Guild Wars 2

The best way to still improve the matchups overall to make the lower servers have a chance is by putting in a handicap system to give the lower servers in the matchup points to help keep the scores close and more interesting.

Just how long will it take Anet to realize they should do this is the question. Just look at the games of bowling or golf as examples on how to make matches more interesting, when one group is clearly better then the other.

OriOri.8724:

How is 5, 4, 3 any different from 3, 2, 1? In the end, the server in third place will be 2 points behind the server in first place, and 1 point behind the server in 2nd place for every skirmish in those positions. After 10 skirmishes with the same results, the third place server will still be 20 points behind the first place server.

How is this any better than 2, 1, 1?

The psychology and strategy is totally different. If take the same skirmish placements, translate them to 543 (owr whatever point value you create), yes, you will still get the same placements. However, under a different scoring system, people play totally different, so making a direct numerical comparison is illogical.

lets try 1st gets 500,001 second 500,000 and third 499,999. that way at the end the losing team will be 99.999% of the 1st place team. EVERYONES a winner!

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone. The response to 2,1,1 is mixed, so I thought I would inform everyone that we will be changing it to 5,4,3. This is intended to go out around the same time as Episode 4.

Thanks so much for responding. I also thank y’all for considering and implementing a 543 system. Like others have said, anything is better than 211. Any idea of when Episode 4 is coming around?

Zenith.6403:

Dawdler.8521:

Hahahaha… I dont think you have been reading the same things we have. It’s disliked by almost everyone. That’s not exactly a mixed response.

Who is this “everyone”? Everyone who comes to complain to forums? Certainly not the players who are enjoying the game by actually playing it and seeing the merits of the system, namely closer and more interesting matchups that aren’t about ganging up on the weakest server.

I think I can count five people on the forums who’ve been in favor of 211. A few others who don’t care. Eveyone else thinks it’s crap. Keep in mind that there are tons, tons of people who just don’t come on the forums and bother to post. Sure they play, but they’re suffering through this crap. Lots of people just flat out stop playing.

Does anyone know when Episode 4 will be released?

OriOri.8724:

How is 5, 4, 3 any different from 3, 2, 1? In the end, the server in third place will be 2 points behind the server in first place, and 1 point behind the server in 2nd place for every skirmish in those positions. After 10 skirmishes with the same results, the third place server will still be 20 points behind the first place server.

How is this any better than 2, 1, 1?

1st doesn’t get 3x as many as 3rd place and 2nd doesn’t get 2x as many as 3rd place. Seems good to me.

Dawdler.8521:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The response to 2,1,1 is mixed

Hahahaha… I dont think you have been reading the same things we have. It’s disliked by almost everyone. That’s not exactly a mixed response.

Its not disliked by almost everyone, many people liked the idea when it was first suggested hence why it was implemented. Most of those who like it now can’t be bothered saying anything whereas of course those who don’t like it speak up. I’ll also say its interesting looking at the servers of those who don’t like it.

Cronos.6532:

OriOri.8724:

How is 5, 4, 3 any different from 3, 2, 1? In the end, the server in third place will be 2 points behind the server in first place, and 1 point behind the server in 2nd place for every skirmish in those positions. After 10 skirmishes with the same results, the third place server will still be 20 points behind the first place server.

How is this any better than 2, 1, 1?

1st doesn’t get 3x as many as 3rd place and 2nd doesn’t get 2x as many as 3rd place. Seems good to me.

1st will still be 2 points ahead of third for every skirmish they win. Its literally the exact same thing as 3, 2, 1 except numbers were inflated. The other consequences will stay the exact same. After 10 skirmishes where Server A won and Server B lost, server B will still be 20 points behind Server A, which is exactly the same as it was under 3, 2, 1.

Literally nothing has changed.

how do they know the response is mixed consider I never get to response for a poll?

hahahahah the response.

