Guild Wars 2

After nearly two years of play I can say this… the score is about 50% coverage, 45% population, 4% organization and 1% wildcard. Has been this way since launch and is exactly the same today. Pretty much every server has great players, good ones and sucky ones. The distribution seems to be about the same to. If a server is winning, it is likely because of turnout not from skill.

CyRuS.6915:

PPT and fights go hand in hand. My server wants more points for the next tick… to get it, we are gonna have to fight over it and win those fights. Therein lies the fun.

This is quite an old lie. The best way to PPT is to fight as infrequently as possible, to provoke the other two servers into fighting eachother, to take undefended structures, and to camp every structure with arrow carts and trebuchets. When fights over structures actually occur, the best way to win is to try to incorporate siege. There is ~never any cicrumstance in which optimal ppt play and “fair fights” play converge.

Well, for one they should just make blobbing insufficient…

WHY do servers that do PvDoor all day long win the Season? Because the game mode is badly designed.

HOW TO CHANGE WVWVW? (THIS IS A WIP)
- New way of distributing score: multiply score based on how long structure A has been held: this will encourage defending for more score
- Give weekly rewards for match-ups to all players.
- Give empty buildings (to counter PvDoor) npcs that scale with the amount of players inside: nobody inside? Add more npcs and give them the option to use siege weapons, supply and blueprints. This will promote the feel of a vibrant world, and will counter PvDoor.
- Add in risk vs. reward (small scale and guild groups > blobbing)
- Make the amount of objectives x10, and capturing a structure require capping different locations at the same time.
- Make defending rewards similar to the reward for a dungeon run, based on how long you in particular were active in the defense.

King Amadaeus.8619:

The simple thing is that WvW week-by-week is getting to be more and more about fights and less about ppt…You can control fights to an extent, in large part you (individually or as a guild) have little control over PPT in the grand scheme of things.

(Yes that means all those pvdoors are worth very little in the grand scheme, coverage rules wvw in PPT, not skill, not effort).

The game has always been like this. Nothing has changed. Perhaps your perspective is different, but the game is still the same.

PPT has always been about what hundreds, sometime thousands, of other people do. By definition WvW is about worlds, not players, not guilds.

Sirendor.1394:

HOW TO CHANGE WVWVW? (THIS IS A WIP)
- New way of distributing score: multiply score based on how long structure A has been held: this will encourage defending for more score

• I think this one is a good idea

Sirendor.1394:

- Give weekly rewards for match-ups to all players.

• Please expand on this. Do you mean ALL players? Or people who did enough in WvW to earn these rewards? Are these rewards the same as the chest(s) we all get every week?

Sirendor.1394:

- Give empty buildings (to counter PvDoor) npcs that scale with the amount of players inside: nobody inside? Add more npcs and give them the option to use siege weapons, supply and blueprints. This will promote the feel of a vibrant world, and will counter PvDoor.

• This one makes no sense. This idea promotes people vacating buildings.
• A better idea would be to have a certain number of NPC guards and spread that number across the number of objectives you own. Thus, if you own fewer buildings, you have more guards at each building. Conversely, as you gain more objectives, each has fewer NPC guards, allowing smaller groups of enemies to attack them more easily.

Sirendor.1394:

- Add in risk vs. reward (small scale and guild groups > blobbing)

• I have two points about this:
• There is no point in rewarding smaller groups (virtually) materially for attacking larger ones. There are already many groups who run small groups and try to take on the skill-less blob. The motivation is already there. FUN.
• It will require a skills rebalance to allow small groups to take on huge blobs and win. At the moment there is an approximate threshold above which a smaller group simply can’t beat a blob, regardless of how much skill they have. I think this is probably working as intended and I’m OK with it.

Sirendor.1394:

- Make the amount of objectives x10, and capturing a structure require capping different locations at the same time.

• I’m not keen on there being more objectives, but I think the structure capping requiring different locations is a great idea from TESO.

Sirendor.1394:

- Make defending rewards similar to the reward for a dungeon run, based on how long you in particular were active in the defense.

1. I don’t see why.
2. This could be a massive gold-inflatory problem. While I can see that your counter being that it would be dependent on how long the defence was, I think this could be exploited far too easily. “Defend-Bots” would definitely be a problem for a number of reasons.

Make Camelot Unchained release !

Nowadays all they care about it PPT, Some servers have really bad wvw guilds… Not gonna name any but some guilds in those servers fully take advantage of the off hours and go cap a bl when the server is 99% asleep because they cant win zerg v zerg in the time when everyone is on and thats sad… Wvw should be fixed to the point where its all about tactics and skill instead of ppt. C’mon ANet you know there are guilds out there in low tier servers that would wreck higher tier guilds in a fair fight.

Hi Svarty, thanks for the response. As I said, it’s a WIP, hardly anything ready for release. I do appreciate debate around what would be better/more efficient, because that’s the only way we can get a change to anything. Here goes!

Svarty.8019:

Sirendor.1394:

- Give weekly rewards for match-ups to all players.

• Please expand on this. Do you mean ALL players? Or people who did enough in WvW to earn these rewards? Are these rewards the same as the chest(s) we all get every week?

1) I ment all “active” wvw players, though I see several things that need elaboration.

a) How to determine who has been active?
I would opt for achievement-based. Give WvW players a ‘Match-up reward chest’ per week they play, based on completing achievements that boost your server’s score.

