Guild Wars 2

atheria.2837:

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

Period.

Yeah, put back a bunch of dead servers by themselves where new players will have a kitten poor experience and never come back to WvW because it will be more boring than it is now. Great idea!

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.

It’s worth a try. We seen one proposal – 2,1,1 and experienced it’s failure.

However really this is not addressing the real issues – population balance and lack of rewards for playing this game mode to attract new players.

Glass Hand.7306:

It’s worth a try. We seen one proposal – 2,1,1 and experienced it’s failure.

I disagree with this bit.

After 3 weeks all we could possibly have “experienced” is the playerbase’s knee jerk reactions and scapegoating.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

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.

Yup… too bad more players don’t see it that way.

OriOri.8724:

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?

Not to mention it was done during the holidays and wintersday which would pull players out of wvw. So some players came in here freaking out how 211 made populations drop during that time, or how a 2v1 on the bigger server is somehow worse than 2v1 on the weaker servers.

I think it should get more time for players to figure out how to work with the system, but there’s obviously players in here that only care to dominate and don’t give a kitten about balance to the system.

People need to stop freaking out about scoring changes, it’s temporary, they can be changed, they’re testing out what works. If you can’t accept them testing stuff then don’t come in here asking for changes.

But yeah whatever, keep on trucking BG.

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).

Holy kitten. What the kitten do i have to do to get you guys to stop looking at the numbers and saying it leads to the same outcome. IT CHANGES PEOPLES BEHAVIOR. So, it will not lead to the same outcome as people will play differently.

Rashagar.8349:

Glass Hand.7306:

It’s worth a try. We seen one proposal – 2,1,1 and experienced it’s failure.

I disagree with this bit.

After 3 weeks all we could possibly have “experienced” is the playerbase’s knee jerk reactions and scapegoating.

The playerbase kneejerk reactions has often been proven to be right ones. But yeah, maybe we should try it a year instead and see how much the playerbase love it.

It worked for DBL, right?

No wait, most people still hate it and it got 1/10th the ABL activity.

Dawdler.8521:

Rashagar.8349:

Glass Hand.7306:

It’s worth a try. We seen one proposal – 2,1,1 and experienced it’s failure.

I disagree with this bit.

After 3 weeks all we could possibly have “experienced” is the playerbase’s knee jerk reactions and scapegoating.

The playerbase kneejerk reactions has often been proven to be right ones. But yeah, maybe we should try it a year instead and see how much the playerbase love it.

It worked for DBL, right?

No wait, most people still hate it and it got 1/10th the ABL activity.

Ha! You and I have very different definitions of the word “proof”.

The same voices repeating something ad nauseum does not a proof make.

Glass Hand.7306:

It’s worth a try. We seen one proposal – 2,1,1 and experienced it’s failure.

How is it a failure? I would argue that from a T1 POV it is actually a success as the top server is actually focussed more. Players not liking it does not make it a failure.

morrolan.9608:

Players not liking it does not make it a failure.

Of course it does… If the majority disaprove it, you can consider it a failure. The question is: Was it the majority that didn’t like it? Because we all know how it ended when they asked the majority if DBL should be discontinuated.

morrolan.9608:

Glass Hand.7306:

It’s worth a try. We seen one proposal – 2,1,1 and experienced it’s failure.

How is it a failure? I would argue that from a T1 POV it is actually a success as the top server is actually focussed more. Players not liking it does not make it a failure.

I’ve gone through matches with the new scoring system playing as both the top server in T3 and now am playing bottom on T2. I didn’t notice any particular focusing on us when we were on top, and now when on the bottom the 2nd place is showing no interest in cooperating with us against the 1st place server. Furthermore the 2-1-1 scoring eliminates any point incentive to try to finish 2nd in a skirmish – the first place server is so dominant first place is not likely ever in any skirmish for us this week.

Spending time on this approach is a failure – it is simply not addressing the real issues of population balance and population decline in this game mode.

Glass Hand.7306:

I’ve gone through matches with the new scoring system playing as both the top server in T3 and now am playing bottom on T2. I didn’t notice any particular focusing on us when we were on top, and now when on the bottom the 2nd place is showing no interest in cooperating with us against the 1st place server. Furthermore the 2-1-1 scoring eliminates any point incentive to try to finish 2nd in a skirmish – the first place server is so dominant first place is not likely ever in any skirmish for us this week.

Spending time on this approach is a failure – it is simply not addressing the real issues of population balance and population decline in this game mode.

