Guild Wars 2

I like that it equalizes all timezones. in terms of scoring and that every server can get a victory point each skirmish. I would like to try a longer skirmish though and see how that goes, maybe 3 or 4 hours, and perhaps change the number and/or way the points are awarded because it seems too standardized with the 3/2/1 model, if a server wins a skirmish by 1 or 5000 points the points awarded is the same, which is a good and bad thing. Also some small reward for servers at the end of the week would be great, nothing fancy maybe some reward track potions, badges, proofs, etc. Overall its a great improvement.

I like the skirmishes, but i think the numbers should be 3 4 and 5 points per skirmish.

It would be interesting to see the outcome with a 5,4,3 point system versus a 3,2,1

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap. So my take is: scrap this system and back to the drawing board to ACTUALLY fix WvW issues.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Instead of losing with 300k we lose with 150+ badges, different dress same pig. Sorry but that is what it is.

Edit: Typo Storm.

Gunner Morton.8340:

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Nightcapping happens because of coverage gaps. The need for coverage is still there. Skirmishes changed the scoring system so a server could not simply gain 50k points over one night and end the matchup in one day. Now, even if your server ticks 0 for 2 hours you still get a victory point. It equalizes the scoring for all timezones. Coverage and scoring are not the same issues.

If Gunnars Hold is not stronger than the opponents in any timezone … it won’t matter if the opponent wins the night battle… they got you the rest of the day. You can see the affects of a weak night crew server with a strong NA presence in NA matchups, fighting strong night crew weak NA time period. The gap is reduced greatly because they still can effectively win the same amount of time periods (skirmishes). Mediocre in all time zones will only get you mediocre results.

Looking at the score evolution of Gunner’s Hold shows, at best … mediocre ppt across the week, only taking the ppt lead once or twice for a very short time (less than 1 skirmish) on the 25th.

X T D.6458:

Gunner Morton.8340:

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Nightcapping happens because of coverage gaps. The need for coverage is still there. Skirmishes changed the scoring system so a server could not simply gain 50k points over one night and end the matchup in one day. Now, even if your server ticks 0 for 2 hours you still get a victory point. It equalizes the scoring for all timezones. Coverage and scoring are not the same issues.

I agree.

This is a great change because it minimizes damage during bad coverage times. Even if you get totally blown out during a certain time slot, you can make up the difference during the next one.

In T3 a lot of skirmishes are really close until the end, being off by as few as 20-50 points. That’s the sort of difference in score that provides urgency to defend something or go attack something, when that couple more PPK or that one camp can decide the difference between 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd.

At no other time in wvw’s history has flipping a camp been able to provide as much of a difference in the entire matchup as with this skirmish system. Pushing your server up that one level gives a point that can matter in the final tally.

I think it’s a great change, and the 2 hours is about as long as I can play in one sitting, so it works out really well.

Much better than the previous system! Skirmishes themselves may need something else for the average player to notice skirmish results, like a line in the chat box of war scores at the end of a skirmish, or even a minor reward for participating in a skirmish(though we have a good amount of rewards already).

Hexinx.1872:

Looking at the score evolution of Gunner’s Hold shows, at best … mediocre ppt across the week, only taking the ppt lead once or twice for a very short time (less than 1 skirmish) on the 25th.

This is because the server has 1/4th the population compared to the other 2 servers in the matchups.

Dinas Dragonbane.2978:

Much better than the previous system! Skirmishes themselves may need something else for the average player to notice skirmish results, like a line in the chat box of war scores at the end of a skirmish, or even a minor reward for participating in a skirmish(though we have a good amount of rewards already).

I think this is a great idea, even if it’s just symbolic. 10 silver for 3rd, 20 for 2nd, and 30 for first isn’t game-breaking but gives a sense of progress.

It also lets everyone know that a new skirmish is starting so you better go do something to earn points.

Hesacon.8735:

X T D.6458:

Gunner Morton.8340:

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Nightcapping happens because of coverage gaps. The need for coverage is still there. Skirmishes changed the scoring system so a server could not simply gain 50k points over one night and end the matchup in one day. Now, even if your server ticks 0 for 2 hours you still get a victory point. It equalizes the scoring for all timezones. Coverage and scoring are not the same issues.

I agree.

This is a great change because it minimizes damage during bad coverage times. Even if you get totally blown out during a certain time slot, you can make up the difference during the next one.

In T3 a lot of skirmishes are really close until the end, being off by as few as 20-50 points. That’s the sort of difference in score that provides urgency to defend something or go attack something, when that couple more PPK or that one camp can’t decide the difference between 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd.

