Guild Wars 2

I’ve found most of the recent changes to WvW have been good, and have made many posts saying so. This one is flat out horrible.

Awarding 1 point for 2nd and 3rd will offer no incentive for competition. One server could just not play and have no negative consequence. What’s worse, it take a huge amount of strategic value away from the game, trying to push one server down to 3rd, or help another up to 2nd, or whatever, in order to try to get the skirmish placement one wants.

As there will be no difference between 2nd and 3rd, this will only incentivise constant 2v1s against whichever server is placing 1st. This will be no fun for the 1st place server. WvW is supposed to be a 3 way matchmaking system, not 1v1.

If this has been done in order to keep the matches closer together, then I don’t understand why y’all haven’t implemented a system I suggested when the skirmish system was implemented. The ratio between 1, 2, and 3 are the largest you can get among whole numbers. Instead, award 3, 4, and 5. This would lower the ratio and make it so there is still a close match by the end of the week, unless the 3rd server is just really outmatched.

If you are trying to make outmatched servers more competitive, then this is no way to solve the problem. It’s just a gimmick. Outmatched servers need people and organization, not some scoring gimmick.

The other dramatic effect this will have on WvW is how it will effect volitility in glicko. Since servers will now be very close together in score, there will be less gains/losses in glicko score. This means that servers will have a much more difficult time trying to move up or down the rankings. This will also lessen the variety of matches as servers will remain further apart in scoring, thereby lessening the odds of a random tier jump.

It says in the patch notes that this was something the players wanted. Sorry, I never remember this topic being brought up.

Seriously, how can you guys be so shortsighted. It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how this is going to change things.

^Blackgate native lol

Spurnshadow.3678:

I’ve found most of the recent changes to WvW have been good, and have made many posts saying so. This one is flat out horrible.

Awarding 1 point for 2nd and 3rd will offer no incentive for competition. One server could just not play and have no negative consequence. What’s worse, it take a huge amount of strategic value away from the game, trying to push one server down to 3rd, or help another up to 2nd, or whatever, in order to try to get the skirmish placement one wants.

As there will be no difference between 2nd and 3rd, this will only incentivise constant 2v1s against whichever server is placing 1st. This will be no fun for the 1st place server. WvW is supposed to be a 3 way matchmaking system, not 1v1.

So how would TC/SBI/FA be any better if there was a 2v1 against TC?

Spurnshadow.3678:

If this has been done in order to keep the matches closer together, then I don’t understand why y’all haven’t implemented a system I suggested when the skirmish system was implemented. The ratio between 1, 2, and 3 are the largest you can get among whole numbers. Instead, award 3, 4, and 5. This would lower the ratio and make it so there is still a close match by the end of the week, unless the 3rd server is just really outmatched.

Do you REALLY think that a scoring change will make the TC/SBI/FA match any better?

Spurnshadow.3678:

If you are trying to make outmatched servers more competitive, then this is no way to solve the problem. It’s just a gimmick. Outmatched servers need people and organization, not some scoring gimmick.

So how many guilds is BG going to give to SBI/FA to make for a better match? Yeah, thought so.

Spurnshadow.3678:

The other dramatic effect this will have on WvW is how it will effect volitility in glicko. Since servers will now be very close together in score, there will be less gains/losses in glicko score. This means that servers will have a much more difficult time trying to move up or down the rankings. This will also lessen the variety of matches as servers will remain further apart in scoring, thereby lessening the odds of a random tier jump.

The 3/2/1 scoring system has been shown to increase the score between the first and third servers, which is why you see the wall in NA between T1 and T2 gone. Increased volatility index has mixed T1 and T2 servers in matches which has added more variety in the matches, not less.

Spurnshadow.3678:

It says in the patch notes that this was something the players wanted. Sorry, I never remember this topic being brought up.

Seriously, how can you guys be so shortsighted. It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how this is going to change things.

Well, scoring changes was asked for by the players and by poll results. As for fixing WvW we all know that Anet has to balance the sides, not the players, because the players want easy wins. That’s why when BG was re-opened there was a rush of players/guilds, or was it because of the great community that BG has.

The big difference is that for any given skirmish the top placed server/link group gets twice the score now compared to the second placed instead of 1.5 times. This will make the top placed servers harder to catch as they win more skirmishes… or am I missing something here?