Yeah, I don’t see the point in going to 5,4,3 rather than 3,2,1; both are essentially 2,1,0 only you’re giving everyone 216 points up front rather than 72.

I’d prefer a straight 2,1,0 with no free points distorting anything.

And if the free points are for matchmaking (as someone theorised), couldn’t those just be added to the matchmaker but not shown on the score screen?

The only difference with 2-1-0 in the end would be faster rating changes.

This is another example of me trusting Anet far more than I trust “the majority of players” (or more accurately, more than I trust the opinions of people who claim to speak for the majority of players). The case for 211 scoring seemed more convincingly portrayed than the case for 321 scoring to me in this thread, but all in all it comes down to which one works best in practice for Anet’s current systems.

I hope when this is all done they give their reasons for picking whichever one they pick, I’m curious how the theory plays out in practice in their data (note subjective player whining does not equal data).

Whatever scoring system they end up with, I hope it’s one that incentivises servers ganging up on first place. It’s much more exciting than the alternatives (personal opinion obviously).

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone. The response to 2,1,1 is mixed, so I thought I would inform everyone that we will be changing it to 5,4,3. This is intended to go out around the same time as Episode 4.

Thank you! Your on fire today Mckenna, love to see the replies!

Not sure why 5,4,3 was chosen over going back to 3,2,1 but either way it is a lot better then 2,1,1 Thanks!

5/4/3 is different from 3/2/1 because of the ratios between the different positions — the 2nd and 3 place servers have a better chance to beat the 1st place server by winning less skirmishes with 5/4/3 than with 3/2/1. It should make the matches closer and possibly motivate losing servers to try to win individual skirmishes more (for those that care about the score anyway).

Now that’s a WvW overhaul, truly amazing changes! How can you guys develop such marvelous things so fast? Amazing!

Djamonja.6453:

5/4/3 is different from 3/2/1 because of the ratios between the different positions — the 2nd and 3 place servers have a better chance to beat the 1st place server by winning less skirmishes with 5/4/3 than with 3/2/1. It should make the matches closer and possibly motivate losing servers to try to win individual skirmishes more (for those that care about the score anyway).

This is blatantly false, and the math has already been done in this thread. 5, 4, 3 is no different from 3, 2, 1.

After losing 10 skirmishes in a row, you will still be 20 points behind the first place server. And just like the 3, 2, 1, system, you cannot gain more than 2 points more than they did, which means that you would need at least 10 skirmishes in first place to make that up. Its literally exactly the same as the situation was under the 3, 2, 1 system.

Spurnshadow.3678:

OriOri.8724:

How is 5, 4, 3 any different from 3, 2, 1? In the end, the server in third place will be 2 points behind the server in first place, and 1 point behind the server in 2nd place for every skirmish in those positions. After 10 skirmishes with the same results, the third place server will still be 20 points behind the first place server.

How is this any better than 2, 1, 1?

The psychology and strategy is totally different. If take the same skirmish placements, translate them to 543 (owr whatever point value you create), yes, you will still get the same placements. However, under a different scoring system, people play totally different, so making a direct numerical comparison is illogical.

Actually assuming that player “play totally different” is a pretty presumptuous. I haven’t met a single player that plays any different then they always have based on scoring system. At the end of the day those players that like taking objectives still take objectives and the ones who enjoy fights still look for fights.

OriOri.8724:

This is blatantly false, and the math has already been done in this thread. 5, 4, 3 is no different from 3, 2, 1.

After losing 10 skirmishes in a row, you will still be 20 points behind the first place server. And just like the 3, 2, 1, system, you cannot gain more than 2 points more than they did, which means that you would need at least 10 skirmishes in first place to make that up. Its literally exactly the same as the situation was under the 3, 2, 1 system.

Tiny nitpick, but you’re only 20 points behind first if first won all 10 times, and regardless of how you score it, If first won those 10 times and swapped 3rd with you, it will always take 10 1st place skirmishes to match them.

