Guild Wars 2

I like 2,1,1 taken from face value because it forces the top dog to be the focus and not third place.

Won’t make a difference because the easiest way to get those two points is still focus the weakest server.

Ben K.6238:

Won’t make a difference because the easiest way to get those two points is still focus the weakest server.

Nope easiest way is for 2 and 3 to 2v1 1.

1 and 2 won’t 2v1 3 because 1 and 2 will share the ppt therefore 2 won’t gain.

The minute 2 tries to focus 3 alone 1 will focus 2 to protect themselves.

1st scenario is far more likely under a 2,1,1 system.

morrolan.9608:

1st scenario is far more likely under a 2,1,1 system.

Until there is a better Skirmish UI, the generic player will have no clue about any of this.

Chaba.5410:

morrolan.9608:

1st scenario is far more likely under a 2,1,1 system.

Until there is a better Skirmish UI, the generic player will have no clue about any of this.

But the generic player enters WvW, sees they have the “outmanned” buff, doens’t see a tag on the map and knows that it might be more fun to play another game.

Swamurabi.7890:

But the generic player enters WvW, sees they have the “outmanned” buff, doens’t see a tag on the map and knows that it might be more fun to play another game.

^^ This! ^^

Removal of the outnumbered “buff” won’t solve the problem either as players will very soon notice that there are only few of them. If there is no popular commander present, most casual players just go to do something else.

All this discussion of Skirmish is points is rather fruitless and bad allocation of limited developer resources. None of it matters. If they change scoring from 3-2-1 to 2-1-1 or 4-3-2 etc. It will still lead to same situation. Servers which are outnumbered almost all the time, will have impossible task to recover. Matches will still be decided way too early and most players will stop playing for points after the weekend. There is no comeback mechanism (in fact the old scoring allowed a bit better comeback).

Servers should be matched based on their total population (tallying in the linked servers as well) or else we are going to have the current situation continue.

It didnt change a thing…. as expected it is the same with smaller values, if the gap get arround 10skirmishes betweem 1st and 2nd, 1st server already won, and this happens most of times 48h after the reset…

Neither links and skirmishes are solving one of the problems this game has…

As a player that came back from before HoT.
It helped ALOT by reducing the impact of the night crew in the score. But the biggest problem, imo, still there: You log in at the start of the day to have to deal with your side of the map tier 1 and the other side on the hand of a single server fully upgraded with tier 3.

It’s not fun to have to start every single day with a handcap for 1~2 hours because your keep is made of paper and the enemy can just send a 10 man team to sneak cap your keep while you are out of yourside of the map.

I would suggest a full reset at a specific time, preferable voted by players from the server, so at that time when your team capture your own keep it instantly get raised to tier 3.

PS: the instant upgrade should only happen ONCE per day, with the timer resetting at a hour that the active wvww players of the server vote. So if your server’s prime time start a 5PM you get your keep at 5 PM and can start your climb back from there, instead of the old get Keep> defend> upgrade the 2 inner towers> start the agression to enemy side

PS2: maybe increasing the numbers to 6,5,4 instead of 3,2,1 may be a good thing. It may be ALOT better for players to log in an see their world losing 600 -400 than losing 300 -100

The difference still the same but the way players deal with it may change.

Chaba.5410:

morrolan.9608:

1st scenario is far more likely under a 2,1,1 system.

Until there is a better Skirmish UI, the generic player will have no clue about any of this.

The generic player doesn’t govern strategy.

morrolan.9608:

Chaba.5410:

morrolan.9608:

1st scenario is far more likely under a 2,1,1 system.

Until there is a better Skirmish UI, the generic player will have no clue about any of this.

The generic player doesn’t govern strategy.

The generic player just want to follow a tag and press 1

morrolan.9608:

Chaba.5410:

morrolan.9608:

1st scenario is far more likely under a 2,1,1 system.

Until there is a better Skirmish UI, the generic player will have no clue about any of this.

The generic player doesn’t govern strategy.

They don’t, but how does that excuse the game mode from lacking an instruction manual? That puts a burden on the experienced players. Mechanics should be designed to be self-evident.

what’s the tick timer right now ? if it is 5 minutes, make it 10. the is already a 5 minutes RI.

morrolan.9608:

Nope easiest way is for 2 and 3 to 2v1 1.

