(edited by trawley.9517)
New way to score.
Server 1 wins 4 in a row, servers 2 and 3 can’t win. I don’t see how this changes much.
Follow me: @Salamolign
Mist Angels [Mist] – Piken Square
Mist Angels [Mist] – Piken Square
This changes nothing. Why? Because the way the score is tallied is the same throughout a matches duration. When a sever is out manned they should earn more points per structure, when a server is outmanning the others it should receive less points. This would lead to less drastic leads because the most points would be awarded when most servers are active.
a week long fight is just fine. all is fair in love and war.
This changes nothing. Why? Because the way the score is tallied is the same throughout a matches duration. When a sever is out manned they should earn more points per structure, when a server is outmanning the others it should receive less points. This would lead to less drastic leads because the most points would be awarded when most servers are active.
Could also just put a cap on how big of a lead a server could get, but you would still have the problem of people opening their WvWvW map and seeing another server controlling everything and deciding it’s not worth playing until reset.
Server 1 wins 4 in a row, servers 2 and 3 can’t win. I don’t see how this changes much.
If a server that is behind on points wins a daily battle, give them some kind of “underdog bonus”. This will give people incentive to keep fighting the daily battles even after the weekly war has been lost.
(This has been added to the opening post.)
Server 1 wins 4 in a row, servers 2 and 3 can’t win. I don’t see how this changes much.
If a server that is behind on points wins a daily battle, give them some kind of “underdog bonus”. This will give people incentive to keep fighting the daily battles even after the weekly war has been lost.
(This has been added to the opening post.)
It won’t change anything. People will see, oh they won two games already and no ones really on, no point to play when they’ll just win again because we dont have anyone on to oppose them.
Until point allocation is changed or ANET gets rid of EU/US server designation and resets populations etc you’ll always have thiss
This changes nothing. Why? Because the way the score is tallied is the same throughout a matches duration. When a sever is out manned they should earn more points per structure, when a server is outmanning the others it should receive less points. This would lead to less drastic leads because the most points would be awarded when most servers are active.
Could also just put a cap on how big of a lead a server could get, but you would still have the problem of people opening their WvWvW map and seeing another server controlling everything and deciding it’s not worth playing until reset.
Execpt, if ANET does it right, the lead from capping everything when unopposed would be only a few thousand points (between 1st and 2nd). Plenty of reason to try and make a come back at that point.
Not sure about that trade off since, well “persistence” is the core and goal Of wpvp.
[Maguuma]
Thoros Myr – Level 80 Guardian
Thoros Myr – Level 80 Guardian
I just think that the reset day should move to mid-week. Weekend sure allows more people to play but that is more punishing to the servers with the lower populations, within 2 days the score difference is huge and less people play (even if it’s possible to pull back). If it was mid-week then players may stay in for longer.
[GoV] Gnomes of Vabbi || [Imp] Impact
Currently @ Piken Square
Small scale unimpressive videos of unimpressiveness: http://www.youtube.com/neandramathal
Currently @ Piken Square
Small scale unimpressive videos of unimpressiveness: http://www.youtube.com/neandramathal
Mid week would only reward those servers with high populations as well, especially on during this time of day (for NA servers anyways).
Server 1 wins 4 in a row, servers 2 and 3 can’t win. I don’t see how this changes much.
If a server that is behind on points wins a daily battle, give them some kind of “underdog bonus”. This will give people incentive to keep fighting the daily battles even after the weekly war has been lost.
(This has been added to the opening post.)
It won’t change anything. People will see, oh they won two games already and no ones really on, no point to play when they’ll just win again because we dont have anyone on to oppose them.
Until point allocation is changed or ANET gets rid of EU/US server designation and resets populations etc you’ll always have thiss
This changes nothing. Why? Because the way the score is tallied is the same throughout a matches duration. When a sever is out manned they should earn more points per structure, when a server is outmanning the others it should receive less points. This would lead to less drastic leads because the most points would be awarded when most servers are active.
Could also just put a cap on how big of a lead a server could get, but you would still have the problem of people opening their WvWvW map and seeing another server controlling everything and deciding it’s not worth playing until reset.
Execpt, if ANET does it right, the lead from capping everything when unopposed would be only a few thousand points (between 1st and 2nd). Plenty of reason to try and make a come back at that point.
I agree that it wouldn’t fix every problem, but I believe it would be an overall improvement.
Even changing the weekly battle to a 3 day battle would help. Three days is still plenty long and more frequent resets would help the problem that was presented in the opening post.
Server 1 wins 4 in a row, servers 2 and 3 can’t win. I don’t see how this changes much.
If a server that is behind on points wins a daily battle, give them some kind of “underdog bonus”. This will give people incentive to keep fighting the daily battles even after the weekly war has been lost.
(This has been added to the opening post.)
It won’t change anything. People will see, oh they won two games already and no ones really on, no point to play when they’ll just win again because we dont have anyone on to oppose them.
Until point allocation is changed or ANET gets rid of EU/US server designation and resets populations etc you’ll always have thiss
This changes nothing. Why? Because the way the score is tallied is the same throughout a matches duration. When a sever is out manned they should earn more points per structure, when a server is outmanning the others it should receive less points. This would lead to less drastic leads because the most points would be awarded when most servers are active.