For example possible achievements could be:
- kill 20 dolyaks
- defend 5 structures
- take 15 ruins
- kill 20 sentries
- 20 players killed
- 10 camps taken
- used 100 supplies for repairing
- …

My guess is that there should be an achievement for everything, not with the purpose of completing them all (there shouldn’t be AP given for them), but rather for making sure nobody gets left out, whatever way they play WvW (albeit small scale, taking keeps, doing GvG…).

Rewards could then scale:
- Completed 3 achievements: Tiny Server Cache
- Completed 6 achievements: Small Server Cache
- Completed 9 achievements: Medium Server Cache
- Completed 12 achievements: Large Server Cache

This would eliminate abusing the system, because you’ll actually need to play the game for it.

Svarty.8019:

Sirendor.1394:

- Give empty buildings (to counter PvDoor) npcs that scale with the amount of players inside: nobody inside? Add more npcs and give them the option to use siege weapons, supply and blueprints. This will promote the feel of a vibrant world, and will counter PvDoor.

• This one makes no sense. This idea promotes people vacating buildings.
• A better idea would be to have a certain number of NPC guards and spread that number across the number of objectives you own. Thus, if you own fewer buildings, you have more guards at each building. Conversely, as you gain more objectives, each has fewer NPC guards, allowing smaller groups of enemies to attack them more easily.

I saw the weakness in people leaving buildings because that way they can keep them, but I don’t know how else to prevent people from capping empty things all the time. I really hate the people that ruin WvW by karma-training.

You all have heard the stories about commanders saying “Yo, we don’t need you defending that structure, come join our zerg here cause it’s more rewarding to simply take things, we’ll just run in circles and cap things back once the enemy is gone.”
That’s really just degenerate and kittened. Come on, are we hamsters?

One thing I know is that if you added guards like these (in the current situation) hamster-people would be fighting ‘something’, and that’s really better than kicking in doors and killing the champ in 5 seconds, then moving on and on in a never-ending circle of loot.

Your suggestion, while interesting would not really change anything. It certainly wouldn’t stop the hamsters, because there are 2 guards more outside the gates.
Maybe if you combined your idea + guards that can use siege, it could work.

There are likely better ways to counteract PvDoor: rewards drop based on number of players that were involved in the defense.
5 defending vs. 50 attacking
>[less rewards than]<
20 defending and 50 attacking

Svarty.8019:

Sirendor.1394:

- Add in risk vs. reward (small scale and guild groups > blobbing)

• I have two points about this:
• There is no point in rewarding smaller groups (virtually) materially for attacking larger ones. There are already many groups who run small groups and try to take on the skill-less blob. The motivation is already there. FUN.
• It will require a skills rebalance to allow small groups to take on huge blobs and win. At the moment there is an approximate threshold above which a smaller group simply can’t beat a blob, regardless of how much skill they have. I think this is probably working as intended and I’m OK with it.

I do agree that it is a lot more fun to do small scale as compared to autorunning and tabbing out behind a pug-commander (one of my friends was autorunning, steering into tower/keep/camp capture areas and chatting with 3 friends via whispers meanwhile).

I’m not saying that small groups should be given an advantage over big blobs, because that’s where risk-reward comes in. The chance that 5 win against 20 is small, but it happens.

+ see next post (okay wait, 10 minutes before I can post again…)

Problem with GW2 combat is this:

50 vs. 50 is usually a blob fight that is over in 30 seconds.

• if everyone gets around 50% chance to get a loot bag off a person, that’s 25 loot bags x 50 = 1250 loot bags

Now look at a fight I have had one time: 3 vs 10 fight took us 5+ minutes with constant retreating, might stacking, luring, CC-ing, healing eachother, stomping etc: basically very heavy action;

• slightly higher loot bag ratio (75%) because less people to share tag with
• 7,5 bags x 3 = 22,5 bags for 5+ minutes of fighting

My point: rewards are not balanced, and slightly bigger rewards should be given for smaller number fights, because 50 man combat always resorts into a lootbag massacre based very much on luck and having good people with you in your zerg, where anything below 10 is a strategic, hard fight that requires personal skill to win.

Svarty.8019:

Sirendor.1394:

- Make the amount of objectives x10, and capturing a structure require capping different locations at the same time.

• I’m not keen on there being more objectives, but I think the structure capping requiring different locations is a great idea from TESO.

Yeah i’m not sure where I got the idea for making more objectives… I think diversity.
Fighting on different places at the same time is a must indeed if you want any good PvP experience, glad you agree.

Svarty.8019:

Sirendor.1394:

- Make defending rewards similar to the reward for a dungeon run, based on how long you in particular were active in the defense.

1. I don’t see why.
2. This could be a massive gold-inflatory problem. While I can see that your counter being that it would be dependent on how long the defence was, I think this could be exploited far too easily. “Defend-Bots” would definitely be a problem for a number of reasons.

• Because defending at the moment is by most people ignored. I don’t think that the above karma-circling is what WvW should be. It’s a disgrace.
• I do think rewards for PvP should be at least the same or higher than rewards for a PvE (lol) dungeon. I agree that GW2’s system is bad: running past a structure then tagging an enemy while in the radius is enough to give you the reward for it. I’m sure there are ways to measure damage dealt, % gate repaired, siege built and used.

At the end of the day without points then wvw would not work… it would simply become like eotm… guilds will try and do pvp but they would just get wiped out by the karma blob.

The people who play for points make wvw work because they defend objectives… without people defending and building siege then the game would just be constant pvd and fights would become rarer and rarer.