At no other time in wvw’s history has flipping a camp been able to provide as much of a difference in the entire matchup as with this skirmish system. Pushing your server up that one level gives a point that can matter in the final tally.

I think it’s a great change, and the 2 hours is about as long as I can play in one sitting, so it works out really well.

Absolutely, one skirmish last night ended with something like 12 points between us and Maguuma, was exciting to watch lol. It does put more emphasis on prioritizing so you can maximize points during a skirmish. PPK actually becomes important now and can tip the scales of a skirmish because those points matter more in the short skirmishes, 100 kills for example gives 200 points which can be huge in a skirmish.

It has definitely reduced the effectiveness of night capping,

I think 2nd and 3rd place points must be the same to incentive attacking the team on the top and not both lower servers fighting each other for 2nd while 1st runs away with the victory.

The 2 hour blocks seemed to have made people care about the score again (at least temporarily).

I think it’s easier for people to understand and make sense of a 2 hour block of time rather than an entire week. “Hey, we’re only 100 points behind let’s hurry up and wipe some blobs so we can win the skirmish” is something I’ve heard a lot since skirmishes were added.

The skirmishes still don’t address night capping. In some ways the point distribution has made it even more difficult for a server to have a mid-week comeback whereas before it might have been possible for people to play a lot of extra time and have a score upset.

There is also still no incentive or reason to want to win the weekly match.

X T D.6458:

Hesacon.8735:

X T D.6458:

Gunner Morton.8340:

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Nightcapping happens because of coverage gaps. The need for coverage is still there. Skirmishes changed the scoring system so a server could not simply gain 50k points over one night and end the matchup in one day. Now, even if your server ticks 0 for 2 hours you still get a victory point. It equalizes the scoring for all timezones. Coverage and scoring are not the same issues.

I agree.

This is a great change because it minimizes damage during bad coverage times. Even if you get totally blown out during a certain time slot, you can make up the difference during the next one.

In T3 a lot of skirmishes are really close until the end, being off by as few as 20-50 points. That’s the sort of difference in score that provides urgency to defend something or go attack something, when that couple more PPK or that one camp can’t decide the difference between 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd.

At no other time in wvw’s history has flipping a camp been able to provide as much of a difference in the entire matchup as with this skirmish system. Pushing your server up that one level gives a point that can matter in the final tally.

I think it’s a great change, and the 2 hours is about as long as I can play in one sitting, so it works out really well.

Absolutely, one skirmish last night ended with something like 12 points between us and Maguuma, was exciting to watch lol. It does put more emphasis on prioritizing so you can maximize points during a skirmish. PPK actually becomes important now and can tip the scales of a skirmish because those points matter more in the short skirmishes, 100 kills for example gives 200 points which can be huge in a skirmish.

for the third server, this system is a means of having some control in a match winner as well. Even if you can’t win, you might be able to steal some 2nd places from a server that ends up with the third server winning the week.

I wasn’t sure skirmishes would accomplish much at first, but I do like them now that I have seen them…..

Liston.9708:

X T D.6458:

Hesacon.8735:

X T D.6458:

Gunner Morton.8340:

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Nightcapping happens because of coverage gaps. The need for coverage is still there. Skirmishes changed the scoring system so a server could not simply gain 50k points over one night and end the matchup in one day. Now, even if your server ticks 0 for 2 hours you still get a victory point. It equalizes the scoring for all timezones. Coverage and scoring are not the same issues.

I agree.

This is a great change because it minimizes damage during bad coverage times. Even if you get totally blown out during a certain time slot, you can make up the difference during the next one.

In T3 a lot of skirmishes are really close until the end, being off by as few as 20-50 points. That’s the sort of difference in score that provides urgency to defend something or go attack something, when that couple more PPK or that one camp can’t decide the difference between 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd.

At no other time in wvw’s history has flipping a camp been able to provide as much of a difference in the entire matchup as with this skirmish system. Pushing your server up that one level gives a point that can matter in the final tally.

I think it’s a great change, and the 2 hours is about as long as I can play in one sitting, so it works out really well.

Absolutely, one skirmish last night ended with something like 12 points between us and Maguuma, was exciting to watch lol. It does put more emphasis on prioritizing so you can maximize points during a skirmish. PPK actually becomes important now and can tip the scales of a skirmish because those points matter more in the short skirmishes, 100 kills for example gives 200 points which can be huge in a skirmish.

for the third server, this system is a means of having some control in a match winner as well. Even if you can’t win, you might be able to steal some 2nd places from a server that ends up with the third server winning the week.