Could also just put a cap on how big of a lead a server could get, but you would still have the problem of people opening their WvWvW map and seeing another server controlling everything and deciding it’s not worth playing until reset.
Execpt, if ANET does it right, the lead from capping everything when unopposed would be only a few thousand points (between 1st and 2nd). Plenty of reason to try and make a come back at that point.
I agree that it wouldn’t fix every problem, but I believe it would be an overall improvement.
Even changing the weekly battle to a 3 day battle would help. Three days is still plenty long and more frequent resets would help the problem that was presented in the opening post.
Three day matches simply mask the issues that are present in WvW. its a band-aid fix that will quite people that don’t care about anything other than WvW all the time. ANET needs to fix the core issues with WvW (population, how points are tallied, orb bonuses, exploits, bandwagoning, and smurfing) before looking at more frequent matches.
The score is not what makes people stop wuvwuving. It’s the difficulty in trying to claw your way back onto the map after one server has held it for a long time.
Full upgrades, keeps/towers full of supplies. Waypoints. Orb bonuses. And when you log on the next day, that’s what you have to try to take back. And because there’s less interest in WvW, you will generally only have 1 server pressing 1 server.
The idea is that as 2 servers start to push against the 1 server, things will fall easier, because their zerg is split. They have to send scout groups to towers or camps. Thus, making it easier for the other 2 servers to begin getting back on the map. Unfortunately this rarely happens.
Instead, what really happens is, Server A will control the map. Server B will come try to take stuff, while server C has already given up. Server A now only has to try to hem in the vast majority of the forces from Server B, and the matchup is basically done. Even if Server B or C take something, it will simply get trebbed from the next tower/keep. And because that tower/keep is upgraded, fully stocked and sieged up, server B is screwed.
Therefore, once your server loses map control for a significant period of time, WvW becomes a one-horse show.
The score is not what makes people stop wuvwuving. It’s the difficulty in trying to claw your way back onto the map after one server has held it for a long time.
Full upgrades, keeps/towers full of supplies. Waypoints. Orb bonuses. And when you log on the next day, that’s what you have to try to take back. And because there’s less interest in WvW, you will generally only have 1 server pressing 1 server.
The idea is that as 2 servers start to push against the 1 server, things will fall easier, because their zerg is split. They have to send scout groups to towers or camps. Thus, making it easier for the other 2 servers to begin getting back on the map. Unfortunately this rarely happens.
Instead, what really happens is, Server A will control the map. Server B will come try to take stuff, while server C has already given up. Server A now only has to try to hem in the vast majority of the forces from Server B, and the matchup is basically done. Even if Server B or C take something, it will simply get trebbed from the next tower/keep. And because that tower/keep is upgraded, fully stocked and sieged up, server B is screwed.
Therefore, once your server loses map control for a significant period of time, WvW becomes a one-horse show.
You are right; however, this is less likely the case if a person signs on and sees that the score is only 50k to 40k. You can easily take down fully upgraded keeps with a little bit more cash and some good coordination
Three day matches simply mask the issues that are present in WvW. its a band-aid fix that will quite people that don’t care about anything other than WvW all the time.
That sounds like improvement.
You are right; however, this is less likely the case if a person signs on and sees that the score is only 50k to 40k. You can easily take down fully upgraded keeps with a little bit more cash and some good coordination
Maybe a combination of the two suggestions would alleviate more problems. More frequent resets and a score lead cap.
Here is my solution: The “Truce” mechanic. Once one world has a score greater than the other two teams added together, the other two teams become unable to target one another. They become the same team. Points scored from then on are shared 50/50 between those two teams.
When their score becomes higher than the formerly dominant team, they split back to normal and all keeps/towers go to the default owner except those in enemy lands which go to whoever contributed most. Done.
Why would i pay for ugrades and lay down siege if its for 1 day only? Most of the current WvW options would become useless then.
There are many fixes to WvW but I don’t think this is one of them.
Here is my solution: The “Truce” mechanic. Once one world has a score greater than the other two teams added together, the other two teams become unable to target one another. They become the same team. Points scored from then on are shared 50/50 between those two teams.
When their score becomes higher than the formerly dominant team, they split back to normal and all keeps/towers go to the default owner except those in enemy lands which go to whoever contributed most. Done.
Im not sure I like this BUT I would like to simpler way to communicate with the other sides….because in real war two enemies would often make quick truce/arrangements against another enemy and then get back to their own fighting. I’d like a chat option where we can talk to the other side…I know it can be abused, but so can anything so report people who are mean/abusive.
I’d like to say to the other team sieging Stonemist…hey we’re ok with you guys capping this, don’t attack us right now, we’ll siege this other side and keep presusre on. Sometimes this works wihtout saying but some noob from either side doesn’t get it and then starts something because without better communication, things break down.
The score is not what makes people stop wuvwuving. It’s the difficulty in trying to claw your way back onto the map after one server has held it for a long time.
Full upgrades, keeps/towers full of supplies. Waypoints. Orb bonuses. And when you log on the next day, that’s what you have to try to take back. And because there’s less interest in WvW, you will generally only have 1 server pressing 1 server.