It is not a question of wvw is about fights not points or that it is about points not fights… it is about both. Points and people willing to defend for points makes wvw work. People who just fight open field and do nothing else are basically leeches. The game requires balance in play… and everyone should take a bit of time to defend, build siege and scout so that everyone gets a chance to go out and fight. Otherwise the game will descend into eotm karma train pvd.

Give it up already… WvW is never about just fights. It’s a place that was intended for casuals and guilds to play the game for their world which equates to points. Fights doesn’t prove a server is good or not, just the few in a particular guild if any. GvG would be about fights and that part has already been abandoned as Anet don’t see much money to be made there. SPVP would be the closest to anything resembling a fight. And sooner or later, those who plays the game about fights gets burnt out too. The major disappointing factor is the lack of recognition/stats of guilds that contributes to the home world for the victory. It’ll probably bring out more guilds if they can see what each guild did for the server… But typically, I only notice dying servers or guilds saying they play for fights. It’s a sign that they’ll be going away soon…

PPT is still the best method to structure wvw.
Removing it will make lots of the current elements pointless: Structures, the whole supply system, scouting, organization of your server regarding play times and maps, most of the traits system, upgrading, all the skill and experience in placing siege correctly and efficiently etc.

All that will be left without PPT and everything that comes from it will be just a very simple MOBA. If you want one, play one, but dont destroy WVW.

I’ve watched quite a few GvG fights in OS when ive been dueling there and tbh it just looks like 2 hammer trains surging backwards and forth. The only interesting stuff occurs on the periphery of the fight where the thieves/dps are operating trying to pick off anyone that drifts too far from the melee ball. And then getting countered by enemy thieves/dps.

Im sure in the main hammer train groups there is a condi battle waging but it all seems a bit meh to me.

Definitely arguable if those 20 man GvG blobs smashing into each other is the epitome of skilled gameplay.

Is PPT flawed, yes, but a metric is required as not everyone wants to GvG. Having said that im not sure why an arena instance wasnt built into the game so people could take their 20v20 GvG’s there and slug it out.

Chorazin.4107:

I’ve watched quite a few GvG fights in OS when ive been dueling there and tbh it just looks like 2 hammer trains surging backwards and forth. The only interesting stuff occurs on the periphery of the fight where the thieves/dps are operating trying to pick off anyone that drifts too far from the melee ball. And then getting countered by enemy thieves/dps.

Im sure in the main hammer train groups there is a condi battle waging but it all seems a bit meh to me.

Definitely arguable if those 20 man GvG blobs smashing into each other is the epitome of skilled gameplay.

Is PPT flawed, yes, but a metric is required as not everyone wants to GvG. Having said that im not sure why an arena instance wasnt built into the game so people could take their 20v20 GvG’s there and slug it out.

Wouldn’t make a bit of difference, the anti-ppt’ers would still be here in the forums trying to get ANet to change the entire game to fit their singular viewpoint.

Chorazin.4107:

I’ve watched quite a few GvG fights in OS when ive been dueling there and tbh it just looks like 2 hammer trains surging backwards and forth. The only interesting stuff occurs on the periphery of the fight where the thieves/dps are operating trying to pick off anyone that drifts too far from the melee ball. And then getting countered by enemy thieves/dps.

Im sure in the main hammer train groups there is a condi battle waging but it all seems a bit meh to me.

Definitely arguable if those 20 man GvG blobs smashing into each other is the epitome of skilled gameplay.

Is PPT flawed, yes, but a metric is required as not everyone wants to GvG. Having said that im not sure why an arena instance wasnt built into the game so people could take their 20v20 GvG’s there and slug it out.

That’s because the game is designed around 5 man teams, I admit that GvG tactics really don’t differ from guild to guild, and the game really doesn’t promote GvG to well.

Even Warhammer had a better system :C

Sirendor.1394:

Now look at a fight I have had one time: 3 vs 10 fight took us 5+ minutes with constant retreating, might stacking, luring, CC-ing, healing eachother, stomping etc: basically very heavy action;

• slightly higher loot bag ratio (75%) because less people to share tag with
• 7,5 bags x 3 = 22,5 bags for 5+ minutes of fighting

The adrenaline rush, excitement and fun you had on those fights is your reward.
If you want better loot rewards, run dungeons not WvW.

Raf.1078:

Chorazin.4107:

I’ve watched quite a few GvG fights in OS when ive been dueling there and tbh it just looks like 2 hammer trains surging backwards and forth. The only interesting stuff occurs on the periphery of the fight where the thieves/dps are operating trying to pick off anyone that drifts too far from the melee ball. And then getting countered by enemy thieves/dps.

Im sure in the main hammer train groups there is a condi battle waging but it all seems a bit meh to me.

Definitely arguable if those 20 man GvG blobs smashing into each other is the epitome of skilled gameplay.

Is PPT flawed, yes, but a metric is required as not everyone wants to GvG. Having said that im not sure why an arena instance wasnt built into the game so people could take their 20v20 GvG’s there and slug it out.

Wouldn’t make a bit of difference, the anti-ppt’ers would still be here in the forums trying to get ANet to change the entire game to fit their singular viewpoint.

Pretty sure these “anit ppters” as you call them, have really only every asked for a different game mode where they can do their GvG’s. I don’t recall a GvGer ever asking anet to change wvw so they can only do GvGs. All they have ever wanted was a separate game mode to do them.