I wasn’t sure skirmishes would accomplish much at first, but I do like them now that I have seen them…..

I’ve noticed that as well, its been interesting watching YB this week kind of playing the spoiler/ninja role coming in out of nowhere to take 2nd place in a skirmish. I think the heavy PPT focus of skirmishes will work out good for servers like YB.

Gunner Morton.8340:

Hexinx.1872:

Looking at the score evolution of Gunner’s Hold shows, at best … mediocre ppt across the week, only taking the ppt lead once or twice for a very short time (less than 1 skirmish) on the 25th.

This is because the server has 1/4th the population compared to the other 2 servers in the matchups.

So you’re initial comment isn’t a complaint about skirmishes (the thread), it’s just venting frustration at the poor server linking GH ended with (unrelated topic). GH (eu) so to speak seems similar to the DH (na) of past linking. Yet on their relink (DH) they now are doing much better. Some crappy weeks ahead, but could be fixed next linking.

Back to topic of how skirmishes are doing, and how people feel about them

EDIT: Question to Anet… what type of data are you looking at with these skirmishes and how are you looking at utilizing it in future. Is there a potential for a 5,4,3 week… or will you implement the catchup feature on the last day? What will that look like?

X T D.6458:

Liston.9708:

X T D.6458:

Hesacon.8735:

X T D.6458:

Gunner Morton.8340:

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Nightcapping happens because of coverage gaps. The need for coverage is still there. Skirmishes changed the scoring system so a server could not simply gain 50k points over one night and end the matchup in one day. Now, even if your server ticks 0 for 2 hours you still get a victory point. It equalizes the scoring for all timezones. Coverage and scoring are not the same issues.

I agree.

This is a great change because it minimizes damage during bad coverage times. Even if you get totally blown out during a certain time slot, you can make up the difference during the next one.

In T3 a lot of skirmishes are really close until the end, being off by as few as 20-50 points. That’s the sort of difference in score that provides urgency to defend something or go attack something, when that couple more PPK or that one camp can’t decide the difference between 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd.

At no other time in wvw’s history has flipping a camp been able to provide as much of a difference in the entire matchup as with this skirmish system. Pushing your server up that one level gives a point that can matter in the final tally.

I think it’s a great change, and the 2 hours is about as long as I can play in one sitting, so it works out really well.

Absolutely, one skirmish last night ended with something like 12 points between us and Maguuma, was exciting to watch lol. It does put more emphasis on prioritizing so you can maximize points during a skirmish. PPK actually becomes important now and can tip the scales of a skirmish because those points matter more in the short skirmishes, 100 kills for example gives 200 points which can be huge in a skirmish.

for the third server, this system is a means of having some control in a match winner as well. Even if you can’t win, you might be able to steal some 2nd places from a server that ends up with the third server winning the week.

I wasn’t sure skirmishes would accomplish much at first, but I do like them now that I have seen them…..

I’ve noticed that as well, its been interesting watching YB this week kind of playing the spoiler/ninja role coming in out of nowhere to take 2nd place in a skirmish. I think the heavy PPT focus of skirmishes will work out good for servers like YB.

It does possibly work the other way too though. We were having decent fights and doing quite well. All of a sudden the fights stopped briefly. Could be for many reasons of course, but the fact we were doing well and it was like 10-15 minutes left in a close skirmish seemed like the other side was protecting ppk for that last slice of a time….

all that said, glicko reset at re-link is more important than any further scoring changes IMHO.

Hexinx.1872:

Gunner Morton.8340:

Hexinx.1872:

Looking at the score evolution of Gunner’s Hold shows, at best … mediocre ppt across the week, only taking the ppt lead once or twice for a very short time (less than 1 skirmish) on the 25th.

This is because the server has 1/4th the population compared to the other 2 servers in the matchups.

So you’re initial comment isn’t a complaint about skirmishes (the thread), it’s just venting frustration at the poor server linking GH ended with (unrelated topic). GH (eu) so to speak seems similar to the DH (na) of past linking. Yet on their relink (DH) they now are doing much better. Some crappy weeks ahead, but could be fixed next linking.

Back to topic of how skirmishes are doing, and how people feel about them

I’m commenting on what I experience ingame, its pretty much impossible to not take into account major population issues caused by ArenaNet when looking at what effect score system changes have had.

Conclusion is the changes are useless if the server gets screwed over with flawed links as several other players here have also noted.