The first place server should get double teamed. At least, far more often than they do. It makes sense for the second place team to want to catch up to first place and the third place team will want to lessen the first place lead so that they won’t lose as many points.

As it is now, everyone just beats up on whichever server currently has the fewest numbers online, which is silly. It doesn’t help PPT much (since 2 teams do it together) and the people who always claim to want “fights” still end up going after the fewest players and avoiding real fights.

I don’t mind the top server getting double teamed, but this could result in a consistently third place server taking second place for the week.

Server A almost always wins 1st each skirmish.
Server B always takes 2nd.
Server C almost always takes 3rd.

If Server C can pull out even one 1st place in a skirmish, they’d be ranked 2nd for the week. How is that fair for Server B?

I would say this is a very interesting change and is definitely worth a chance to be tested.
Let’s see what happens.

You should not bias my OP on the fact that I’m from BG. We’re used to 2v1s. It’s just part of being on this server. I’m solely thinking about the health of the game.

I dislike the new scoring system.

There is a lot to be said for trying to get a tough second place and now that has no value.

Spurnshadow.3678:

You should not bias my OP on the fact that I’m from BG. We’re used to 2v1s. It’s just part of being on this server. I’m solely thinking about the health of the game.

“We’re used to 2v1’s.”
Complains that his server will be 2v1’d in the op lol.

Anet please reopen BG for transfers. They desperately need more people on the off chance that there are still enough players left in the game that care enough about the score to focus them.

The health of the game?

At least Anet is still listening. Sometimes.

Just take out placement and give Participation Certificates!

Spurnshadow.3678:

As there will be no difference between 2nd and 3rd, this will only incentivise constant 2v1s against whichever server is placing 1st. This will be no fun for the 1st place server. WvW is supposed to be a 3 way matchmaking system, not 1v1.

Exactly this is what makes three-way competition intense. Attack the leader, not the idlers. Aim for top place, not second place.

Spurnshadow.3678:

The ratio between 1, 2, and 3 are the largest you can get among whole numbers. Instead, award 3, 4, and 5. This would lower the ratio and make it so there is still a close match by the end of the week, unless the 3rd server is just really outmatched.

This is not true. 3,4,5 is same as 1,2,3. Winner is ahead of loser by 2 points.

Yuffi.2430:

The big difference is that for any given skirmish the top placed server/link group gets twice the score now compared to the second placed instead of 1.5 times. This will make the top placed servers harder to catch as they win more skirmishes… or am I missing something here?

No, winner gets 2 points others get 1 point. Winner will be easier to overcome, because third place server won’t be 2 points behind after every skirmish and also because rational players would focus score leader.

Swamurabi.7890:

Spurnshadow.3678:

I’ve found most of the recent changes to WvW have been good, and have made many posts saying so. This one is flat out horrible.

Awarding 1 point for 2nd and 3rd will offer no incentive for competition. One server could just not play and have no negative consequence. What’s worse, it take a huge amount of strategic value away from the game, trying to push one server down to 3rd, or help another up to 2nd, or whatever, in order to try to get the skirmish placement one wants.

As there will be no difference between 2nd and 3rd, this will only incentivise constant 2v1s against whichever server is placing 1st. This will be no fun for the 1st place server. WvW is supposed to be a 3 way matchmaking system, not 1v1.

So how would TC/SBI/FA be any better if there was a 2v1 against TC?

Spurnshadow.3678:

If this has been done in order to keep the matches closer together, then I don’t understand why y’all haven’t implemented a system I suggested when the skirmish system was implemented. The ratio between 1, 2, and 3 are the largest you can get among whole numbers. Instead, award 3, 4, and 5. This would lower the ratio and make it so there is still a close match by the end of the week, unless the 3rd server is just really outmatched.

Do you REALLY think that a scoring change will make the TC/SBI/FA match any better?

Spurnshadow.3678:

If you are trying to make outmatched servers more competitive, then this is no way to solve the problem. It’s just a gimmick. Outmatched servers need people and organization, not some scoring gimmick.

So how many guilds is BG going to give to SBI/FA to make for a better match? Yeah, thought so.