PPT is a tricky issue with wvw, as opposed to open field fighting. Fights are more fun hands down. But ppt and your end week score determines your standing and tier placement. If your server loses, and drops constantly because it focuses only on open field fighting and neglects ppt, your server will start losing guild and players. This has happened time and time again. Recently this happened to my server SoR, which was heavily focused on fights, and had many issues with coverage and ppt. If you simply neglect/remove ppt you might as well remove keeps, towers, camps as they would have no purpose if their is no score. Also how would matchups work. PPT and scoring is in place for a reason. The downside is that it places a tremendous strain on servers to keep up coverage for all timezones and all 4 maps, this often leads to server stacking. And server stacking can create a terrible imbalance in matches, where one server can blob every map during a timezone. When SoR was in t1 we had weak OCX coverage and any points we gained in NA was lost during OCX. So you have the obvious technical nature of PPT and scoring, but then the unfortunate practical downside that affects a large amount of players in a negative way that cant stack their servers to compete with coverage to match ppt.

Personally I feel a healthy balance is the best approach, one simply cant work without the other.

Tie the PPT to the fights.

From a previous post I made in another thread but which relates to this discussion, too:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

1) Players in combat mode may not resurrect defeated allies.

2) The gates of towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle upgraded to the “Fortify” state (T3) can not be damaged by player skills. Only siege weapons can deal damage to these gates.

3) World Score points are awarded to the server which succeeds in capturing an actively defended objective. Actively defended is defined as at least one player who belongs to the world which owns the objective having been present within the objective’s sphere of influence (the “Defend the X” event radius) at any point during the current siege; they do not have to be present at the moment of capture. Each objective awards a base amount of World Score points on capture plus additional World Score points for each completed upgrade built at the objective.

4) No World Score points are awarded to a server for capturing undefended objectives (PvDoor will award nothing).

5) No personal rewards (loot, experience, karma, etc.) are given to players for capturing undefended objectives.

6) The rewards for defeating real players are substantially increased over their current level. World Score points are also awarded for each player defeated in combat by default rather than being an award associated with the Bloodlust Buff.

7) Supply camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle no longer earn World Score points for the owning server unless upgrades are built there. The amount of World Score points earned every 15 minutes (PPT) will scale with the number of upgrades; the more upgrades built, the more PPT an objective earns.

8) For each “Defend the X” event completed at an actively defended supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle, the owning server earns World Score points. In recognition of the fact that the defenders have the advantage, the World Score points awarded will be a fraction of what the attacker would earn on capturing the objective; a 10-to-1 ratio is suggested as a starting point.

For example, if capturing a keep with some upgrades would award 50 World Score points to the attackers, the defenders will earn 5 World Score points for each “Defend the X” event successfully concluded at the keep. This only applies while there are players belonging to the world which owns the keep actively defending it; the owning world earns nothing if there are no players defending the keep during any 3 minute “Defend the X” event.

The above shifts WvW from passive rewards (earning PPT by sitting on empty, unupgraded objectives while PvDooring) to active rewards for engaging in conflict with real players and/or making investments in one’s holdings while also addressing the issues of karma training and zerging.

X T D.6458:

If your server loses, and drops constantly because it focuses only on open field fighting and neglects ppt, your server will start losing guild and players. This has happened time and time again. Recently this happened to my server SoR, which was heavily focused on fights, and had many issues with coverage and ppt.

Personally I feel a healthy balance is the best approach, one simply cant work without the other.

I’m glad someone else realizes the reality of WvW being about fights means the end of guilds and eventually their servers as it stands now. It has happened before and it will happen again. When a server or guild says they are out there for fights, they will crash and burn. Guilds that concentrate too heavily on GvG eventually died out and a new king is crown because there’s really nobody left to fight. Your guild can be the top but the cheapest guild can be #1 once the top guilds falls apart and wither away due to boredom or lack of a true GvG place for them like in GW1 to keep it competitive.

In order for WvW to survive, they will need to really split the GvG out from WvW and seriously look into server consolidations. Megaservers already here whether we like it or not, it’s time to eliminate some of the servers and provide a healthy population for all. Increasing the loot to bring in more casuals and PVE population. WvW should be a place for all and if you build it correctly, they will come. So far, it’s not good enough for PVE populations (loot still lacking) and it’s not good enough for the hardcore PVP’ers (not enough fights).

SleepingDragon.1596:

I’m glad someone else realizes the reality of WvW being about fights means the end of guilds and eventually their servers as it stands now. It has happened before and it will happen again. When a server or guild says they are out there for fights, they will crash and burn. Guilds that concentrate too heavily on GvG eventually died out and a new king is crown because there’s really nobody left to fight. Your guild can be the top but the cheapest guild can be #1 once the top guilds falls apart and wither away due to boredom or lack of a true GvG place for them like in GW1 to keep it competitive.

In order for WvW to survive, they will need to really split the GvG out from WvW and seriously look into server consolidations. Megaservers already here whether we like it or not, it’s time to eliminate some of the servers and provide a healthy population for all. Increasing the loot to bring in more casuals and PVE population. WvW should be a place for all and if you build it correctly, they will come. So far, it’s not good enough for PVE populations (loot still lacking) and it’s not good enough for the hardcore PVP’ers (not enough fights).

Good guilds are leaving GW2 because of PPT and huge mega guilds focusing solely on gaining the best points, stacking together to zerg down everything.

Good guilds are leaving for more reasons then ppt, boredom with gw, the fact that blobbing is out of control, and overuse of siege. All of that can make it difficult for any guild that fields even a decent size say 10-20 people to constantly get facerolled and unable to do anything. WvW is a numbers game, and never has been much about skill, especially in t1.