That’s the easiest way for 2 to get the points. It doesn’t give 3 anything, so they’re just going to hit 2 instead because it’s a softer target.

I am curious when rewards for Skirmish completion will be implemented. While the current test has been useful I think it will be difficult to accurately kitten what kind of impact they have without the incentive for people to start playing at the start of the skirmish and end playing at the end of the skirmish.

I would also be interested in seeing with 4/3/2 VP, or possibly 4/2/1 with a population multiplier. Will review this thread some more, but I wonder how “prime-time: winner gets +1 VP” would go.

Hexinx.1872:

Yeah, a few posts later I thought the 2,1,1 would be interesting because the point allocation would be different and it could lead to teaming up on the top dog of the match.. Guess ya missed that!

You made very good arguments there. I too support 2-1-1 system, because it would encourage fighting. It would pretty much solve the coverage problem unless top server has same amount of players as the other two combined. Most importantly it would take frustration off the third place team and hopefully stop players leaving WvW.

Ben K.6238:

Won’t make a difference because the easiest way to get those two points is still focus the weakest server.

No, if you’re 2nd place team you get double benefit from attacking 1st place server. They lose points and you gain them, which makes overtaking leading spot faster. Remember that only the leader gets anything.

Zenith.6403:

Hexinx.1872:

Yeah, a few posts later I thought the 2,1,1 would be interesting because the point allocation would be different and it could lead to teaming up on the top dog of the match.. Guess ya missed that!

You made very good arguments there. I too support 2-1-1 system, because it would encourage fighting. It would pretty much solve the coverage problem unless top server has same amount of players as the other two combined. Most importantly it would take frustration off the third place team and hopefully stop players leaving WvW.

Ben K.6238:

Won’t make a difference because the easiest way to get those two points is still focus the weakest server.

No, if you’re 2nd place team you get double benefit from attacking 1st place server. They lose points and you gain them, which makes overtaking leading spot faster. Remember that only the leader gets anything.

That kind of scoring would actually help to make the top change constantly thru the week, as opposed to now where in 98% of cases the winner is already determined by Sunday morning, making the whole rest of the week pointless except for the PvE only folks to sneak in for easy dailies.

Deniara Devious.3948:

Swamurabi.7890:

But the generic player enters WvW, sees they have the “outmanned” buff, doens’t see a tag on the map and knows that it might be more fun to play another game.

^^ This! ^^
[..]

Servers should be matched based on their total population (tallying in the linked servers as well) or else we are going to have the current situation continue.

That would be a decent first step.

• The next thing to factor in (IMO) is that the worldless bandwagoner population is quite large. Would you expect those players to simply vanish or spread out and settle on different worlds from one another? I wouldn’t.
• Current high-tier servers have reputations. Some worlds are attractive because they have reputations for fights or always being near the top of the ladder.
• Current high-tier servers have many more and/or longer-playtime commanders than lower-tier servers. They would win a match easily because of this.
• Current high-tier servers have night-crews. While slightly less important than before skirmishes, they are still a significant factor.

Ben K.6238:

morrolan.9608:

Nope easiest way is for 2 and 3 to 2v1 1.

That’s the easiest way for 2 to get the points. It doesn’t give 3 anything, so they’re just going to hit 2 instead because it’s a softer target.

How 3 will get anything by hitting 2 if it’s letting 1 win? Your logic is faulty…
If only the winner can get points, people will pile up on fighting the one at the top. You get nothing fighting for second as third will get the same as second.

With 2-1-1 scoring, the problem doesn’t come when there is one strong server and two weaker ones. It comes when there are either 2 strong, one weak. Or one kinda strong, one medium and one kinda weak. In those scenarios both 1 and 2 will gang up on 3 to try and get maximum points.

I think a better idea might be to incentivize attacking the stronger server by giving more points or more rewards for taking their stuff.

Johje Holan.4607:

With 2-1-1 scoring, the problem doesn’t come when there is one strong server and two weaker ones. It comes when there are either 2 strong, one weak. Or one kinda strong, one medium and one kinda weak. In those scenarios both 1 and 2 will gang up on 3 to try and get maximum points.

You don’t get any points unless you overtake the leader. Best way to overtake leader is to attack leader. This is the fundamental point of winner takes it all scoring system.

Two strong servers ticking 300 points each and one weak server ticking 100 points. Strong servers attack weak server. Now both strong servers tick 350 and neither has gained advantage over another.