Spurnshadow.3678:

The other dramatic effect this will have on WvW is how it will effect volitility in glicko. Since servers will now be very close together in score, there will be less gains/losses in glicko score. This means that servers will have a much more difficult time trying to move up or down the rankings. This will also lessen the variety of matches as servers will remain further apart in scoring, thereby lessening the odds of a random tier jump.

The 3/2/1 scoring system has been shown to increase the score between the first and third servers, which is why you see the wall in NA between T1 and T2 gone. Increased volatility index has mixed T1 and T2 servers in matches which has added more variety in the matches, not less.

Spurnshadow.3678:

It says in the patch notes that this was something the players wanted. Sorry, I never remember this topic being brought up.

Seriously, how can you guys be so shortsighted. It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how this is going to change things.

Well, scoring changes was asked for by the players and by poll results. As for fixing WvW we all know that Anet has to balance the sides, not the players, because the players want easy wins. That’s why when BG was re-opened there was a rush of players/guilds, or was it because of the great community that BG has.

Did you even read the post you responded to? They said 2v1s wouldn’t help. It wouldn’t make the TC/SBI/FA match-up better. 2v1s aren’t fun. They are not good game play.

And they’re saying adding a new scoring system ISN’T the answer! They’re saying we need more people in SBI/FA! Just because BG won’t “give” T2 guilds doesn’t mean what they’re saying is wrong.

As to “variety in matches”, I would rather fight the same 2 T2 servers every week for months than fight 1 T2 and 1 T1 server every week for months. The issue itsn’t variety, it’s the quality of the match-up.

But I agree with your last statement. Anet needs to stop manually opening and closing servers. They should make transfers to lower tiered servers exponentially cheaper and transfers to T1 servers near-impossible for large groups. We have 4 T1 servers right now. That is unacceptable.

Spurnshadow.3678:

It says in the patch notes that this was something the players wanted. Sorry, I never remember this topic being brought up.

Seriously, how can you guys be so shortsighted. It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how this is going to change things.

It has been suggested many times and discussed.

So your solution would be to open Blackgate I suppose.

I think it’s a good change since with the 321 system most focused the 2nd place server. lame. 2-1-1 is much better and it’ll shake things up.

Awful change. They might as well completely remove any points seriously.

Revert this back to 3-2-1.

O_O why does 2nd and 3rd get 1 pt both? This is disappointing.

aandiarie.7195:

O_O why does 2nd and 3rd get 1 pt both? This is disappointing.

so you go for first and not second.

before:
if it is red its dead

after:
if it is green its dead

I don’t see the harm in trying it. That said, I don’t really care that much for the scoring as anything more than a passing curiosity, I just care for the fights.

Vova.2640:

Awful change. They might as well completely remove any points seriously.

Revert this back to 3-2-1.

Why?

I don’t think its too bad,the current system currently promotes attacking the 2nd place server the most instead of the first place server which this new scoring system should help with….. however i’m worried that it will promote very unhealthy behaviours for servers to win a skirmish, for example in NA T1, do we need more people running away from fights to not feed PPK/ only backcapping things all day? I feel like its a good change, but some servers are going to feel the need to adopt unfun habits more so then they already do in order to win.

2,1,1 is better than 3,2,1.

This makes everyone compete for first place instead of settling for second.

hmmmmmmm…….
Anet wanted an artificial 2v1 eh…
321 is no different from 211 because there is no point in winning or losing on WvW on a personal perspective
111 is much better on this situation

2,1,1 takes out the king maker element. Where first place dictates 2nd place by focusing.
Instead first place will be the target and 3rd place wont have to compete with 2nd for first.
WvW is meant for 2v1s you guys need to quit your complaining. Perhaps learn the game a bit.

thats the theory, but is it the reality?

come on Anet, ive played your PvE and decapitated Mordremoth’s head 20 times, ive played your ranked PvP 10 times, all im asking is you play WvW with me to know what is right to what is wrong Fur Fuks Sake

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

2,1,1 takes out the king maker element. Where first place dictates 2nd place by focusing.
Instead first place will be the target and 3rd place wont have to compete with 2nd for first.
WvW is meant for 2v1s you guys need to quit your complaining. Perhaps learn the game a bit.