Schtizzel.5497:

Good guilds are leaving GW2 because of PPT and huge mega guilds focusing solely on gaining the best points, stacking together to zerg down everything.

Your definition of “good” guilds and mine are completely different. Good guilds I would consider a big community type of guild or a guild that fields over 30+ players in WvW. GVG guilds are “NOT” considered good guilds in Guild Wars 2 in my book since GVG does not exists in Guild Wars 2. That only exists in the original Guild Wars.

SleepingDragon.1596:

Schtizzel.5497:

Good guilds are leaving GW2 because of PPT and huge mega guilds focusing solely on gaining the best points, stacking together to zerg down everything.

Your definition of “good” guilds and mine are completely different. Good guilds I would consider a big community type of guild or a guild that fields over 30+ players in WvW. GVG guilds are “NOT” considered good guilds in Guild Wars 2 in my book since GVG does not exists in Guild Wars 2. That only exists in the original Guild Wars.

Just because Anet didn’t create it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, that is a very foolish thing to say. Most of these wvw guilds of yours are GvG guilds, especially in EU. Whether or not you consider it real or not, it is easily one of the most popular things in the pvp scene of GW2.

warriorjrd.8695:

Just because Anet didn’t create it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, that is a very foolish thing to say. Most of these wvw guilds of yours are GvG guilds, especially in EU. Whether or not you consider it real or not, it is easily one of the most popular things in the pvp scene of GW2.

Yes, it exists… but it’s self created or players created. Typically, those guilds who only concentrates on GvG are either dying or smaller guilds. They lost players or drama within happens so they had to reinvent themselves. In EU, they are somewhat different, but in most cases they eventually fade away since Anet had no intentions of supporting them. As for being popular, of course it is. Sometimes it’s fun to trade kills for loot.

X T D.6458:

Good guilds are leaving for more reasons then ppt, boredom with gw, the fact that blobbing is out of control, and overuse of siege. All of that can make it difficult for any guild that fields even a decent size say 10-20 people to constantly get facerolled and unable to do anything. WvW is a numbers game, and never has been much about skill, especially in t1.

I could not disagree more.

blobbing is out of control in eotm and perhaps ebg but not in the borderlands.
20 people – even 10 people can destroy larger numbers if they have a good commander and the people following both know what they are doing and are skilled.
Skill level in t1 (at least in EU) is extremely high… much higher than the lower tiers.

Personally, I think siege is underused in wvw. The majority of players do not know how to place it or use it properly. I also think the game is designed around the use of siege – just look at the traits for proof of why I would think so.

You complain about 10 people being killed by blobs and then complain about the use of siege? Perhaps if the 10 people learned a bit more about siege and having the right traits, then the siege would balance the odds. I would love to have the people with me to set a siege trap to wipe a blob with 10 people… but each server only has a handful of people who know how to use siege properly and they don’t always tend to play at the same time. I would much sooner spend a couple of hours taking a place that is well sieged and defended than pvd.

I said it before… I will keep on saying it… wvw is about both pts and fights… one can’t exist without the other… and everyone should be spending a bit of time doing both so that the game functions at its optimal. A good fun offensive needs a good fun defensive. If nobody is willing to provide a defense then wvw becomes pvd boredom… and that encourages the karma train type players to blob which prevents the guilds fighting. So it is important that the guilds (at least their members) take their turn at providing some of the boring tasks like repairing walls, guarding dollys, building siege, scouting… and helping to defend. If more guilds did such things then there would be more guild fights.

WvW was always the most fun when before set up each guild was tasked with a main objective and a map. Thus there was an objective to take and defend and then a map to expand beyond that objective…. and because the enemy servers were doing the same, it meant there were some spectacular fights over hills, bay, and garrison. Honestly, an open field fight pales in comparison to a 4-6 hour battle for garrison.

SleepingDragon.1596:

warriorjrd.8695:

Just because Anet didn’t create it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, that is a very foolish thing to say. Most of these wvw guilds of yours are GvG guilds, especially in EU. Whether or not you consider it real or not, it is easily one of the most popular things in the pvp scene of GW2.

Yes, it exists… but it’s self created or players created. Typically, those guilds who only concentrates on GvG are either dying or smaller guilds. They lost players or drama within happens so they had to reinvent themselves. In EU, they are somewhat different, but in most cases they eventually fade away since Anet had no intentions of supporting them. As for being popular, of course it is. Sometimes it’s fun to trade kills for loot.

If this is what you really think GvG is about, you need to do some research…

warriorjrd.8695

If this is what you really think GvG is about, you need to do some research…

Did my research and in Guild Wars 1, it does exists and a mode created and supported by Anet. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_vs_guild

In Guild Wars 2, it does not exists and a mode not yet supported by Anet. Try doing the search in wiki.guildwars2.com and hardly any info comes up. It is indeed player created and not fully supported. It’s also organized by players… Yes, been playing Guild Wars 1 for many years prior to Guild Wars 2 and so far there is no official place for GvG. Maybe unofficially people just do it, but it’s not the same and not really a stage like how it is in GW1. Did you ever play GW1? Probably not, that’s why you think GW2 had GvG? I wish it did exists so players can play the game the way it is meant to be and had it official rather than these fan sites coming up with ranks and etc.