Loving it and this coming from a server that’s at the bottom of T4 atm. Even with the 5guilds on CD we love it. We just want to worry about our skirmish and win it.

Suggestions:
-3hrs on 1 hour off. Or 4 hours on and 2 hours off. Further mitigates Free PPT in dead zone. Don’t reset structures of course. When I mean dead, I mean like there’s only 5 people on the map.
-More metrics related to skirmishes and linked to guilds some how. End of skirmish, let us know how many people we killed, things we capped, etc. A nice recap, give us a trophy to craft in the GH or even a scoreboard.

Liston.9708:

X T D.6458:

Liston.9708:

X T D.6458:

Hesacon.8735:

X T D.6458:

Gunner Morton.8340:

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Nightcapping happens because of coverage gaps. The need for coverage is still there. Skirmishes changed the scoring system so a server could not simply gain 50k points over one night and end the matchup in one day. Now, even if your server ticks 0 for 2 hours you still get a victory point. It equalizes the scoring for all timezones. Coverage and scoring are not the same issues.

I agree.

This is a great change because it minimizes damage during bad coverage times. Even if you get totally blown out during a certain time slot, you can make up the difference during the next one.

In T3 a lot of skirmishes are really close until the end, being off by as few as 20-50 points. That’s the sort of difference in score that provides urgency to defend something or go attack something, when that couple more PPK or that one camp can’t decide the difference between 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd.

At no other time in wvw’s history has flipping a camp been able to provide as much of a difference in the entire matchup as with this skirmish system. Pushing your server up that one level gives a point that can matter in the final tally.

I think it’s a great change, and the 2 hours is about as long as I can play in one sitting, so it works out really well.

Absolutely, one skirmish last night ended with something like 12 points between us and Maguuma, was exciting to watch lol. It does put more emphasis on prioritizing so you can maximize points during a skirmish. PPK actually becomes important now and can tip the scales of a skirmish because those points matter more in the short skirmishes, 100 kills for example gives 200 points which can be huge in a skirmish.

for the third server, this system is a means of having some control in a match winner as well. Even if you can’t win, you might be able to steal some 2nd places from a server that ends up with the third server winning the week.

I wasn’t sure skirmishes would accomplish much at first, but I do like them now that I have seen them…..

I’ve noticed that as well, its been interesting watching YB this week kind of playing the spoiler/ninja role coming in out of nowhere to take 2nd place in a skirmish. I think the heavy PPT focus of skirmishes will work out good for servers like YB.

It does possibly work the other way too though. We were having decent fights and doing quite well. All of a sudden the fights stopped briefly. Could be for many reasons of course, but the fact we were doing well and it was like 10-15 minutes left in a close skirmish seemed like the other side was protecting ppk for that last slice of a time….

all that said, glicko reset at re-link is more important than any further scoring changes IMHO.

It’s interesting in that strategy has factored back in. If you know you’re going to get steamrolled in a fight and fall a slot in the scoring, you’re going to plan accordingly. It removes the “mindless zerging” aspect that has scared away many a pve newcomer.

You can make the decisions now where maybe it’s better to defend camps and protect yaks for 15 minutes than to attack someone. You can set yourself up for the next skirmish so that you’re in a stronger position.

Gunner Morton.8340:

…

Rose coloured glasses man …. I see more people commenting on how they do like it, and offering suggestions to improve or try out some things.

GH is the only server getting crushed due to a reason completely separate from the ‘skirmish’ system. Maybe phrase your suggestion in a more receptive way … such as:

Skirmishing heavily favors servers who can win during a single time slot (or at least it keeps servers competative). On the flip side, if a host server has a terrible linking, there is no way for them to be competative. Is there anything that the skirmish can offer to support a situation where a smaller very underpopulated team (due to poor linkings) has a chance to compete at all? Is there any benefit to a skirmish versus the old system? Will Anet implement anything that can help this situation?

(GH would be crushed even harder in the old system fyi and your comments to date have nothing to do with skirmishing – not the duration, not the scoring… solely linking which is another thread on its own)

Skirmishes are fine as they are, perfect. Server links, on the other hand…let me know when you start that feedback thread.

Well, it’s a definite improvement on what we’ve had for the last four years, no doubt about that. I’m sure it could be tweaked all kinds of ways and it might be interesting to vary duration and detail from match to match, but I’ll certainly settle for it “as is” if that’s what’s on the table.