Why should there be an incentive to play for second? That leads to 3rd place server being focussed. As for spending time I agree so then why whinge about it.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Holy kitten. What the kitten do i have to do to get you guys to stop looking at the numbers and saying it leads to the same outcome. IT CHANGES PEOPLES BEHAVIOR. So, it will not lead to the same outcome as people will play differently.

You are claiming people are playing different because every server is gifted meaningless points. Do you have any statistics backing that up or do you just assume people are morons and don’t see this through?

morrolan.9608:

Why should there be an incentive to play for second? That leads to 3rd place server being focussed. As for spending time I agree so then why whinge about it.

The scoring change did not change the incentive or tactic for farming 3rd place in any way. Farming the weak server in the match is often the way to win a skirmish. Efficiently execution this is often the difference in a match where the first and second place servers are evenly matched. In fact the 2-1-1 system increases focusing the third place server because of the need to finish first.

Simply put the scoring change does not improve the game. The likelihood that 2nd and 3rd will cooperate is small and the downside of loss of incentive to compete for 2nd in a lopsided match is outweighs this.

Server transferring is what killed WvW period. Blob servers will always be on the top and the low pop servers will always be at the bottom. Anet is inept at fixing anything in WvW and they also look at WvW as a red headed step child.
Four year of total failure is only proof Anet does not care and that it will never be fixed in a meaningful manner. GW2 is all about PVE and PVP nothing more than that at this point.

Glass Hand.7306:

morrolan.9608:

Why should there be an incentive to play for second? That leads to 3rd place server being focussed. As for spending time I agree so then why whinge about it.

The scoring change did not change the incentive or tactic for farming 3rd place in any way. Farming the weak server in the match is often the way to win a skirmish. Efficiently execution this is often the difference in a match where the first and second place servers are evenly matched. In fact the 2-1-1 system increases focusing the third place server because of the need to finish first.

You would be the only person to make this claim.

morrolan.9608:

Glass Hand.7306:

I’ve gone through matches with the new scoring system playing as both the top server in T3 and now am playing bottom on T2. I didn’t notice any particular focusing on us when we were on top, and now when on the bottom the 2nd place is showing no interest in cooperating with us against the 1st place server. Furthermore the 2-1-1 scoring eliminates any point incentive to try to finish 2nd in a skirmish – the first place server is so dominant first place is not likely ever in any skirmish for us this week.

Spending time on this approach is a failure – it is simply not addressing the real issues of population balance and population decline in this game mode.

Why should there be an incentive to play for second? That leads to 3rd place server being focussed. As for spending time I agree so then why whinge about it.

Because some servers are weak, and playing for 2nd is the best they can do. If they place 2nd in a skirmish, that’s a psychological win for them and also, if they end up placing 2nd, that’s a huge win in their glicko rating. This is especially true for very weak servers who get transferred up due to a random roll.

Reema.7360:

Spurnshadow.3678:

Holy kitten. What the kitten do i have to do to get you guys to stop looking at the numbers and saying it leads to the same outcome. IT CHANGES PEOPLES BEHAVIOR. So, it will not lead to the same outcome as people will play differently.

You are claiming people are playing different because every server is gifted meaningless points. Do you have any statistics backing that up or do you just assume people are morons and don’t see this through?

If I were able to get the past match stats off some of these websites, I could back it up with that. But I also have over 10K hours in this game, probably 85% of that is in WvW. I play almost every day, in TS, and a part of my BG community. While I don’t know how everyone feels, I certainly hear things, and it’s obvious how the trends are going when major changes occur. So, no, my opinions are not purely empirical. If I had access to totals for previous matches that were 321, I could make contrasting charts for the 211 system. But when I hear many folks saying things like, “who gives a kitten.” “Why bother playing.” Not gonna even try," “Don’t give a crap anymore, lets just kill OnS.” yeah, that’s telling.

Baratta.1083:

Server transferring is what killed WvW period. Blob servers will always be on the top and the low pop servers will always be at the bottom. Anet is inept at fixing anything in WvW and they also look at WvW as a red headed step child.
Four year of total failure is only proof Anet does not care and that it will never be fixed in a meaningful manner. GW2 is all about PVE and PVP nothing more than that at this point.

This!

#needtowritemoredone

capitalism destroyed wvw.

Well, from a statistical standpoint it was clear that the new rating-system wouldn’t work. Even with the victory-point-system we still need to address the “newly created” problems by it.
The new system with 2-1-1 victory points makes it even worse. In a few hours Jade Quarry cannot be beaten anymore, just shortly afterwards Fort Aspenwood will be the winner as well. Leaving more than 3 days in the matchup with no possible way to catch up. This is boring.