However, regardless of however many times they won or placed second, it would still take the same number of first place skirmishes to tie with first whether it was 5-4-3 or 3-2-1, and would still remain so even if you multiplied the difference between each number, making it a 5-3-1 or a 9-6-3 or a 52-27-2; As long as the difference between 1st 2nd is equal to the difference between 2nd and 3rd, the final placement – including the moment in the week when 3rd or 2nd place lost any chance of reaching 1st- will always be the same.

That being said, I don’t think Anet picked 5-4-3 to balloon the numbers or anything devious, I think they just fell for the same logic trap that several of the forumers here are in, thinking smaller % differences equate a greater chance for lower placed worlds to advance to a higher place before the week ends. Sadly, that’s not the case.

To do “that” (and this is another piece of wonderful backward-sounding logic related to scoring systems) you would have to make the difference between 1st and 2nd GREATER than 2nd and 3rd.

I know what you’re thinking now, “But Foefaller, that would mean a really good world would hit the point where no other team can beat them even sooner than they do now!” and you would be right, imaginary forumer, and that would be unavoidable. BUT, if the point is to make sure that some reason for competition remains for as long as possible (even if it’s just jousting for 2nd place) or in those rare situations where noone has the majority of first place wins for most of the week, it really is the best way to give the 3rd place team an opportunity to rally and improve their placing in their tier late in the week.

You want an example, imaginary person? Well, lets give you one!

Ten skirmishes into a new matchup, and your world has rated last in all of them. Meanwhile, the other two worlds have traded 1st place for most of the time, with Best world (amazing name, right!?)going 6-4 and Better world going 4-6.

Now, between 3-2-1, 5-4-3, 4-2-1 and 4-3-1, which score array would allow your world to tie for the lead with the fewest 1st place skirmishes, assuming Best world places 2nd every single time?

Well, with a 3-2-1 array, Best world would have 26 (6 3 point skirmishes + 4 2 point skirmishes wins) points, Better world would have 24 (6 2 points + 4 3 points, and your world would have 10 (10 1 point skirmishes) With the difference between 1st and 2nd being 1 point, it would take (26-10)/1 = 16 1st place skirmishes to tie with Best World.

At 5-4-3, Best would have 46 (6×5 + 4×4) Better would have 44 (6×4 + 4×5) and we would have 30 (10×3) now, 30 is a greater fraction of 46 than 10 was of 26 (.65 vs .38) however, the difference between 1st and 2nd is still one, meaning it will take (46-30)/1 = 16 1st place skirmishes to tie with Best, same as with 3-2-1

Now, for 4-2-1, in that score array, Best would have 32 (6×4 + 4×2) Better would have 28 (6×2 + 4×4) and your world would be at 10 (10×1) Now, on the surface, this looks worse than 3-2-1, because 10 is less than 1/3 of 32! However, the difference between 1st and 2nd is double that of second and third, meaning that it would take (32-10)/2= 11 1st place skimishes to tie. In fact, if your world was down by 24 points at Thursday reset, they could place first in every skirmish and win it all by the time WvW server matchups change.

So, what about something that makes the difference between 1st and 2nd smaler than 2nd and 3rd? Would that keep first closer to 3rd? and the answer is… no. In fact, the 4-3-1 array is the worst for your world. After those 10 skimishes, Best would be up by 36, Better by 34, and with your world at 10, and the difference between 1st and 2nd being only 1, it would take 26 skirmishes – more than two days of winning- to simply tie with 1st.

So, to wit; making the number bigger will not change the outcome as long as the difference between each place is the same. If Anet wants worlds that are placed at 3rd be able to rapidly improve late in the week, they’ll have to increase the difference between 1st and second place, running the risk of a runaway team clinching early in the week.

All that strikes me here is that ArenaNet believes 5-4-3 is different from 3-2-1 (but well, I didn’t understand why they went for 2-1-1 instead of 1-0-0, which at least allowed us to directly read how many skirmishes a server has won).