I would like a few obvious signals as the timer counts down – an audio or visual cue when we hit half-time in a skirmish and, say, ten minutes before the end. It would also be good to have the skirmish score (War Score) on the HUD instead of (or, even better, as well as) the current “Potential Points” counter. There have been a few skirmishes that were close enough at the wire that it actually felt like individual actions might make a tangible difference but I only noticed those when I remembered to check – it would good to have the current standing of the skirmish always in view.

the idea of skirmishes is fine, but the victory point distribution needs to be adjusted. the 3/2/1 distribution doesn’t really prevent a runaway scoring spree, since the 1st place server would essentially be ticking with 50% of all available points for each skirmish. even in off-hours coverage wars, this doesn’t happen often.

instead, consider a different victory point distribution, like 4/3/2, or 5/4/3.

I don’t understand why people are so interested in changing point distribution from 3/2/1 to anything else, the absolute difference between first and last is the same, the only change is how glicko is scored. Adjusting the points to 4/3/2 or 5/4/3 does nothing to change the final results but slows down glicko changes so that bad matchups remain bad matchups for longer.

Not noticed a single thing different than from before!

Still a zerg infected, unbalanced, neglected mode!

We’re getting tired of servers running in 80-man zergs, karma training and then laughing at the 30 people the other server has on at the time.

Or even more pathetic, when your 40-man zerg continuously wipes that 80-man enemy zerg, that the enemy start building ACs everywhere!
But even then you still wipe them, and then they resort to map hopping to take unguarded towers, and then when you come after them, they hop to another map to avoid you!

But of course to get rid of the zerg mentality, Anet needs to spend time, money resources, hire someone with a brain cell etc.

The game mode is dead, we’re all just waiting for another game to come along with large scale fights!

I hear you got a new DLC in the works, is it even gonna have something for WvW? Or will it just have a new trait line which makes it pay-2-win like HoT did?!

I would like to see a beta for different weightings of victory points depending on the time during the day. For example 9, 6, 3 points from 20:00 until 24:00 CEST. From 16:00 until 20:00 CEST 6, 4, 2 points. NA would have different time slots.

Rewards after the end of each skirmish would be nice too.

In principle skirmishes are a good fundament to build up other features like different weightings, rewards, come back mechanics etc.

I think its a good first step, however it still doesn’t do enough to deal with the coverage issue. I really think a scaling system of the value of a skirmish needs to be put in place.

24 hours on each side of Reset are 2x skirmish points.
1st place scales as high kitten points in peak hours or as low as 3 in non peak hours. 2nd scales from 4-2 and 3rd from 3-1.

Peak times should be based on when total game region population (NA/EU) occured the previous week/month/server link timeframe not based on WvW population in any way as that is fairly easily manipulated . The top 3 skirmish times for peak population are peak skirmishes. The 3 skirmishes with the lowest total region population are lowest value. The other 6 skirmishs are worth the middle tier.

So that is 3 peak skirmishes, 6 middle skirmishs and 3 low skirmishes a day with 48 hours of double points at start and end of matchup.

So there is a maximum score of 48 on normal days and 96 on prime days.

Skirmishes are a bit eyewash, isn’kitten (<- sry, but this is not my bad)
Points are counting like before and matchmaking based* on the same old glicko.
Nothing changed so far. I don’t see that any commander on my server is looking for it.

If I press “B” ingame I get a bit confused. How does WvW Beginners must feel?

Nightcapping is just a problem if you face servers like Baruch Bay who play mainly at night. This need a fix.
Server merge with an better mechanic against bandwagoning (Population balance). Class balancing is not only important in ESL/PvP…
DBL are still dead.

*since Anet doing the linking every 2 months (nobody voted for it btw) it is complety going wild. Anet don’t see the quality at all.
See FSP, they get linked with 2 other servers to face the French servers in EU. It never happend since last linking. And Anet dictate who have to play against also. In a competion way it is not a bit okay.

Sry, for my bad english.

P.S. And there are still tons of bugs. Bugs who came with HoT are still ingame, means for 11 months. And newer one didn’t get fixed, too.

Buy Some Apples.6390:

Not noticed a single thing different than from before!

Still a zerg infected, unbalanced, neglected mode!

We’re getting tired of servers running in 80-man zergs, karma training and then laughing at the 30 people the other server has on at the time.

Or even more pathetic, when your 40-man zerg continuously wipes that 80-man enemy zerg, that the enemy start building ACs everywhere!
But even then you still wipe them, and then they resort to map hopping to take unguarded towers, and then when you come after them, they hop to another map to avoid you!

But of course to get rid of the zerg mentality, Anet needs to spend time, money resources, hire someone with a brain cell etc.