SleepingDragon.1596:

warriorjrd.8695

If this is what you really think GvG is about, you need to do some research…

Did my research and in Guild Wars 1, it does exists and a mode created and supported by Anet. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_vs_guild

In Guild Wars 2, it does not exists and a mode not yet supported by Anet. Try doing the search in wiki.guildwars2.com and hardly any info comes up. It is indeed player created and not fully supported. It’s also organized by players… Yes, been playing Guild Wars 1 for many years prior to Guild Wars 2 and so far there is no official place for GvG. Maybe unofficially people just do it, but it’s not the same and not really a stage like how it is in GW1. Did you ever play GW1? Probably not, that’s why you think GW2 had GvG? I wish it did exists so players can play the game the way it is meant to be and had it official rather than these fan sites coming up with ranks and etc.

I’m not saying anet ever supported it, it seems quite the opposite in fact. What I’m saying is that despite that it’s still a popular mode players play, whether official or not. Calling it kill trading or fake is a very ignorant thing to say. No it’s not like GvG in gw1, but it still exists in gw2.

Nymph of Meliai.6739:

X T D.6458:

Good guilds are leaving for more reasons then ppt, boredom with gw, the fact that blobbing is out of control, and overuse of siege. All of that can make it difficult for any guild that fields even a decent size say 10-20 people to constantly get facerolled and unable to do anything. WvW is a numbers game, and never has been much about skill, especially in t1.

[…]Skill level in t1 (at least in EU) is extremely high… much higher than the lower tiers.[…]

As someone who has just moved to T1 from a T4~T5 server, I’m kind of surprised at what I’ve encountered here. The zerg commanders are really good and mostly are better than the majority of the commanders in my former server, but the roamers I’m finding in T1 are really, really, worse than the majority of the roamers in T4~T5.

Roaming in T1 a unique special little flower. Most of the time the people you run into are running builds that are very much not optimal for roaming and are running to the commander somewhere else on the map or are too lazy to swap to a roaming build on the fly for one task only to swap back after that task is done. You also tend to run into a lot of small man groups that kind of put a dampener on solo roaming. No matter how good you are a group of 5 with 2 thieves spamming immob will probably take you out.

The good roamers are there, you just have to hunt a little harder for them or have a group to match their group too.

oPP on BG + other servers, Nevhie’s crew and SADS during SEA on JQ. With TC they are there but there are so many guilds I see from TC, most of which are probably just bank guilds anyway, that I couldn’t name a specific roaming guild, but some TC will definitely kitten you up.

yanniell.1236:

Nymph of Meliai.6739:

X T D.6458:

Good guilds are leaving for more reasons then ppt, boredom with gw, the fact that blobbing is out of control, and overuse of siege. All of that can make it difficult for any guild that fields even a decent size say 10-20 people to constantly get facerolled and unable to do anything. WvW is a numbers game, and never has been much about skill, especially in t1.

[…]Skill level in t1 (at least in EU) is extremely high… much higher than the lower tiers.[…]

As someone who has just moved to T1 from a T4~T5 server, I’m kind of surprised at what I’ve encountered here. The zerg commanders are really good and mostly are better than the majority of the commanders in my former server, but the roamers I’m finding in T1 are really, really, worse than the majority of the roamers in T4~T5.

As I said… T1 EU

I have no knowledge of T1 NA…. I am not able to judge my own server because I never face players who are on it but possibly the most skilled roamers that I do face are from Kodash server… while there are always 1 or 2 skilled roamers on the other servers, consistently Kodash give me the best 1v1 fights followed by JQ.

In terms of commanders there are some very good guild commanders in the mid-tiers and even some in the lower tiers too. But the servers lack coordination, coverage, and the individual skill level of players is not as good those who have at least fought in T1.

Nymph of Meliai.6739:

yanniell.1236:

Nymph of Meliai.6739:

X T D.6458:

Good guilds are leaving for more reasons then ppt, boredom with gw, the fact that blobbing is out of control, and overuse of siege. All of that can make it difficult for any guild that fields even a decent size say 10-20 people to constantly get facerolled and unable to do anything. WvW is a numbers game, and never has been much about skill, especially in t1.

[…]Skill level in t1 (at least in EU) is extremely high… much higher than the lower tiers.[…]

As someone who has just moved to T1 from a T4~T5 server, I’m kind of surprised at what I’ve encountered here. The zerg commanders are really good and mostly are better than the majority of the commanders in my former server, but the roamers I’m finding in T1 are really, really, worse than the majority of the roamers in T4~T5.

As I said… T1 EU

I have no knowledge of T1 NA…. I am not able to judge my own server because I never face players who are on it but possibly the most skilled roamers that I do face are from Kodash server… while there are always 1 or 2 skilled roamers on the other servers, consistently Kodash give me the best 1v1 fights followed by JQ.

In terms of commanders there are some very good guild commanders in the mid-tiers and even some in the lower tiers too. But the servers lack coordination, coverage, and the individual skill level of players is not as good those who have at least fought in T1.

Tiers have absolutely nothing to do with player skill. I consider sfr to be one of the worst servers to find good roaming fights, but alas, there it is in T1. The lower tiers generally have more skilled roamers. The higher tiers generally have larger and more “organized” blobs.

warriorjrd.8695:

Nymph of Meliai.6739:

yanniell.1236:

Nymph of Meliai.6739:

X T D.6458:

Good guilds are leaving for more reasons then ppt, boredom with gw, the fact that blobbing is out of control, and overuse of siege. All of that can make it difficult for any guild that fields even a decent size say 10-20 people to constantly get facerolled and unable to do anything. WvW is a numbers game, and never has been much about skill, especially in t1.