The scoring should be like in sccer(futbol) tournements; 3 pts winner, 1 point for a tie, in our case second place, and 0 points for 3rd place.

Its is punishing to loosing servers, but … I mean they lost.

The only reason to go 5-4-3 is to make glicko losses or gains smaller for matchmaking purposes, apart from that it plays out exactly the same as 3-2-1. Was this change really needed? Could have just messed with the glicko system itself and kept 3-2-1 or 2-1-1 and have the same results.

Sigh. These couple of week we enjoyed 2-1-1. This victory points distribution has potentially many benefits over 3-2-1. But I haven’t seen anyone analyzing the effects. Lot of touchy, feely based opinions only.

5-4-3 is exactly the same as 3-2-1. Except for the Glicko ratings adjustment part.

We already have the temporary manual adjustments and the world relinking in place. The Glicko volatility and deviation get reset every 2 months. There are only few tiers remaining to matchup. How much more outside help the Glicko system needs?

Or would it be time to stop the linking nonsense, rebalance the world populations for good and then let the ratings evolve on their own volition?

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone. The response to 2,1,1 is mixed, so I thought I would inform everyone that we will be changing it to 5,4,3. This is intended to go out around the same time as Episode 4.

Will 5,4,3 be shortly followed by “reducing night capping” by making off hours 4,3,2 and 1,2,3 depending on population?

Only reason i can see why 5,4,3 would be an option.

So this change means all the people who left of 2.1.1 will be all back!

#MakeWvWGreatAgain.

Digikid.7230:

The only reason to go 5-4-3 is to make glicko losses or gains smaller for matchmaking purposes, apart from that it plays out exactly the same as 3-2-1. Was this change really needed? Could have just messed with the glicko system itself and kept 3-2-1 or 2-1-1 and have the same results.

Maybe some simple minded players don’t know they already lost when their victory points show 228v285 instead of 57v114. Then those players don’t get demoralized and keep happily marching towards the inevitable.

SailorSpira.9371:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone. The response to 2,1,1 is mixed, so I thought I would inform everyone that we will be changing it to 5,4,3. This is intended to go out around the same time as Episode 4.

Will 5,4,3 be shortly followed by “reducing night capping” by making off hours 4,3,2 and 1,2,3 depending on population?

Only reason i can see why 5,4,3 would be an option.

Interesting point.

SailorSpira.9371:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone. The response to 2,1,1 is mixed, so I thought I would inform everyone that we will be changing it to 5,4,3. This is intended to go out around the same time as Episode 4.

Will 5,4,3 be shortly followed by “reducing night capping” by making off hours 4,3,2 and 1,2,3 depending on population?

Only reason i can see why 5,4,3 would be an option.

So gifting everyone 2 instead of 3 points for participation during off hours will make them less important?

Since people do not get it, here’s what 5/4/3 does: EVERYONE gets 3 points every 2 hours. This will grant your server 252 points at the end of the week.
Winning a matchup grants additional 2 points while being in second place grants 1. These are the points that matter.

When we reduce the matchup from 5/4/3 to 4/3/2 for, say, 4 matchups per day, the guaranteed points get reduced from 252 to 224. No changes in the outcome since you are just subtracting the same amount of points from every server.

Korgov.7645:

Sigh. These couple of week we enjoyed 2-1-1. This victory points distribution has potentially many benefits over 3-2-1. But I haven’t seen anyone analyzing the effects. Lot of touchy, feely based opinions only.

Or people saying stuff without really saying anything.

What potential benefits?

Presumed pros such as “well this surely encourage 2 and 3 to focus 1!” has been thoroughly plowed into the ground both in theory by people in the forums and in practice ingame over these weeks.

Care to share the benefits?

Offair.2563:

So this change means all the people who left of 2.1.1 will be all back!

#MakeWvWGreatAgain.

Just like people who “left because of DBL” came back when ABL returned, amirite?