The game mode is dead, we’re all just waiting for another game to come along with large scale fights!

I hear you got a new DLC in the works, is it even gonna have something for WvW? Or will it just have a new trait line which makes it pay-2-win like HoT did?!

That is a server population issue,
skirmishes was introduce to stop a group of 5-10 who deliberately decide to play in the hours no one is on (2-3am in the morning) and thus end up determining the outcome of the match up.

I didn’t like it and I feel it was a big waste of limited developer resources. Sort of like putting a bumber sticker on a half broken car, instead of actually fixing the car.

Skirmish system complicates the scoring, yet offers very little benefits besides slightly dampening the effect of off-peak time capturing. Now often there is situation that the point gap within the skirmish is grows so large that it the last hour of the skirmish doesn’t matter any more. Thus players can as well stop playing for points and this leads to lower activity.

We still have no incentives (in scoring) for the #2 and #3 to team up against the winner. There are still big point differences e.g. winner getting twice more skirmish points than the loser are very common (at least for Desolation, probably because of the huge population differences vs opposing servers).

If you want to change the scoring, think about these things:
- give the underdog some realistic chances of come back (old system and skirmish offer none, the matches are still decided way too early)
- make outnumbered actually count e.g. so that the other two servers do NOT get any server points killing players on the outnumbed side (but still get WXP)
- focus on better rewards and better skill/profession balance and fixing the lag and population issues instead. If you can fix these, then there will be much more players = more big fun fights
- remember to keep it simple, stupid (often less complex is better)

Hesacon.8735:

I don’t understand why people are so interested in changing point distribution from 3/2/1 to anything else, the absolute difference between first and last is the same, the only change is how glicko is scored. Adjusting the points to 4/3/2 or 5/4/3 does nothing to change the final results but slows down glicko changes so that bad matchups remain bad matchups for longer.

At the moment, top server gets same amount of points as two other servers summed up. Changing scores to 4/3/2 would bring it more together, make each skirmish much more important, hoarding points at the beggining wouldn’t mean as much as it does now since it would be much easier to catch up.
Overall, I really like the idea, but I hope UI will get some redesigning. It’d be cool to get some small reward for each place, like reward track potions.

And if Anet wants constructive feedback, they should check the forums from 3 years ago! From when the entire community was making threads on how they thought to improve WvW, but Anet ignored!

I like skirmishes when compared to the total war score method previously used. I still don’t see how 5/4/3 points per skirmish is different from 3/2/1. If you use the higher amounts, you are effectively adding a 3/2/1 differential on top of giving everyone a flat 2 points per skirmish. The differential is what has to be overcome when a server wants to beat another, and that would still be reflected by what we have now.

I ran a quick 10 skirmish model of how 5/4/3 would work as opposed to 3/2/1…the end results still left the net point difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd the same. The only difference was the overall numbers were larger with the 5/4/3 method, but 2nd and 3rd place still had the same net points to catch up to tie for 1st, and it would have taken the same number of skirmishes in either situation to do so.

I think the skirmish system is a step in the right direction with a few changes needed.

First off I don’t think upgraded things should be worth more because this helps night capping because they flip things and then it upgrades for 6 hours before the other servers get back on and finally start to try and take it back which takes time and those servers will still be loosing matchups because all there stuff is paper and even though they may start to own more it is worth less points.

Second recommendation I have is like some sports to balance out the matchups they have handicaps like in bowling or golf. My recommendation would be take the top place server in each matchup and for every 5 glicko the other servers are behind them they get 1 victory point. So like this week in T1 NA:

Current Scores would be:
Maguuma – 102+ (2065-2037/5) = 107.6
Blackgate – 98
Yaks Bend – 73+ (2065-1877/5) = 110.6

Now there is still 3 days to go but clearly this brings the lowest server back into the matchup and gives them a chance.

Third thing is I agree there should be rewards at end of skirmish that you play in, but just like the reward you get at the beginning of each reset for the last week score you shouldn’t need to be on at the end of skirmish to get the reward. It would suck to play for an hour and 50 minutes and have to leave before skirmish is over and get no reward. I already see enough people afk waiting for the end of 5 minute ticks for the rewards track points or even leave the character there until the game kicks them out to get reward track points from several ticks before it degrades to them getting no points.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

On September 9th we added Skirmishes to the game. Now that everyone has had a chance to play them, what are your thoughts on Skirmishes? If there is anything, what would you like to see changed/added?

Skirmishes are good.

Skirmish currency and purchasable rewards?