I don’t disagree in principle but over the last six months or so it’s become increasingly difficult to find anyone in the matches I’ve been in who even knows what the current score is, far less cares about it enough to change the way they play to affect it. Almost everything now seems to be about finding people to fight. Nothing else matters. Countless times I’ve been with commanders who spent all their time trying to locate the other zerg(s) for an hour or three of pitched battles while ignoring havoc groups that were gradually turning our entire BL another color.

It’s partly down to the prolonged absence of certain PPT/Result oriented Commanders but mostly I think it’s because all matches seem to feel roughly the same whether we win or lose or whatever tier we find ourselves in. The deliberate flattening of the variation between servers is having the effect of making nothing seem to matter as much as it once did. It all feels like a kick-around before the match now, not like the match itself.

The change to scoring for Fortified structures has done something to reverse that trend but not much. My feeling is that any changes in scoring won’t do much to change behavior. When we will see big changes in how people play will be when the new rewards get attached to victory conditions and score. If those rewards are seen as desirable then people will play in whatever way maximizes their chances of getting them and then we really might see a lot of score-focused play.

Not really sure how to feel about this. I am sure for some it will be good, and for others no good. Maybe they will truly never find balance?

We should just change the scoring to infinity+1/infinity/infinity-1. That way we can all say we tied because mathematically they are all equal.

@Tiny, I’m simply referring to scoring. Let’s use this week in T1 and last week.
In Tier 1 BG and MAG and JQ’s positions are already decided. The match isn’t going to change position wise. The score right now on MOS says:

BG 130
MAG 113
JQ 81

If the scoring system was 2, 1, 1 the scores would read,
BG 80
MAG 76
JQ 60

You see 3,2,1 means BG can force MAG into third with a 2v1 making BG able to decide the match by giving JQ second place, and all they have to do is back cap for it. It places such a far gap in-between scores when 1 server can gain 2 points over third place. This means by mid-week or by Monday, the match-up is thus snowballed and now a fight for second place. This enables first place to dictate second place by forcing a 2v1 as the strongest server. This has always been the case with match-ups snow-balling and 2v1s. Where the power is held with the top server or the one with the most coverage, whereas it should be the two lower servers invoking the 2v1.

If MAG wanted to gain grounds against BG this match up, it would require about 50 hours of MAG in first place and BG in second in skirmishes or 20 hours of BG in third and MAG in second. With no buffer time. Meaning MAG would need 25 straight wins over BG or the duration of time is increased till their scores even out.

If the system instead was 2,1,1 then it would require 8 hours of BG in 2nd or third to close the gap for MAG. That’s a huge difference and makes the matches more competitive. If it were 2,1,1 it would mean JQ could take first in a skirmish and BG and MAG’s duration to competitiveness would remain the same.

In fact last two Tier 1 match ups of BG/MAG/TC, TC utilized this and made out with large gains when otherwise that wouldn’t have been the case.

3 weeks ago on a Monday TC was able to have a 1 skirmish VP lead over BG, simply due to right form of 2v1 where you focus the greater threat. Both TC and MAG hit BG mostly and while it was not coordinated, it was effective and because of this the match kept going and the activity of all three servers increased because it became competitive. It was only competitive because of NOT coordinated 2v1 on BG. Once BG hard targeted TC on a Monday, they were able to gain 2 points on TC, making it so that TC could only reach for second place. This meant by Wednesday TC would then have to switch focus to not come in last place making MAG the end target of both servers thus giving BG the win. You can see where the match up became more competitive because for a duration of time, there wasn’t a king maker.

Blackgate countered this by playing king maker which forced TC to lose 2 points per skirmish to whomever took first place. They did this focusing TC, on their home map for 2 days where TC and MAG wouldn’t be able to 2v1 the biggest server due to MAG’s nature of avoiding the map.

Remember the maps and it’s key objectives are set up for 2v1s and 3way battles.

Remember that Arena Net has tied Victory Points to server rating:

“Regarding how Glicko will be updated at the end of a skirmish-based match. The same inputs and outputs will be used as usual, except that total Victory Points from the week’s match will be fed in as the score for each team, instead of the week’s total War Score.”

Thus, this sinking TC’s rating when otherwise they would have been competitive on a 2nd place level, TC was forced into 4th place overall.

Furthermore, If it were 2,1,1, Blackgate wouldn’t be able to force 3rd place to 4th and for this current match up, JQ wouldn’t be in the negative by that much and JQ and MAG could keep the match up entertaining by fighting over first which isn’t the case now as both server’s positions will not change moving forward.

