The system I’m suggesting gives players a greater variety of options for earning World Score and PPT points compared to what currently exists. It directly rewards players for actively defending fortifications where they currently earn nothing. It no longer allows coverage alone to be the deciding factor in earning points or determining a winner. It gives the outnumbered players a direct counter-play option for denying PPT to the server with superior coverage/numbers.

It takes all the factors that reduce scoring in WvW down to who has more numbers/more coverage and eliminates them. Instead, it gives all styles of play the potential to contribute meaningfully to the score as a direct result of their actions; either earning points or denying the enemy points.

It helps to read in full rather than skim, pull out of context, and misconstrue what is being proposed.

With the pending China/Asia release of GW2, I wonder what impact, if any, this will have on WvW. From what I’ve read, it’s my understanding GW2 is being modified to conform to certain “restrictions” as a condition of being distributed in China. One such restriction may be that only players from China and affiliated Asian nations will be permitted on their regional servers.

Consequently, WvW will be much more homogenous when viewed in the context of time zones and server populations. As a result, coverage disparities and “night capping” may not be as much of an issue on the Chinese/Asiatic servers. My fear is the developers can then use this to argue that coverage disparities don’t need to be taken seriously. This, of course, would be disingenuous because of the differences in how the servers in China/Asia are set up versus all the other servers; apples to oranges.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

With the pending China/Asia release of GW2, I wonder what impact, if any, this will have on WvW. From what I’ve read, it’s my understanding GW2 is being modified to conform to certain “restrictions” as a condition of being distributed in China. One such restriction may be that only players from China and affiliated Asian nations will be permitted on their regional servers.

Consequently, WvW will be much more homogenous when viewed in the context of time zones and server populations. As a result, coverage disparities and “night capping” may not be as much of an issue on the Chinese/Asiatic servers. My fear is the developers can then use this to argue that coverage disparities don’t need to be taken seriously. This, of course, would be disingenuous because of the differences in how the servers in China/Asia are set up versus all the other servers; apples to oranges.

They will still have some people who play in the morning or during regular work hours, which will represent their off-hour coverage. Since it’s much less all around, the top server may have only 30 people on during those hours.

I can actually see “pay for coverage” going on there. If you have one of the newly rich playing on your server, who has more money than sense, he might offer some actual cash for 5, 10, 20 people to switch to his server. If some of those folks are on the lower economic spectrum, offering them the equivalent of $1,000 to play on this and not that server might be very tempting. Doesn’t work on the NA/EU servers because 10, 20 people even during off hours is next to nothing on the top servers.