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Changing the number of Victory Points (VP) awarded for Skirmish placement is something we are considering. So far we’ve intentionally held off changing the live values (3/2/1), to avoid altering too many variables at once. First, we wanted to see how, if at all, WvW play patterns would evolve just with the addition of Skirmish scoring, before making any further iterations on specific VP values. That said, internally, we’ve been graphing-out current match results, using various sets of adjusted VP scoring to see how, if at all, existing match results would change when scored using updated values. We have also been investigating if adding something like a time-of-day or population-based scoring multiplier would have any noticeable impact on match results. For those interested, so far it hasn’t. Worlds who have been winning are still winning even if we added the time-of-day multiplier, but we will continue to evaluate if it will make a difference.

Time of day score calculations kind of defeat the purpose of skirmishes in the first place and would be counterproductive. It is not fair to add more weight or diminish the significance of players contributions simply because they play during a certain timezone. The nice thing about skirmishes is that it equalizes all time zones in regards to scoring, changing it to be based on time of day just flat out contradicts that.

Population based scoring would be easily manipulated and just encourage people to not play on maps, not to spread out, and all basically stack on one map, again basically contradicting the way skirmishes are affecting play styles. Coverage is an entirely different problem which is causing those issues you and others have mentioned, scoring changes need to be kept separate. Sometimes it is better to keep things simple.

Honestly one of the biggest factors affecting matchups is that there is no reason to win, aside from keeping your servers place in a tier, but many people simply don’t really care about that anymore because of world linking and the increased glicko volatility. Many players simply dont care enough about grinding ppt and getting nothing out of it, especially when there is a really good chance they might be thrown into an unbalanced matchup the following week where either they are outnumbered all week or they are matched against 2 weaker servers.

You can see the increased activity levels and players putting in overtime when they wanted to rise up in tiers, can see this with Maguuma currently, we saw this with TC, YB, JQ, and TC. But aside from that, without any proper reward structure for server placement many will not put in the effort to grind ppt when it could actually negatively effect their server because of glicko.

Its seems to me that the skirmishes have done little to fix any imbalances.

I’ve attached a couple charts that show that scoring follows the same trend as warscore and, in general, extends the advantage of the stronger server and the disadvantage of the weaker server.

It offers virtually no night capping correction and the only time it is relevant is in very tight matches (i.e. Riverside vs Desolation last week.)

Whether it has improved game play, that is dependent on preference. Those that want to track skirmishes won are probably happy about it, but since objectives are not reset between skirmishes it is pretty much pointless as advantages are carried from one skirmish to the next.

I like the idea that you are essentially replaying matchups with different variables, but linking, link timing, transfers post link, glicko reset at relink may get you farther in providing balanced matches.

People will see right through catch-up gimmicks in scoring anyway….

I like them, they haven’t really solved much beyond making all timezones equal, but they were never going to. It gives my guild something more concrete to aim for on our raids. You could maybe change the points distribution to 2,1,1 to prevent 1 and 2 ganging up to keep 3 down.

Samug.6512:

Hesacon.8735:

I don’t understand why people are so interested in changing point distribution from 3/2/1 to anything else, the absolute difference between first and last is the same, the only change is how glicko is scored. Adjusting the points to 4/3/2 or 5/4/3 does nothing to change the final results but slows down glicko changes so that bad matchups remain bad matchups for longer.

At the moment, top server gets same amount of points as two other servers summed up. Changing scores to 4/3/2 would bring it more together, make each skirmish much more important, hoarding points at the beggining wouldn’t mean as much as it does now since it would be much easier to catch up.
Overall, I really like the idea, but I hope UI will get some redesigning. It’d be cool to get some small reward for each place, like reward track potions.

It changes nothing about the match.

So there are 12 skirmishes in a day, 7 days in a week, and everyone starts with 3 points.

If you swept 1st place the entire week, that’s 12*7*3+3 or 255 points.
If you came in 3rd the entire week, it’s 12*7*1+3 or 87 points.

For a difference of 168 points.

Let’s adjust it so that it’s 4 for first and 2 for second. Now 1st place is 12*7*4+3 or 339 points. For 3rd it’s 12*7*2+3 or 171. The difference then becomes… 168 points.

Okay, so let’s take a look at your “catch-up” game, you got 3rd for 4 days and 1st the final 3 days and someone else did the opposite.

You: 12*4*1+12*3*3+3 = 159 points
Them: 12*4*3+12*3*1+3 = 183 points

For a difference of 24 points.