And now with the lack of linking arenanet doesn’t correct for the imbalances in population, generating very stale matchups. Why exactly was this done?

I personally really don’t understand why arenanet changes things that have no possibility to solving the problems there are in wvw like
- the imbalance through matchmaking (what is Fort Aspenwood doing in tier4 exactly?),
- the primetime/offtime-problems,
- the no-way-of-catching-up problems,
- the having-no-tournament-problem,
- the having-no-wvw-communitymanager-problem.

A statistical expert (you know, the guy responsible for balancing) can tell you exactly what works and what doesn’t BEFORE you try it (and about the 2-1-1 you will find enough posts here in the forums telling you the problems before it was implemented). But hey ok, let’s just flip random switches that are easy to implement and then not read all the feedback on the forums because it is too negative, leading to flipping the next random switches without considering the consequences or what the problems are..

But to be honest, maybe they really don’t have the resources to construct and implement systems that work and are changing things they know aren’t going to work just so we have the illusion they are still working on wvw Are we wvw-players really that few? Or do we not buy enough gems with real money? I really would like to know.

Rink.6108:

I personally really don’t understand why arenanet changes things that have no possibility to solving the problems

They don’t wanna let go of the current Tier System
that is the problem, its them

on 2-1-1
the 1st can fight 2nd or 3rd or both
the 2nd will always picks the easy target which is the 3rd
the 3rd will always fight the easier target which is the 2nd

on 5-4-3
its basically the same as 2-1-1

on the other hand the 2-2-1 or 3-3-2.5
the 1st and 2nd gets both points on the placement so they both fight to bring down one of them

As stated, this is a return to playing for second after a short reprieve. The rest is calculator tricks.

Another waste of time

The greatest irony is when people come to complain about the new scoring while also complaining that no one cares about scoring because it’s meaningless.

I like this change because it doesn’t let people sit in some status quo and collect their trophy at the end. If you want 2nd, you can’t just cannibalize the third server the whole time.

What I would normally see happening is that first place would hit second place because they were the closest in points. Meanwhile, third place would hit second place for the same reason. Thus, first place was never challenged and second place would have to go all out against third place just to hold on.

Given that this change just happened and there’s not much point in winning matches, I haven’t seen that behavior change whatsoever, yet. If, one day, there is a reason to care about score, I’d rather have this system in place than the old one.

Rink.6108:

I personally really don’t understand why arenanet changes things that have no possibility to solving the problems there are in wvw

They do these things because players demand that they do them.

The flaw in 2-1-1 wasn’t in some statistical error, it was in error in judgement of human behavior. Anet correctly thinks that changes in scoring will alter the behavior of those playing the game to score the most points. Rational player behavior inside that system would lead to the 2v1 end.

Anet’s problem is the assumption of rationality. Anet assumes that everyone is playing the game for score. But we know not every is playing the same game.

Some are there for fights, some of there for score and some are just there chasing a tag around because what else could they possibly do with their time.

It appears that the biggest mistake Anet made with WvW was not finding a way to effectively merge the fights with the capture and hold mechanism.

This might be a problem of population balance, but who knows. And maybe that is what Anet sees as the fundamental problem.

But Anet refuses to enforce strict population measures because the “community” doesn’t want it. And because population imbalance renders futile any attempt to fix the scoring mechanism, Anet has effectively given up on providing meaningful change.

Instead they keep the money making mechanisms open (transfers), while throwing the community the occasional bone (like 211) to convince community that they are still working on the issue. And then when some complains about 211 they switch immediately to 543. By trying two solutions they can get the community divided and blaming each other for the state of the game and then switch back to 321 anyway.

The irony is that the only way players could truly convince Anet to make real changes is to simply stop playing. But at that point Anet would be justified in treating it as a dead game mode. However if more people started playing the game as it is, they would see as an indication that the game is currently healthy, so no change is required.

The only real solution is for Anet to make the game they want to make. And make it the best game they can imagine. And then let the community decide if they like it. If the community doesn’t like it, show them the door. But that wont happen because its better to have a broken game full of future promises with a stable population, than risk losing the population by making significant change.

All WvW has to offer at the moment is situational drama; the larger game is pointless.

The endless speculation of their motives and plans are equally pointless because in the end we will find that Anet has developed an immunity to iocane powder and has nothing to worry about regardless of what the community chooses.