I can literally give 100s of examples as to why 2,1,1 is a good idea moving forward and how 3,2,1 forces the misuse of 2v1s onto the server with the least coverage as opposed to the server with the greatest coverage.

I can also use Tier 2s current match-up as a perfect example.

PEE PEE TEE STRESS

I think 2-1-1 helps theoretically align the scoring system with how glicko rating gain/loss works (better for your own rating if you do better than expected against the higher rated server), but WvW isn’t really played this way much anymore so in practice results will be wash I think.

When I log in with my fights guild, we don’t say to ourselves, “We must only fight guilds on the higher rated server to push them down in score”. We say, “Oh some guild is rallied, let’s go fight them.” We don’t care which of the two opposing servers they are on. And when we are done fighting that guild we say, “Oh let’s go fight some guild on the other server.”

Its seems to me that its more of a system of being one winier per Skirmishes and you need to actively win to get that point. They could of simply make it where only first places got a point a kind of you must hit this level or get this orb type of game play so you get a point but dragged out over 2hr.
What it should end up doing is push ppl up and not push worlds down as much in that a world who gets first all the time will show it in the points and move up much faster where the other worlds who may end up close to tie will stay in the same place.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

@Tiny, I’m simply referring to scoring. Let’s use this week in T1 and last week.
In Tier 1 BG and MAG and JQ’s positions are already decided. The match isn’t going to change position wise. The score right now on MOS says:

BG 130
MAG 113
JQ 81

If the scoring system was 2, 1, 1 the scores would read,
BG 80
MAG 76
JQ 60

Would it be easier to have to scores be the number of wins,

BG 26
MAG 22
JQ 6

for

BG 26 = 80 – 54
MAG 22 = 76 – 54
JQ 6 = 60 – 54

by taking away 54, the number of skirmishes, where the winner gets 1 and the others 0, instead of 2-1-1?

The only problem I see with 1,0,0 over 2,1,1 is that you give a chance for the total VP score of any 1 server to be 0 and VP is fed into your servers glicko rating. Depending on how and where it’s fed this could end up meaning a division or multiplication of 0 which would mean they’d have to change the formula to fit the tallying of wins over losses.

If VP wasn’t being fed into a servers rating then Id see no difference in the 2,1,1 versus 1,0,0 schemes. It all comes down to how this will reflect your rating considering the difference between the two schemes would remain the same.

The only reason I’d change it to 1,0,0 would be largely aesthetic or easier to understand.

Lord of Rings.5371:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

@Tiny, I’m simply referring to scoring. Let’s use this week in T1 and last week.
In Tier 1 BG and MAG and JQ’s positions are already decided. The match isn’t going to change position wise. The score right now on MOS says:

BG 130
MAG 113
JQ 81

If the scoring system was 2, 1, 1 the scores would read,
BG 80
MAG 76
JQ 60

Would it be easier to have to scores be the number of wins,

BG 26
MAG 22
JQ 6

for

BG 26 = 80 – 54
MAG 22 = 76 – 54
JQ 6 = 60 – 54

by taking away 54, the number of skirmishes, where the winner gets 1 and the others 0, instead of 2-1-1?

Then JQ should not be in that grouping?
Just getting by in 2ed places every now and then should not keep you in that group of wvw. Keep in mind that the problem with being at the top you can only go down but if your not at the time then ppl can go up. So this new point system may not work well for the top worlds but it will work for all the lower worlds very well.
(Wvw is far more then just the T1 group and T1 is very different from all the others so only using it as the example is a very flawed argument.)

if their considering this and 1,0,0 then they should probably open back up the idea of 1 up 1 down.

Jski.6180:

Lord of Rings.5371:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

@Tiny, I’m simply referring to scoring. Let’s use this week in T1 and last week.
In Tier 1 BG and MAG and JQ’s positions are already decided. The match isn’t going to change position wise. The score right now on MOS says:

BG 130
MAG 113
JQ 81

If the scoring system was 2, 1, 1 the scores would read,
BG 80
MAG 76
JQ 60

Would it be easier to have to scores be the number of wins,

BG 26
MAG 22
JQ 6

for

BG 26 = 80 – 54
MAG 22 = 76 – 54
JQ 6 = 60 – 54

by taking away 54, the number of skirmishes, where the winner gets 1 and the others 0, instead of 2-1-1?