[…]Skill level in t1 (at least in EU) is extremely high… much higher than the lower tiers.[…]

As someone who has just moved to T1 from a T4~T5 server, I’m kind of surprised at what I’ve encountered here. The zerg commanders are really good and mostly are better than the majority of the commanders in my former server, but the roamers I’m finding in T1 are really, really, worse than the majority of the roamers in T4~T5.

As I said… T1 EU

I have no knowledge of T1 NA…. I am not able to judge my own server because I never face players who are on it but possibly the most skilled roamers that I do face are from Kodash server… while there are always 1 or 2 skilled roamers on the other servers, consistently Kodash give me the best 1v1 fights followed by JQ.

In terms of commanders there are some very good guild commanders in the mid-tiers and even some in the lower tiers too. But the servers lack coordination, coverage, and the individual skill level of players is not as good those who have at least fought in T1.

Tiers have absolutely nothing to do with player skill. I consider sfr to be one of the worst servers to find good roaming fights, but alas, there it is in T1. The lower tiers generally have more skilled roamers. The higher tiers generally have larger and more “organized” blobs.

We will have to agree to disagree. I played RoS and I played FSP… playing on SFR gives more challenging and skilled fights. Don’t confuse quantity with quality.

It’s too late to save the PPT meta. They’d have to introduce a new game mode.

PPT isn’t broken nor a joke. Not liking something doesn’t equate broken or a joke. It mean you might want to do something else. You win the game with points because you have to have some metric to measure the level of success. Is it perfect? Not at all. Should they improve? Absolutely! However, don’t try and pretend you have stated a fact when you have merely passed judgement based on personal preferences.

What in my humble opinion is badly broken is people’s attitudes and motivation in this game. If you need to be awarded a loot chest each time you make a step to even want to play I think the game itself isn’t rewarding enough for you and you might want to try something else. The game experience is the reward. If it isn’t…

Also, if the only way you can play is to not play the core game mechanic (points, structures, sieges etc.) then please don’t ruin it for those who like it and at least go play in OS so you won’t handicap a server queue by not only being useless to your server but by preventing some who might want to help to be able to do so.

Yeah, the coverage and population will dictate who will win. That is a fact. However, nothing prevent you to do all you can and measure your success according to how well you managed in the light of impossible odds in the time you were playing. The rest isn’t in your hand so why torture yourself about it? Maybe A-Net could provide a score reflecting all these variables or change the frequency or intensity of the PPT according to how unfair the actual fight is.

I love fights, but conquest is also very fun and I’m not ready to cast aside everything so the wannabe “elitists” can play their little flavor of the moment game. At least try to be constructive and remember that there are other games out there if playing the game is painful for you. Nobody forces you to play.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

PPT isn’t broken nor a joke. Not liking something doesn’t equate broken or a joke. It mean you might want to do something else. You win the game with points because you have to have some metric to measure the level of success. Is it perfect? Not at all. Should they improve? Absolutely! However, don’t try and pretend you have stated a fact when you have merely passed judgement based on personal preferences.

What in my humble opinion is badly broken is people’s attitudes and motivation in this game. If you need to be awarded a loot chest each time you make a step to even want to play I think the game itself isn’t rewarding enough for you and you might want to try something else. The game experience is the reward. If it isn’t…

Also, if the only way you can play is to not play the core game mechanic (points, structures, sieges etc.) then please don’t ruin it for those who like it and at least go play in OS so you won’t handicap a server queue by not only being useless to your server but by preventing some who might want to help to be able to do so.

Yeah, the coverage and population will dictate who will win. That is a fact. However, nothing prevent you to do all you can and measure your success according to how well you managed in the light of impossible odds in the time you were playing. The rest isn’t in your hand so why torture yourself about it? Maybe A-Net could provide a score reflecting all these variables or change the frequency or intensity of the PPT according to how unfair the actual fight is.

I love fights, but conquest is also very fun and I’m not ready to cast aside everything so the wannabe “elitists” can play their little flavor of the moment game. At least try to be constructive and remember that there are other games out there if playing the game is painful for you. Nobody forces you to play.

When the game is decided saturday morning, PPT is broken. The population imbalances completely negate any sort of competition with PPT, which is not what it’s intended to do, thefore it is broken. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

SleepingDragon.1596:

warriorjrd.8695:

Just because Anet didn’t create it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, that is a very foolish thing to say. Most of these wvw guilds of yours are GvG guilds, especially in EU. Whether or not you consider it real or not, it is easily one of the most popular things in the pvp scene of GW2.

Yes, it exists… but it’s self created or players created. Typically, those guilds who only concentrates on GvG are either dying or smaller guilds. They lost players or drama within happens so they had to reinvent themselves. In EU, they are somewhat different, but in most cases they eventually fade away since Anet had no intentions of supporting them. As for being popular, of course it is. Sometimes it’s fun to trade kills for loot.

Emphasis mine. You could have just said you like to zerg with blobby guilds and be done with it dude, you would have at least still seemed reasonable and slightly less ignorant lol.

warriorjrd.8695:

When the game is decided saturday morning, PPT is broken. The population imbalances completely negate any sort of competition with PPT, which is not what it’s intended to do, thefore it is broken. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

The game isn’t always decided by Saturday Morning. I can tell you on my server there have been too many times to count that we have come in to take the lead in the last day or two of a Match. Not to mention you have weekend warriors (those that only play weekends) Which means some matches can won during the week. I find your statement perhaps a bit server specific.

hmsgoddess.3869:

warriorjrd.8695:

When the game is decided saturday morning, PPT is broken. The population imbalances completely negate any sort of competition with PPT, which is not what it’s intended to do, thefore it is broken. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

The game isn’t always decided by Saturday Morning. I can tell you on my server there have been too many times to count that we have come in to take the lead in the last day or two of a Match. Not to mention you have weekend warriors (those that only play weekends) Which means some matches can won during the week. I find your statement perhaps a bit server specific.