One strong server ticking 300 points, one midweight server ticking 200 points, one weak server ticking 100 points. Strong and midweight servers attack weak server and split the pot 3-to-2 according to their strength. Now strong server ticks 360 and midweight server ticks 240. Strong server was winning and still is.

Johje Holan.4607:

I think a better idea might be to incentivize attacking the stronger server by giving more points or more rewards for taking their stuff.

That’s what the extra point is.

Zenith.6403:

Johje Holan.4607:

With 2-1-1 scoring, the problem doesn’t come when there is one strong server and two weaker ones. It comes when there are either 2 strong, one weak. Or one kinda strong, one medium and one kinda weak. In those scenarios both 1 and 2 will gang up on 3 to try and get maximum points.

You don’t get any points unless you overtake the leader. Best way to overtake leader is to attack leader. This is the fundamental point of winner takes it all scoring system.

Two strong servers ticking 300 points each and one weak server ticking 100 points. Strong servers attack weak server. Now both strong servers tick 350 and neither has gained advantage over another.

One strong server ticking 300 points, one midweight server ticking 200 points, one weak server ticking 100 points. Strong and midweight servers attack weak server and split the pot 3-to-2 according to their strength. Now strong server ticks 360 and midweight server ticks 240. Strong server was winning and still is.

Johje Holan.4607:

I think a better idea might be to incentivize attacking the stronger server by giving more points or more rewards for taking their stuff.

That’s what the extra point is.

I’ve suggested scoring systems that incentivise attacking the top server, but all of mine rely on a “first place at any one time” metric that I’m not sure exists.

I think it’s important to give a leg-up to the weaker servers to make scores more important in matches, for the simple reason that the gap between each world is bigger than it should be in the current scoring system.

I’m not sure, but it seems that every match is decided by Wednesday. This shouldn’t be the case.

Skirmishes themselves are OK, but they are not enough still to reflect population, and / or population per timezone differences.

As many above have posted I would like to see skirmishes go to 2-3-4 or even 3-4-5 instead of 1-2-3 for the same exact reasons as they did.

Also, there needs to be some sort of scoring adjustment based on outnumbered conditions. And by outnumbered for the score, I mean total players in WVW on all maps per each respective side during any skirmish. The game already has ways to keep track of how many players it has, it knows when map caps are reached and outnumbered buffs activated, so it wouldn’t be very hard to add a few tiered thresholds and some scoring adjustments based of off those.

Tongku.5326:

Also, there needs to be some sort of scoring adjustment based on outnumbered conditions. And by outnumbered for the score, I mean total players in WVW on all maps per each respective side during any skirmish. The game already has ways to keep track of how many players it has, it knows when map caps are reached and outnumbered buffs activated, so it wouldn’t be very hard to add a few tiered thresholds and some scoring adjustments based of off those.

Thats not going to help population disparity it will only drive players away.

If you are going to merge anything, you better merge the other server on us.

No way in the hell i’m trading Gate of Madness for anything else, Dragonbrand? Stormbluff isle?, Sea of Sorrows? wth is that? The burned, the liars and the guys asking for help (SoS).

Gate of Madness FOREVER!

PS: Sea of Madness could work but still not there.

Skirmishes are good. There is more that needs to be done for WvW though. It is extremely difficult to take back your own garrison, 1/3 of ebg when the other team takes it and has 3x the numbers. Green spawn needs more legendary defenders.

Svarty.8019:

• I would advise against developing a system to award more Warscore for holding higher tier objectives as this will reward an already dominant world.

Self-quoting because of the new patch… and…

I love to say I told you so.

Svarty.8019:

Svarty.8019:

• I would advise against developing a system to award more Warscore for holding higher tier objectives as this will reward an already dominant world.

Self-quoting because of the new patch… and…

I love to say I told you so.

One of the goals of skirmishes is to reduce the importance of off-hour coverage (nightcapping). The increase in PPT does the exact opposite. I’m not sure which way ANet wants to go.

Skirmishes make no difference. The same problems, including coverage, still exist. I gave up long ago on caring about scoring or winning.

Works great for stacked servers. Sucks for everyone else.

So, same garbage, different label.

WvW will continue to be a boring zergfest clusterf… until ANET fixes the stacking issue (that they encourage).

Stacking a server and then stacking the pin is all WvW is about. Cheesiest game design ever.