Dawdler.8521:

Korgov.7645:

Sigh. These couple of week we enjoyed 2-1-1. This victory points distribution has potentially many benefits over 3-2-1. But I haven’t seen anyone analyzing the effects. Lot of touchy, feely based opinions only.

Or people saying stuff without really saying anything.

What potential benefits?

Presumed pros such as “well this surely encourage 2 and 3 to focus 1!” has been thoroughly plowed into the ground both in theory by people in the forums and in practice ingame over these weeks.

Care to share the benefits?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/1-point-for-2nd-and-3rd/first#post6430481

Both losing teams teaming up against the winner is an obvious one. The motivation is not necessarily to win the skirmish yourself, but to make the leading team lose a victory point.

I just haven’t seen that happen. All commanders seem to go about their business as usual: the easiest target is the priority. But that could be because of the linking. Guest servers have nothing to gain by winning a matchup. We just enjoy fighting and winning a fight is more important than gaining Glicko rating for our host server.

There’s been lot of discussion over this and not any hard evidence.

Dawdler.8521:

Presumed pros such as “well this surely encourage 2 and 3 to focus 1!” has been thoroughly plowed into the ground both in theory by people in the forums and in practice ingame over these weeks.

I must have missed this. Where was it?

Zenith.6403:

Dawdler.8521:

Presumed pros such as “well this surely encourage 2 and 3 to focus 1!” has been thoroughly plowed into the ground both in theory by people in the forums and in practice ingame over these weeks.

I must have missed this. Where was it?

I think, in their own words, it’s just “saying stuff without really saying anything”.

SailorSpira.9371:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Thanks for the feedback everyone. The response to 2,1,1 is mixed, so I thought I would inform everyone that we will be changing it to 5,4,3. This is intended to go out around the same time as Episode 4.

Will 5,4,3 be shortly followed by “reducing night capping” by making off hours 4,3,2 and 1,2,3 depending on population?

Only reason i can see why 5,4,3 would be an option.

Define “off hours.” Night capping solutions will never work as they punish players with no choices. NA servers are SEA/OCX servers lets stop calling those fights night capping.

Ballads.2509:

NA servers are SEA/OCX servers lets stop calling those fights night capping.

I don’t think “Fights” is the right word when there are no oponents to be fought.

Most fundementally game changing update that ANET has done since they buffed siege and brought in masteries! This is was we were all screaming for!

I can see the masses rushing back to wvw now.

Scores will appear closer, they won’t be closer.
I vote for 50001, 50000, 49999 scoring system.

I’m genuinely curious: do you people at Anet have any original ideas? Are you players, invested in creating gameplay? Or are you some kind of anthropologists examining behavior of alien subjects by altering variables that have no inherent meaning to you?

I still don’t think that 2, 1, 1 was here long enough to see how it truly affected the gameplay. It was here for 3 weeks, during which the whole time people were whining because WvW players, despite continuously asking for changes, hate any change to the mode somehow.

We had 3, 2, 1 since september last year. ANet, you guys gave that ~4 months before deciding to change it, yet you gave 2, 1, 1 less than 1. How can you draw good comparisons from that?

McKenna, what about 543 to start with. But when a server is behind 10 points or more, it gets +1 bonus for winning a skirmish.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Why 5,4,3?
Both 5,4,3 and 3,2,1 were suggestions from the Official Feedback Thread: WvW Skirmishes (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Official-Feedback-Thread-WvW-Skirmishes/page/2). And we have seen general interest in trying 5,4,3. If there is a different set of numbers you would like to try instead, feel free to suggest them.

How is 5,4,3 different than 3,2,1?
Since there has been a lot of debate on this, with most people being right but debating different points, there are three things that are true:

1. The scores will be closer.
2. The placements won’t change.
3. This could impact world rating used for glicko matchmaking.