They could change what values they want it allways be a awfull or useless change…

This means Anet believes WvW is in good place, wvw is for pve players pretend to be good pvpr’rs with their button smash gimmicks and ktrain for few GG we capped a empty tower we have now more ppt for the skitmish.

What they want for the game is a awfull and very flawd/weak concept for a game that that is suposed to be AAA.

I find the scoring much less of a problem, as the scoring type is literally just polishing the brass on the Titanic. It has no effect on the actual outcomes or the dynamics of the weekly fights. You can change that scoring system all you like, but when it comes down to it, Tier 1 will almost always go like this: BG then Mag. Tier 2 will almost always be TC/JQ on top.

As a TC player, its pretty freaking boring either getting rolled by BG/MAG, or rolling YB and SBI. Anet needs to experiment more with server linking based on the previous weeks results. If TC is in a distant 3rd place in Tier 1, then TC should be linked with a decent server like YB or SBI to fight Mag and BG in Tier 1 next week. If TC is rolling face in Tier 2, then YB and SBI should be combined that week and combine the next few servers to join Tier 2 to fight TC. As it is, the fight dynamics are exactly the same. TC looks huge to those in Tier 2, but we are pretty small on organized groups against BG and MAG. Its gotta also get boring on BG just K-training everything.

6 – 4 – 3

If you want to try a diferent scoring system, try diferent values.

2/3 of 6 = 4
1/2 of 6 = 3

Why a (3,1,0) system?
It gives the best of the 2 prior systems,
Rewards 1st place (2,1,1)
Gives battle for second some meaning (3,2,1)

For scoring I’d recommend pi/e/i as the new values.

Swamurabi.7890:

For scoring I’d recommend pi/e/i as the new values.

I agree scoring discussion seems pointless at this time. The game mode is struggling with the very reason to play for the win. You could put any numbers on the match score when nobody cares for the result.

Giddy up the population rebalancing, fix coverage issues, stop linking and manually adjusting ratings. After those we can fine tune scoring.

guys you suck at math.
5-4-3 has more relevance when it comes to more than 2 skirmishes

3-2-1 has some variations from 3 to 9 score in 3 skirmishes where 1st server can have potentially 200% more points than 3rd one

5-4-3 has variations from 9 to 15 score which means that 1st server can have potentially only 67% more score.

Of course the amount of wins required to catch up to nr 1 would be the same but visually it would seem scores are closer. Its basically 3-2-1 for dummies and giveruppers. so it has “better” impact

The problem with scoring in the current state of WvW is that it is important to a majority of players but a minority of servers.

Threather.9354:

Of course the amount of wins required to catch up to nr 1 would be the same but visually it would seem scores are closer. Its basically 3-2-1 for dummies and giveruppers. so it has “better” impact

The thing that hasn’t been touched on here is the interaction between this and Glicko. I’ve heard that 3-2-1 results in a bigger percentage difference between winner and losers, thereby causing more extreme swings in the Glicko scores. 5-4-3 will of course result in smaller percentage differences.

I’m not sure about this but it seems possible that 5-4-3 will reduce Glicko volatility.

Bhima.9518:

As a TC player, its pretty freaking boring either getting rolled by BG/MAG, or rolling YB and SBI.

Exactly. We need more servers with more evenly balanced populations. The current stacking meme needs to be blown up. It might even be worth introducing some sort of scaling effect that discourages super blobbing. Something like a 20% damage penalty if more than 30 players are within a certain distance. Number of overlapping AOE rings limited to 5. Etc.

atheria.2837:

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

Period.

Glad you’re not in charge of anything, this would break it even more. 1 v 1 server matches would equal 1 dominant server which would cause the weaker of the two to stop playing. With three teams there is always the option to double team the dominant, or attack the other of the 2 weaker servers.

This is why open field PvP games tend to flourish when its a threeway match and tend to die out when its a 2 way. One side will always dominate due to morale and size.

Btw. how good 2-1-1 works can be seen atm in the BB – Piken – Kodash MU.

BB is second, with 19 first places 16 second places while Kodash is last with 13 first and 33 second places.

Mmm 2-1-1 is soooooooo rewarding. Not.

Thea Cherry.6327:

Btw. how good 2-1-1 works can be seen atm in the BB – Piken – Kodash MU.

BB is second, with 19 first places 16 second places while Kodash is last with 13 first and 33 second places.

Mmm 2-1-1 is soooooooo rewarding. Not.