Then JQ should not be in that grouping?
Just getting by in 2ed places every now and then should not keep you in that group of wvw. Keep in mind that the problem with being at the top you can only go down but if your not at the time then ppl can go up. So this new point system may not work well for the top worlds but it will work for all the lower worlds very well.
(Wvw is far more then just the T1 group and T1 is very different from all the others so only using it as the example is a very flawed argument.)

You can use the very same argument no matter what tier you’re in. Even in Tier 2 where it’s a blow out and the sense to care about PPT isnt that great.

If you’re playing for a “hard fought” 2nd place, you might as well be in 3rd, cause they’re play for the same. Start playing for the “hard fought” 1st place, or don’t up to you. Scores are only to determine your glicko rating and how many greens you get at the end of the week.

The focus needs to be more on the 1st place team not the 3rd team, 1st is usually better suited to handle that focus.

Tier 2: TC/FA/SBI
3,2,1
TC: 167
FA: 99
SBI: 70

2,1,1
TC: 111
FA: 57
SBI: 56

This match up TC is the king maker and FA and SBI is battling over second. Because FA and SBI battles over second, if TC slightly focuses one greater than the other, they are realistically deciding the fate of that server. In fact, rating says they should be focusing SBI because SBI is 6th position and has the greater chance of effecting TC ratings largely. The meta by nature of disapproval of Desert BL means there is overall less pressure on that map. FA, has DBL and regardless of if they have the numbers to protect the map against the forces that map hop, it’s normally full capped or easily PvDoored. This means due to coverage and aside from EBG, the most active map is probably SBI BL. Again all this is invoking SBI being under pressure hence the score within the 3,2,1 system.

Both FA and SBI are very close in coverage and competition and without first place deciding their fates by focus, both FA and SBI’s scores would be closer and SBI wouldn’t be utilized as a rating cushion for TC. But instead, FA and SBI would be competing for 2nd place by determining who could take it away from TC under the 2,1,1 scheme.

in a 2,1,1 scheme TC wouldnt be focusing anyone. In fact, TC would be under siege which means it would be easier to flip TC’s waypoints and upgraded structures given the fact that they’re worth more and the only gain in total VP is first place.

Now, lastly people keep bringing up the fact that no one cares about score now a days. Which is true. The lower and lower you go in tiers the less people care. Ideally Arena Net has to give us a reason to care and fight competitively over scores. If that reason does not exists then any mechanic Arena Net designs around scoring will break down this remains true as well for their map designs. However, for Arena Net to properly work on the competitiveness of WvW, they have to work on scoring and keeping the scores competitive as well as coverage. Thus, scoring changes are very necessary and 2,1,1 is in the right direction for keeping match -ups competitive.

I just get the feeling that because of the population and coverage difference in NA T2 that even with a 2v1, the gameplay just won’t be as fun because TC’s, or whoever is the fourth server’s coverage will eventually make all their structures T3 and fully sieged up and the other two servers just won’t have desire to throw themselves at an unwinnable encounter.

After all, if SBI/FA can’t defend their side of the map from TC, how are they going to defend their siege attacking one of TC’s structures?

If Anet won’t balance population and scoring doesn’t fix things, is some sort of supply handicap next?

Yes, Scoring will not fix population imbalances. In regards, to FA and SBI against 1 of the “Big 4” they simply have no chance. It appears JQ is the weaker of the 4 and still neither server has a chance. Population imbalances has to be fixed just as the scoring system. Then after that, the WvW maps need to reflect the changes made to population and scoring. After that, we can start to talk about rewards and tournaments.

Just as scoring breaks down when no one cares to win, competitive match ups break down due to imbalance of coverage. To fix WvW, you have to fix multiple aspects that all effect each other.

“If Anet won’t balance population and scoring doesn’t fix things, is some sort of supply handicap next?”
Arena Net is trying to fix population balance. Whether they’re successful in their attempts however is another story. Supply caters to one with the most coverage, because the one with the most coverage typically has the most objectives utilized as supply drops. Perhaps 2,1,1 will drain on the effects of some of that but the only thing that will balance out supply gains in my opinion is population balance to counter any one server holding too much of WvW over long periods of time.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Yes, Scoring will not fix population imbalances. In regards, to FA and SBI against 1 of the “Big 4” they simply have no chance. It appears JQ is the weaker of the 4 and still neither server has a chance.

