Guild Wars 2

This is another one of those “change PPT” threads. Right now, PPT is worth X value for the life of that objective at that tiering. You hold an objective of a certain tiering, that value will never change, e.g. you hold SMC at T3, you’ll always get 30 PPT until you lose SMC.

What I’d like to suggest is a decay of that value where by if you hold an objective at T3 for N period, the value drops by Y. E.g. standard PPT increase from SMC T0 (12 PPT) to T3 (30 PPT). After a hypothetical 45 minutes of holding SMC at T3, PPT falls to 28. And if you want to take it further, PPT could fall even more over time until some defined baseline is reached.

The defined ‘baseline’ may still be worth more than the next level down objective, so SMC at T3 may never go below 21 PPT at the current PPT schedule.

If the ‘baseline’ is +1 PPT of the T2 PPT value, Camp PPT may need to be adjusted since those are currently 2, 3, 4, 5 depending on tiering. One thought might be to adjust Camp PPT to 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 with a decay to 5.

This would allow servers not as focused on PPT to narrow the score gap somewhat during a skirmish.

Thoughts? Too complex? Dumb idea? Would NSP hate it?

Just get rid of new PPT system and revert it back to the old one, problem solved.

I have played with that idea before, problem is it become complicated very fast. I definetly dont like tier bonuses because they are huuuuuuuge currently.

I would personally propose an incredibly simple idea that give players more control of any extra PPT:
- Each tier on all objectives gives +1 PPT to their worth
- Each tier on connected camps give +1 PPT to their connected objective worth.

Two rules and thats it. No algorithms, no timeframes for decay, just instant values at any given point.

Bay in this example would get for example 10 (base) +4 (max on its own at T3) +8 (max with two T3 camps).

How you “decay” PPT is to control the lands… IE WvW.

I disagree with this option.

Since WvW is (officially) focused on objectives, their capture, their upgrade, and their defence, whatever mechanic that’d make a server wish they were flipped is to be dismissed. I’m feeling sorry about players who don’t like PPT when I’m writing that, but it’s one of WvW central things so…
Then again, I’m not saying the current numbers are fine and shouldn’t be tweaked.

Dawdler.8521:

I would personally propose an incredibly simple idea that give players more control of any extra PPT:
- Each tier on all objectives gives +1 PPT to their worth
- Each tier on connected camps give +1 PPT to their connected objective worth.

Two rules and thats it. No algorithms, no timeframes for decay, just instant values at any given point.

I came up with a similar idea some months ago, with a scoring system bound to land occupation
To sum it up, it was :

• Each objective is worth a given area, related to what tier it is ;
• As objectives grow in tiers, they eventually connect, making bigger areas
• Objectives held by opposing servers and next to each other would make a malus
• The biggest area of each map is worth bonus points.

One of the expected advantages is to provide more room for side mechanics.

On a related topic, one thing that I’d enjoy to see is : make objective provide PPT only when virtous indignation is off. I bet that some camp wouldn’t give that many points in a week ! I should open a whole thread on this…

I just came here to say I disagree with this idea before some Anet representative comes to say “We got support for point decay system so we’re going to implement it”.

Zenith.6403:

I just came here to say I disagree with this idea before some Anet representative comes to say “We got support for point decay system so we’re going to implement it”.

Considering that the latest changes to the scoring was increasing the PPT by holding objectives, I hardly belive they would take up an idea that go against that.

This is an interesting idea, but does it deal with any of WvW’s problems?

What I’m seeing is;

• a whole lot of single-server-dominance, and
• no incentive or weakness in which to attack the dominator

How does this idea deal with that?