This is assuming play style remains identical to how it was when 3,2,1 was in play. Player behavior may change since the scores will be closer, but we aren’t sure if they will. This was the same situation with 2,1,1. We weren’t sure if it would change WvW play style, but players seemed generally interested in giving it a shot and one of the reasons WvW is a 3 team gamemode, rather than a 2 team gamemode, is so that worlds could team up and try to take down the dominate world. This isn’t something we incentivized very much before 2,1,1 but having 2v1s in WvW was intended behavior and when it works correctly can lead to more balanced matches.

Will 5,4,3 be there forever?
As stated with the patch notes with 2,1,1 and stays true for 5,4,3: “If we aren’t happy with the results we can change the Skirmish score values again.” If we get feedback that players don’t like 5,4,3 and want to go back to 3,2,1 we can do that. If we get feedback that players want to try some different numbers that we haven’t tried before, we can do that. Changing the numbers is easy for the team, but do keep in mind that it requires a game build, and that schedule is determined by the studio as a whole.

Do we expect 5,4,3 to be a cure-all for scoring problems?
No. 5,4,3 will not make match scores dramatically better than 3,2,1. The scores might look closer, but if a world is dominating 5,4,3 isn’t going to stop them from winning. Population imbalance is the biggest factor in scoring problems and changing the skirmish score values isn’t going to change that. Population imbalance is a different problem that we are working on solving outside of changing the skirmish score values.

Bonus points for breaking a 2nd or third place streak could be a good idea. Would help servers who got behind for a bit catch up a little bit faster. Would also help combat night capping without just reducing the victory points during off hours, since after waking up, a server can claim bonus points for breaking a streak.

If they break a third place streak, they gain double points for that skirmish and the next unless they fall back to third place in the next skirmish. Make “streaks” at least 5 skirmishes long (10 hours), this way they get at most 4 bonus points if they won 1st place for those two skirmishes after the streak. Its not enough to put them in first, or even second, but it does make the gap smaller.

Dream In A Dream.7213:

McKenna, what about 543 to start with. But when a server is behind 10 points or more, it gets +1 bonus for winning a skirmish.

Yes but only if this applies to red server on tuesday evenings when they are 10 points behind and +3 otherwise. But if they’re on 5-win streak then apply special -1 debuff. This could work with scrambled server linkings every 6 hours. Also all scores should be multiplied by 100 because who doesn’t like big numbers? If losers are still losing then they should be transferred to first place because that’s only fair. It’s all easy for Anet to do so let’s go with that.

Dear Anet,

I’m not sure you all realize what a gem the GW2 style of wvw is compared to every other MMO. I wished more attention was paid to ones who want wvw to improve and less attention paid to the trolls which are in every game.

Since this game is called “guild wars” and wvw is about guilds and individuals killing each other, how about we base the scoring off of that?

1. Designate all the time zones that people play this game. NA OCE SEA EU and score according to actual guilds and people not in guilds. Make an individual leaderboard showing kills and deaths and server and a guild based one and separate out per zone coverage. This will show which servers have guild coverage and which servers have pug or no coverage. This will also show if the link server is actually carrying the host server and perhaps then that server should no longer be a host.

REASON:Not only will you be able to tell who is stacking where, you can link servers together who cover different zones to make better overall coverage. You can also tell which guilds are constantly moving if they were on the leaderboards as TC one week but then Mag next week and JQ the week after for example.

2. Score based off Ultimate Dominate acheivement system and player deaths.

REASON: You already know who kills people in wvw and who doesn’t so population can be accounted for by the number of kills and amount of time spent in wvw per account. Deaths in wvw reflect the other side killing them (except in cases where people fall off things on their own but that usually results in down penalty time not an actual armour damage which is the result of being killed by an enemy.

3. To create balance between defending things for ppt make set siege placements for everything so regardless of coverage or lack thereof a map q can’t sit in a t3 tower and drops siege cap limits vs a group half their size trying to take the tower and likewise a map q can’t drop a ton of siege to take high valued ppt objectives fast due to lack or less coverage.