Deja vu?

The “Big 4” used to be BG, JQ,TC with SoS sort of the weaker of the 4.

And after many tries, population again settles into this pattern.

Maybe after players figured out the top servers, many of them find more purposeful play at the top and the migration to the top occurs until the top is a mystery.

Maybe one way to make WvW balanced is to make each servers’ strength a mystery a the beginning of each match, like playing cards where no one knows what cards others have.

This might not happen because Anet has a business interest in advertising the winners as a way to motivate transfers and new accounts.

Lord of Rings.5371:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Yes, Scoring will not fix population imbalances. In regards, to FA and SBI against 1 of the “Big 4” they simply have no chance. It appears JQ is the weaker of the 4 and still neither server has a chance.

Deja vu?

The “Big 4” used to be BG, JQ,TC with SoS sort of the weaker of the 4.

And after many tries, population again settles into this pattern.

Maybe after players figured out the top servers, many of them find more purposeful play at the top and the migration to the top occurs until the top is a mystery.

Maybe one way to make WvW balanced is to make each servers’ strength a mystery a the beginning of each match, like playing cards where no one knows what cards others have.

This might not happen because Anet has a business interest in advertising the winners as a way to motivate transfers and new accounts.

The big 4 represents 4 servers that are Tier 1 competitive. There was never a time where there was a big 4 of BG/JQ/TC and SoS. When the match up was BG/JQ/TC, we had a locked tier where there was only a possibility of a big 3 and if 1 of the 3 fell, then they wouldn’t be T1 competitive anymore. This is how TC took SoR’s place in Tier 1 and how Yaks Bend took TC’s place in Tier 1.

Having multiple servers able to withstand the heat in Tier 1 means there is a rotation. Yes after many tries the population settles again, however that’s not the case anymore. The population never settles because we have server-links and 2 month reevaluations.

Guys,

You can’t look at past matches and place this new scoring system on it to see what the difference is. The reason is peoples behavior and strategies will change. The behavior in past matches are based on a 321 scoring system. Strategy will be totally different in a 211 system

Spurnshadow.3678:

Guys,

You can’t look at past matches and place this new scoring system on it to see what the difference is. The reason is peoples behavior and strategies will change. The behavior in past matches are based on a 321 scoring system. Strategy will be totally different in a 211 system

It will take time for the new strategies to work themselves out, but a strategy of capture and hold by the first server will probably be the dominant one. When the first server has a population advantage they will attack, when they have even or less they’ll play defensive.

This may lead to more players leaving because they will tire of PvS(iege), or more likely SvP.

This could be the end of the PPK style of play.

Swamurabi.7890:

Spurnshadow.3678:

Guys,

You can’t look at past matches and place this new scoring system on it to see what the difference is. The reason is peoples behavior and strategies will change. The behavior in past matches are based on a 321 scoring system. Strategy will be totally different in a 211 system

It will take time for the new strategies to work themselves out, but a strategy of capture and hold by the first server will probably be the dominant one.

This is happening now due to T3 objectives earning more PPT.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Guys,

You can’t look at past matches and place this new scoring system on it to see what the difference is. The reason is peoples behavior and strategies will change. The behavior in past matches are based on a 321 scoring system. Strategy will be totally different in a 211 system

The “strategy” will remain the same. Blob down lesser numbers whilst running away from close-to-even fights to keep the score high. The only difference is now you’ll have a specific target (Server in 1st place) to go after it during your skirmish.

morrolan.9608:

Vova.2640:

Awful change. They might as well completely remove any points seriously.

Revert this back to 3-2-1.

Why?

Plenty of reasons.

It is a direct encouragement for 2v1’s vs the leading server. Even more than the current system. The game mode is 1v1v1.

If two server are close in a skirmish while the 3rd is doing nothing, the server that comes 2nd get as much as the server that gets 3rd despite trying so hard. It does not show the true strength of the 2nd strongest server. Will only encourage people to leave wvw since their hard work LITERALLY means nothing under this scoring system.