Finally someone who is actually looking at scores and not just expressing beliefs.

You just didn’t look close enough.

As you can see BB has won the 00-08 skirmishes almost every day. It’s called nightcapping. However Piken has been able to recover from 08 onwards, not leaving the PPT tick for BB all day.

Kodash won the reset skirmishes, Saturday noon skirmishes and 2 more on Monday’s prime time. And after that no more wins. Weekend warriors got their morale broken?

Korgov.7645:

Thea Cherry.6327:

Btw. how good 2-1-1 works can be seen atm in the BB – Piken – Kodash MU.

BB is second, with 19 first places 16 second places while Kodash is last with 13 first and 33 second places.

Mmm 2-1-1 is soooooooo rewarding. Not.

Finally someone who is actually looking at scores and not just expressing beliefs.

You just didn’t look close enough.

As you can see BB has won the 00-08 skirmishes almost every day. It’s called nightcapping. However Piken has been able to recover from 08 onwards, not leaving the PPT tick for BB all day.

Kodash won the reset skirmishes, Saturday noon skirmishes and 2 more on Monday’s prime time. And after that no more wins. Weekend warriors got their morale broken?

Actually it’s been this way the past 2 years or so, the only difference is: while we were able to minimize the loss in the night by playing for second place, with this system it doesn’t matter so the nightcrew has shrinked from max 30+ people to round about max 20. :/

Well, nightcapping will never be fixed and BB will always be a nightcapping server.

Btw. why is BB full and you rarely see more than 10 people during the day?

Thea Cherry.6327:

Korgov.7645:

Thea Cherry.6327:

Btw. how good 2-1-1 works can be seen atm in the BB – Piken – Kodash MU.

BB is second, with 19 first places 16 second places while Kodash is last with 13 first and 33 second places.

Mmm 2-1-1 is soooooooo rewarding. Not.

Finally someone who is actually looking at scores and not just expressing beliefs.

You just didn’t look close enough.

As you can see BB has won the 00-08 skirmishes almost every day. It’s called nightcapping. However Piken has been able to recover from 08 onwards, not leaving the PPT tick for BB all day.

Kodash won the reset skirmishes, Saturday noon skirmishes and 2 more on Monday’s prime time. And after that no more wins. Weekend warriors got their morale broken?

Actually it’s been this way the past 2 years or so, the only difference is: while we were able to minimize the loss in the night by playing for second place, with this system it doesn’t matter so the nightcrew has shrinked from max 30+ people to round about max 20. :/

Well, nightcapping will never be fixed and BB will always be a nightcapping server.

Btw. why is BB full and you rarely see more than 10 people during the day?

Maybe it is time to update your 2 years old strategy and play for the win instead of for the second place? :P

The skirmishes were a good attempt to diminish the effects of nightcapping. Unfortunately the increase in PTT worked the opposite. Luckily for your matchup Piken has been able to stop the PPT ticking in the mornings.

I think BB is playing their strengths here: let the other teams fight over the prime time, then night cap, and hope other teams cannot recover until next prime time.

Korgov.7645:

Thea Cherry.6327:

Korgov.7645:

Thea Cherry.6327:

Btw. how good 2-1-1 works can be seen atm in the BB – Piken – Kodash MU.

BB is second, with 19 first places 16 second places while Kodash is last with 13 first and 33 second places.

Mmm 2-1-1 is soooooooo rewarding. Not.

Finally someone who is actually looking at scores and not just expressing beliefs.

You just didn’t look close enough.

As you can see BB has won the 00-08 skirmishes almost every day. It’s called nightcapping. However Piken has been able to recover from 08 onwards, not leaving the PPT tick for BB all day.

Kodash won the reset skirmishes, Saturday noon skirmishes and 2 more on Monday’s prime time. And after that no more wins. Weekend warriors got their morale broken?

Actually it’s been this way the past 2 years or so, the only difference is: while we were able to minimize the loss in the night by playing for second place, with this system it doesn’t matter so the nightcrew has shrinked from max 30+ people to round about max 20. :/

Well, nightcapping will never be fixed and BB will always be a nightcapping server.

Btw. why is BB full and you rarely see more than 10 people during the day?

Maybe it is time to update your 2 years old strategy and play for the win instead of for the second place? :P

The skirmishes were a good attempt to diminish the effects of nightcapping. Unfortunately the increase in PTT worked the opposite. Luckily for your matchup Piken has been able to stop the PPT ticking in the mornings.

