Guild Wars 2

I do not know if it was mentioned before but what if the PPT was not based on points per time but points per objective conquered?

So a server would only make points when it gets a tower, a camp, or a keep and of course each one would have a diffetent value as today. This way coverage would be a lesser problem as they would make points only once instead of each 10 minutes. It would sitll be an issue, because night cappers would conquer all and upgrade it making it harder to get it back… but I think it would be much less damaging to PPT than it is today.

And you might ask me, so defending would give you nothing on PPT? Exactly! You defend to prevent the other server to make points. You could still have the defending event, gain karma, wxp etc. etc… but to make points you have to conquer and to prevent the other server from making points you have to defend, this way I think defending might get more important and it would scater the zergs a little bit, at least I hope it would….

That method would just lead to there being to real incentive to actually hold onto an objective beyond controlling who takes it off you.

Also with regards to the “night capping” thing. Let’s not start up the whole “my time is more valuable than your time” debate again.

Could also lead into situation where the winning server just stops taking objectives back after they have been taken. If they have a big enough lead they don’t need more points and if they don’t take anything the enemy can’t take it back either.

And as the Chaosbroker above me said, it would also lead into situation where the tactic would be more about who you give the keep afterwards. Defend it against server A and give it to server B for free.

This would also lead into (my opinion) into more border swapping blobs. They go to enemy border, blob through it capping everything and go to the other enemy border afterwards. And when the home server has taken back the objectives they come back for new loot and points. Jumping between the two borders to maintain double scoring compared to the two others who struggle taking back their own border.

Paavotar.3971:

This would also lead into (my opinion) into more border swapping blobs. They go to enemy border, blob through it capping everything and go to the other enemy border afterwards. And when the home server has taken back the objectives they come back for new loot and points. Jumping between the two borders to maintain double scoring compared to the two others who struggle taking back their own border.

This. While I think the idea would affect the coverage wars, I think you’d just see karma train after karma train, even moreso than it is now. The last thing I’d want to do is encourage more of that garbage.

albotelho.2931:

I do not know if it was mentioned before but what if the PPT was not based on points per time but points per objective conquered?

Assume (just for simplicity) it would only be a 2-sided match, then the following would be the case:
- The score will never be more than 695 apart. (for you to conquer something (and get score) the opponent has to conquer it first, if the opponent stops playing, you cannot get points, after you reached 695:0.).
- The score difference exactly represents who controls how much of the map. (If you currently control 400 of 695, you are 105pts ahead of your opponent in total score)
- The winner is who controls most at match-end.
=> Anything you or your opponent do before the last hours of the last day is completely irrelevant for match-outcome.

Of course the result isn’t that clear with 3 sided, if two sides “trade” a tower, they get both points, while the third gets nothing.

Optimal strategy therefore seems to be: Either Karmatrain (to capture a lot fast) or only play for points not from score (player stomps/dolyaks/sentries) and do not attack and capture anything till noon last day, and start an offensive to own most at match-end.

As I do not like both alternatives very much, I don’t really like this scoring proposal.

Points for a capture, coupled with points for a successful defense, and points per kill with bloodlust increasing this.

as for people “not showing up if they have the lead” yeah good luck with that you would have to have the most organized server ever.

of course this system would need real testing, like defending would have to be more then standing in a keep that had guards tagged. It would have to do with the amount of attackers and damage done to the structure.

but yes, alternative points systems have been talked about before, the first wvw cdi had a very long discussion on it.

and just to add to this, points for a keep upgrade completing would be good, but couple that with upgraded keeps being worth more when taken and more when defended.

you could even have player stomps in the area of a siege be worth more as well.