Buzz,
You are seeing the effect, not the cause. The main culprit is the score. It would be virtually impossible for one server to cap an entire map and fully upgrade everything, place tons of siege at every location if the other two servers simply provided token resistance.
Why can’t the other servers provide token resistance? Getting players to the map is the issue we’re having right now. Players see the current score, along with a map that’s nearly full of the opposing server colors and don’t even bother. This is the root of the issue. No resistance at all over a large period of time is the ONLY thing that allows max upgrades to take place across an entire map.
What if you couldn’t see the score? What if it just silently ticked in the background as a metric Anet could use to match us up? Would it really matter if you saw another server starting to take over a map? NO. You would think you still have a chance to help your server compete, because you can’t see the score. It’s a big snowball effect that’s happening and it starts at the top, with the score.
You have to remember that everything is relative to when a player logs in. If player A logs in and sees a score that shows his server is hopelessly behind he won’t even bother. Even if there are signs of a token resistance starting up.
But, what if player A logs in, can’t see the score, has no idea what’s transpired over the last 10 hours he’s been offline? I can guarantee you this player will be significantly more likely to join the cause. And if this player is much more likely to join, what’s to say that 20 of his best friends aren’t also?
When these sorts of things start to take place, I’m very confident that over time you will see that it would be virtually impossible for one server to control the entire map with max upgrades and siege.
There are other issues with WvW ofc, such as server transfers (also caused by the score) / snowballing Orb Buffs / and bugs – which Anet is hopefully hard at work fixing.
But the psychological problems the scores have on an overwhelming majority of the player base is the root cause IMHO.
Lochost Vandalhart – Warrior
Hurc Hammerborn – Guardian
Legion of Legionnaires [LoL] – Darkhaven
Hurc Hammerborn – Guardian
Legion of Legionnaires [LoL] – Darkhaven
(edited by griffdog.3927)
To the original poster, you describe a short-term problem that is solved by a long-term solution: server rankings.
My suggestion: move to a more active world because any WvW population that quits just because the score isn’t their favor isn’t worth sticking with.
I sugest to score objective every second instead of every 15 mins and disable the rightous indignation buff for more acuarate score
Caelib,
I used to think the same as you.
“My suggestion: move to a more active world because any WvW population that quits just because the score isn’t their favor isn’t worth sticking with.”
After a while I realized that I had my head in the sand. I would argue that EVERY server does this. You already see it happen. A server dominates in one bracket, moves up a couple and has the same exact thing happen to them. Nobody is above reproach. There are exceptions to the rule, but those are…exceptions. Most all of us on this forum are very competitive players and will play regardless…. But is everyone like this? Is a majority of the GW2 populace like this? Not. Even. Close.
For those who think that current map control is as big of a factor as total score I ask you to consider the following scenario:
Server A has a score of 100,000
Server B has a score of 40,000
Server C has a score of 40,000
Consider the following three Average Joe’s. If you say you don’t care what Average Joe thinks than your head is really in the sand. There aren’t enough like minded / hyper competitive players to field a presence at all times for every server. WvW success hinges on what Average Joe thinks.
Player A is from server A. He logs in and checks WvW. He sees that his team has a 60,000 point lead over B and C. He also sees that his team only controls only 10% of the map.
Player B is from server B. He logs in and checks WvW. He sees that his team is behind by 60,000 points. But he also sees that his team currently controls 60% of the map.
Player C is from server C. He logs in and checks WvW. He sees that his team is behind by 60,000 points. He also sees that his team controls 30% of the map. Three times that of Server A.
In order, which player is most likely to queue, and why?
I would argue that the answer is A,B,C, in that order. Why?
Player A knows that his team already has a 60K point lead, so help is not far away. He’s going to queue and try to help his team preserve the lead. Take back a few camps / get some karma and xp and try to keep hold of the 10% of the map until the re-inforcements he knows are coming will get there. This prevents B from completely snowballing over A.
Player B is the next most likely to queue. He sees that his team controls a large portion of the map. But he also sees that his team is already down by 60k and it’s just now Saturday night. It’s just a matter of time until Server A controls all of the map again, his current 60k deficit tells him that. So it’s a toss up for Player B. Sometimes he queues, sometimes he doesn’t.
Player C is the least likely to queue. He sees little map control (although 3 times that of Server A) and a huge deficit. He’s completely demoralized by what he sees and doesn’t even try. He closes the WvW window until next week. Hoping for a better matchup.
Server C stops showing so Server A only has to contend with Server B now. Who is already at a disadvantage. A starts snowballing over B, because C provides little to no resistance to either side. By Sunday morning A has all 3 orbs, 90% of the map and a 80k point lead. Server B and C don’t show up until next week.
The snowball is in effect. Everyone loses. This is all caused because the players let the current score, more often than not, determine whether or not they will play.
Lochost Vandalhart – Warrior
Hurc Hammerborn – Guardian
Legion of Legionnaires [LoL] – Darkhaven
Hurc Hammerborn – Guardian
Legion of Legionnaires [LoL] – Darkhaven