I think BB is playing their strengths here: let the other teams fight over the prime time, then night cap, and hope other teams cannot recover until next prime time.

Well Piken is pretty hyped atm. the ash remains have transferd there, i think TT and some more which have been previously on Vaabilation too.

That’s what i meant in another thread: population can’t be balanced as long as unlimited server transfering is possible. 7 Days Transferban? It is a joke, the bandwagoners will always manipulate the population as long as they can.
Piken is undeniable one of the top contenders for the top 3 during this linking.

So you have Piken who are not only more, but better players, you have BB who do there own thing and you have kodash who lost 30 players in the last 2 weeks, a partly demotivated playerbase, some inactiv commanders and voila: you have no chance to win.

The only reason i still play is, that we have an overall very friendly and funny community. Thank god for that. :*

Rashagar.8349:

Glass Hand.7306:

It’s worth a try. We seen one proposal – 2,1,1 and experienced it’s failure.

I disagree with this bit.

After 3 weeks all we could possibly have “experienced” is the playerbase’s knee jerk reactions and scapegoating.

Agreed, a large portion hadn’t even figured out WHY playing for second wasn’t working when the test ended. Servers that modified their behavior profited, the results were positive.
But most prefer the sorry status quo, and were only complaining for its own sake we now see.

Thea Cherry.6327:

Btw. how good 2-1-1 works can be seen atm in the BB – Piken – Kodash MU.

BB is second, with 19 first places 16 second places while Kodash is last with 13 first and 33 second places.

Mmm 2-1-1 is soooooooo rewarding. Not.

You can’t steal a win from third place.
That was the whole point

LetoII.3782:

Thea Cherry.6327:

Btw. how good 2-1-1 works can be seen atm in the BB – Piken – Kodash MU.

BB is second, with 19 first places 16 second places while Kodash is last with 13 first and 33 second places.

Mmm 2-1-1 is soooooooo rewarding. Not.

You can’t steal a win from third place.
That was the whole point

The problem is not the scoring system. It’s the mismatches. Look at this week – every tier is a runaway match. Instead of groupings by server scale and coverage we have mismatches in every tier. Simply the servers are not balanced. Until this is fixed it’s worthless to experiment with scoring systems.

Glass Hand.7306:

Exactly. We need more servers with more evenly balanced populations. The current stacking meme needs to be blown up.

But then they lower the server population threshold and people freak out about it. There are players who don’t give a hoot about balance, they just want to be on top with the biggest rolling server.

Xenesis.6389:

There are players who don’t give a hoot about balance, they just want to be on top with the biggest rolling server.

Xenesis.6389:

There are players who don’t give a hoot about balance, they just want to be on top with the biggest rolling server.

I am sure there are. But there are also a lot of players who don’t like being constantly rolled over. These players will get tired of it and leave. Many already have which is why we are down to 4 tiers. The ultimate evolution of this will be one stacked server and 23 empty servers.

Glass Hand.7306:

The ultimate evolution of this will be Blackgate and 23 empty servers.

FTFY and QFT

Lock servers, bandvagoners will quit the game cuz no point staying in 1 server, then reduce amount of servers to 9, gg.

Well realistically speaking, spicing things up might be best choice; Constant tournaments, theme weeks etc, people will adapt as long as theres a reason to play for the community. It also gives a reason for community to have fun, there’s a reason why people dont do same thing over and over in real life either .

Maybe even adding some build suggestions(and/or removing gear from WvW with 2-5 amulet system [would be like PvP but with much bigger variety as you can choose all 5 amulets different], excluding foods) in-game, wouldn’t be a bad solution. People say its a bad idea, but no new player is joining decent guilds these days (because they dont exist or they cant get in), to get new builds. Metabattle exists of course but I bet over 40% of WvW players dont know about it.

Some people say we need better rewards or balanced scoring system, but no1 actually plays this game for gold or score…. Because its only useful in the game. The gamemode is emotionally unenticing atm, that’s the issue

When WvW AND PvP are SINGLE server/person matches, that’s when we WILL see who shines and who duds out.

Until then, it’s fixing a leaking ship.

Changing the scoring system will not do anything to make WvW better. It is just smoke and mirrors to mask the real problems. Ask yourself, will changing the scoring make your own enjoyment of WvW in any way better. Most likely no. People will keep doing the same thing they have always done. Will it change who wins? Again most likely not and in the small chance it does it will be a win on a technicality, which is a hollow win in my book.

Population imbalance lies deep in the foundation of the design of WvW and until that foundation is torn down nothing will change.