And adjusting to 4/3/2 you get…

You: 12*4*2+12*3*4+3 = 243 points
Them: 12*4*4+12*3*2+3 = 267 points

For a difference of, you guessed it, 24 points.

You’re not changing the final score at all. All that changing from 3/2/1 to 4/3/2 would do is change how glicko is scored. It would make exactly zero difference towards the match. By changing how glicko is scored, you’re slowing glicko adjustments and keeping bad matchups longer.

Does it help alleviate the problem? Yes . But like Torqued mentioned, it doesn’t really solve the problem per se. It’s putting painkillers on a gun shot wound.

Granted, I think solving the problem of population imbalance is a largely fruitless one unless servers themselves in terms of raw matchups are heavily based around population and player density, and the matchups are constantly shuffled on like a weekly basis to prevent stacking and transferring altogether. Have an AI using neural nets analyze coverage data to create better pairings based on this. I’m wondering if the hand-made selections we’re seeing are the training period to the future of this kind of mechanism, though. We’ll see what the future brings

Some people are arguing PPK matters too much now and the high PPK is removing the incentive from doing anything outnumbered. I’m not really sure if this is so true.

The real, big, obvious problem with WvW, moreso now with the skirmishes and pairings in the mix, is profession/gear imbalance. It’s abysmal, and quite frankly, the single biggest reason why I’m seeing people not stay interested in the format. I know this isn’t in the scope of the WvW team, but this is something that absolutely needs to be pushed as hard as it possibly can; the profession balance and total absurdities in gear and food that came with HoT has pretty much crippled WvW.

Fighting isn’t fun. Large scale, small-scale; it doesn’t matter. The actual main gameplay experience at hand simply isn’t fun. And that’s a HUGE problem, particularly in the respect of competitive “unfair” player-determined PvP systems. It’s not the WvW department’s fault so much anymore since you’ve done a good job relenting and fixing problematic design implementations like guild buffs (the +5 supply upgrade should be made very cheap, however, as to promote new guilds getting into the format and give the mode some sustainability since if a big name dies out or quits, many become discouraged without increased supply).

The new profession/elite specialization mechanics aren’t fun. We shouldn’t be seeing build diversity, even in sPvP (via the removal of stat amulets) because of problem-child classes/mechanics. Having entire zergs running around with permanent all boons and 87% damage reduction isn’t fun. These are problems specifically on the profession-end that totally break WvW and cannot be fixed unless addressed. It doesn’t matter how good the matchmaking is or how much hard work you guys put in to fix WvW in its fateful hours if there isn’t a huge push to bring back the vitality of diversity we had before HoT released.

I can confidently say now that without major profession/spec adjustments, the game mode will not see improvement. Every single player I personally know who has stopped WvW’ing in recent months has done so due to profession imbalance and gimmicky mechanics, and the lack of fun and interesting combat in GW2 as a whole. Something needs to change, and it needs to change fast.

No “catch-up” mechanics via scoring please.

Something that makes you notice the ending of the skirmish better. Who won. Maybe better timer. Subtle things that would make people pay attention more.

Also I think new skirmish could reset camps. Again emphasising seperate sections and equalizing the field and action for start of skirmish!

DeceiverX.8361:

The real, big, obvious problem with WvW, moreso now with the skirmishes and pairings in the mix, is profession/gear imbalance. It’s abysmal, and quite frankly, the single biggest reason why I’m seeing people not stay interested in the format. I know this isn’t in the scope of the WvW team, but this is something that absolutely needs to be pushed as hard as it possibly can; the profession balance and total absurdities in gear and food that came with HoT has pretty much crippled WvW.

The new profession/elite specialization mechanics aren’t fun. We shouldn’t be seeing build diversity, even in sPvP (via the removal of stat amulets) because of problem-child classes/mechanics. Having entire zergs running around with permanent all boons and 87% damage reduction isn’t fun. These are problems specifically on the profession-end that totally break WvW and cannot be fixed unless addressed. It doesn’t matter how good the matchmaking is or how much hard work you guys put in to fix WvW in its fateful hours if there isn’t a huge push to bring back the vitality of diversity we had before HoT released.

I can confidently say now that without major profession/spec adjustments, the game mode will not see improvement. Every single player I personally know who has stopped WvW’ing in recent months has done so due to profession imbalance and gimmicky mechanics, and the lack of fun and interesting combat in GW2 as a whole. Something needs to change, and it needs to change fast.

I think with these you are trying to say profession/spec/gear imbalance is a factor because we actually have only a few of each that are viable, so everyone is running them, that’s all you see and that’s not fun, right?