REASON: This will give people time to respond. What takes hours to turn into t3 structures takes only minutes to destroy or to help out time zones where there is a lack of coverage, there should be no tiering to ppt structures. It should all automatically go to T3 with siege set placements added for trebs, catas and golems.

Each tower will allow you to build 1 omega and 1 alpha and each keep will allow you 3 of each and SMC allows you 5 of each but to make them you need to activate making them and requires dolyaks running from camps and the same supply drain already required to make each one. Example 1 alpha requires 5 dolyaks and 1 omega requires 10 dolyaks to make. People will be no longer to drop the blueprints and make them. For the keeps and castles with waypoints, it will require 80 dolyaks to put a waypoint in the keep and 150 dolyaks for SMC.

4. Fix how waypoints work please.

REASON: Contesting waypoints is way too easy and whether it’s a wall or gate, it needs to be hit down to 50% so there is no more contest wps when trying to flip other things. A waypoint should not be that easily contested by 1 person to force an entire map to run from spawn.

5. Make camps more valuable to defend when expensive upgrades like speedy dolyaks are put on them. For example if they are worth 50 points for ppt per tick and only 1 to flip since they can be solo taken pretty easily and that will offset them being zerged and karma trained killed by not being worth much to take.

6. Please make the links less stagnant by rotating link servers in and out of t4. Some of the T4 servers should not be hosts because of the lack of guilds and ppt coverage which dictates where every other server stands while other T4 servers are constantly given bad links.

REASON: If T4 has as much ppk scores as shown, those servers should be distributed into the higher tiers so those servers who complain of lack of fights can have fights and the servers who don’t want to fight can be in a tier where ppk is minimal. Example link CD+NSP + JQ or and TC + SOS + DH and have them fight BG one week.
If BG turtles and doesn’t want to fight it deserves to go down to T2 and still be closed and Mag + ET roll back up.

7. Make a WvW reward track for currency for ascended gear and the mistforged skins together.

REASON: Spvp has a system to get ascended gear when it doesn’t even use it in spvp. PvE has multiple ways to get ascended gear but the format that uses ascended gear the most has no in way of getting gear by simply playing wvw only. In addtion to the wvw track currency, you will need badges of tribute so a chest piece might require say 3k badges of tribute. This will make it so people cannot simply afk to get the currency. The person has to be active in ppt and ppk.

Sincerely,

A Blackgate Player

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

How is 5,4,3 different than 3,2,1?
Since there has been a lot of debate on this, with most people being right but debating different points, there are three things that are true:

1. The scores will be closer.

The absolute difference stays the same. And as you admit the “closer” scores don’t matter for the outcome, how is a smaller relative difference relevant?
Not that the absolute difference matters either, you could make it 15,10,5 and there’d still be no actual difference whatsoever. Any scoring of [2n+m],[n+m],[m] will give you the exact same result, really.

If you want it for matchmaking, isn’t there some way you could accomplish that withoutgiving every team 216 points for free?

And if you really want to go with 5,4,3, why not give every team 216 points up front and then reward 2,1,0? It’d lead to exactly the same result ony it’d let people see what 5,4,3 actually means (it being the exact same as 3,2,1, that is).

And since you’re sort of asking for alternative scoring suggestions I’d suggest 2,1,0, or 1,0,0 (I haven’t played that long enough to find out if it really matters), or anything where the 3rd place gets 0 points really. (I mean only for the displayed scores, if the matchmaking would be better with higher scores just add those in any way that doesn’t show in the score.)

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Do we expect 5,4,3 to be a cure-all for scoring problems?
No. 5,4,3 will not make match scores dramatically better than 3,2,1. The scores might look closer, but if a world is dominating 5,4,3 isn’t going to stop them from winning. Population imbalance is the biggest factor in scoring problems and changing the skirmish score values isn’t going to change that. Population imbalance is a different problem that we are working on solving outside of changing the skirmish score values.

Nice to see you’re working on the population imbalance though.

Actually, I’d like to see ANet play with the skirmish scores more often, maybe every 3 months. Let’s try any ratio for which there seems to be strong support. After we’ve tried a few out, we’ll have a better idea of what impact (if any) they have on scores, on Glicko volatility, on worlds moving up|down tiers, and most importantly, on whether it affects the competitiveness of the match ups.

Changing the ratio is one of the easiest things ANet can do to mix things up/test, so they might as well change it often until we see whether it matters or not.

Etienne.3049:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

How is 5,4,3 different than 3,2,1?
Since there has been a lot of debate on this, with most people being right but debating different points, there are three things that are true:

1. The scores will be closer.

The absolute difference stays the same. And as you admit the “closer” scores don’t matter for the outcome, how is a smaller relative difference relevant?
Not that the absolute difference matters either, you could make it 15,10,5 and there’d still be no actual difference whatsoever. Any scoring of [2n+m],[n+m],[m] will give you the exact same result, really.

If you want it for matchmaking, isn’t there some way you could accomplish that withoutgiving every team 216 points for free?

And if you really want to go with 5,4,3, why not give every team 216 points up front and then reward 2,1,0? It’d lead to exactly the same result ony it’d let people see what 5,4,3 actually means (it being the exact same as 3,2,1, that is).

And since you’re sort of asking for alternative scoring suggestions I’d suggest 2,1,0, or 1,0,0 (I haven’t played that long enough to find out if it really matters), or anything where the 3rd place gets 0 points really. (I mean only for the displayed scores, if the matchmaking would be better with higher scores just add those in any way that doesn’t show in the score.)

What? Those are all dramatically different. The only thing that you posted that’s the same is 321 and 15,10,5

BTW, guys, you can never have 210 cause that would drop the bottom server, if it’s very weak and almost never places 2nd, off the glicko chart.

Spurnshadow.3678:

What? Those are all dramatically different. The only thing that you posted that’s the same is 321 and 15,10,5

BTW, guys, you can never have 210 cause that would drop the bottom server, if it’s very weak and almost never places 2nd, off the glicko chart.

If it leads to the same outcome (that is, which position the servers end) I can’t see any relevant difference. Looking at it that way I’ve only mentioned 2 different ones, 2,1,0 (and variations) and 1,0,0 (and variations), you can multiply those by whatever you want and add whatever you want and the outcome will remain the same.

I’m sure they can find some way to modify the scores for the glicko thing only (as I’ve suggested twice in the bit you quoted).

Etienne.3049:

Spurnshadow.3678:

What? Those are all dramatically different. The only thing that you posted that’s the same is 321 and 15,10,5

BTW, guys, you can never have 210 cause that would drop the bottom server, if it’s very weak and almost never places 2nd, off the glicko chart.

If it leads to the same outcome (that is, which position the servers end) I can’t see any relevant difference. Looking at it that way I’ve only mentioned 2 different ones, 2,1,0 (and variations) and 1,0,0 (and variations), you can multiply those by whatever you want and add whatever you want and the outcome will remain the same.

I’m sure they can find some way to modify the scores for the glicko thing only (as I’ve suggested twice in the bit you quoted).

I don’t see a problem with using scores for the outcome of a match and for determining the relative rating of servers (Glicko). So I don’t get why you want a 2,1,0 score instead of 3,2,1, or 5,4,3.

I had hoped that the post from McKenna Berdrow would have clarified to everyone why ArenaNet wanted to try yet another score system. Unfortunately it didn’t seem to do that for some.

McKenna Berdrow: Thanks for your post Will you think about a post (blog?) about the influence of the different score systems? Not now, but in a few months, when you have data from at least three different score systems? It would be nice to see some data besides the anecdotal reports on the forum. Both are important.

If you EVER want to fix WvW, make it one server against one server.

Period.