Outside of T1 and maybe T2 in EU, that match is usually decided during the weekend. T1 is really the only place PPT actually has competition, anywhere else, it’s often a steamroll or an inevitable win.

warriorjrd.8695:

hmsgoddess.3869:

warriorjrd.8695:

When the game is decided saturday morning, PPT is broken. The population imbalances completely negate any sort of competition with PPT, which is not what it’s intended to do, thefore it is broken. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

The game isn’t always decided by Saturday Morning. I can tell you on my server there have been too many times to count that we have come in to take the lead in the last day or two of a Match. Not to mention you have weekend warriors (those that only play weekends) Which means some matches can won during the week. I find your statement perhaps a bit server specific.

Outside of T1 and maybe T2 in EU, that match is usually decided during the weekend. T1 is really the only place PPT actually has competition, anywhere else, it’s often a steamroll or an inevitable win.

According to the leaderboards on this site my server is T5.

hmsgoddess.3869:

warriorjrd.8695:

hmsgoddess.3869:

warriorjrd.8695:

When the game is decided saturday morning, PPT is broken. The population imbalances completely negate any sort of competition with PPT, which is not what it’s intended to do, thefore it is broken. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

The game isn’t always decided by Saturday Morning. I can tell you on my server there have been too many times to count that we have come in to take the lead in the last day or two of a Match. Not to mention you have weekend warriors (those that only play weekends) Which means some matches can won during the week. I find your statement perhaps a bit server specific.

Outside of T1 and maybe T2 in EU, that match is usually decided during the weekend. T1 is really the only place PPT actually has competition, anywhere else, it’s often a steamroll or an inevitable win.

According to the leaderboards on this site my server is T5.

“Often” “Inevitable win”. Even if your server gets some fair matches, that doesn’t dispute the fact that many other matches have an obvious winner. I like the idea of PPT, I like that week long conquest style game mode, that’s what attracted me to wvw way back when. However I soon realized (through many pointless matchups) that what PPT really comes down to, is not strategy, but population and coverage. The fact a dozen guys could completely erase everything we had worked for the previous day ruined it for me. I started to think “why bother” with upgrading things during the day and putting in effort if it’s just going to be lost later on because we didn’t have coverage.

The fact is, that with a week long match, it is very, very hard to get it to be fair. Sure sometimes you can get a fair matchup, but most times you already know who is going to win without even looking at the score. If a system usually provides unfair matches, or more unfair matches than fair ones, then to me that is a broken system. And I am far from being alone in thinking that.

warriorjrd.8695:

hmsgoddess.3869:

warriorjrd.8695:

When the game is decided saturday morning, PPT is broken. The population imbalances completely negate any sort of competition with PPT, which is not what it’s intended to do, thefore it is broken. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

The game isn’t always decided by Saturday Morning. I can tell you on my server there have been too many times to count that we have come in to take the lead in the last day or two of a Match. Not to mention you have weekend warriors (those that only play weekends) Which means some matches can won during the week. I find your statement perhaps a bit server specific.

Outside of T1 and maybe T2 in EU, that match is usually decided during the weekend. T1 is really the only place PPT actually has competition, anywhere else, it’s often a steamroll or an inevitable win.

This is the exact reason why you see more people about the fights than the points in lower tiers, the match is often decided within 3 days, so the rest of the week is spent just having awesome fights and crazy antics.

Easy way to go about this, what is exactly is PPT based on? What is the biggest factor in it’s total? If you’ve come to the conclusion that it’s coverage & population, so PPT is based on population and coverage, and the current system of population and coverage is imbalanced and/or broken..

Then PPT is in fact broken, this isn’t debatable. It is fixable however. This isn’t an opinion but complete fact, and an unfortunate reality.

If PPT wasn’t based on population and coverage but more so decided by skill, then you can easily argue that PPT isn’t broken because it’s soley based on what players can do either as individuals or a group.

Yes, 9 times out of 10 wins are decided on the weekend at the moment, this isn’t debatable either. By Monday morning if you want to cycle through all the tiers and venture a guess based on what you see, you will have at least a 90% accuracy rate.

We can test this out in NA right now, based on what we see, here will be the winners this week:

T1: Jade Quarry
T2: Sea Of Sorrows
T3: Dragonbrand
T4: Stormbluff Isle
T5: Devonas Rest (Previous Typo)
T6: Northern Shiverpeaks
T7: Sanctum of Raal
T8: Kaineg

I’m going to tell you right now that at least 7 out of the 8 of those are guaranteed. Only 1 of those is up in the air at the moment (T1), but more than likely, how you see the rankings, is how they will be on Friday.

T5: HoD? Say what? I’ll chalk that up to a typo.

I agree PPT as currently implemented is a joke. And it is all about the fights.

However, there has got to be some goal. Can’t just run around fighting without a point to it.

I think the simplest thing Anet could do is to put in an incentive to attack the winning server.

This would create a closer match and it would create more fights.

DeadlySynz.3471:

Easy way to go about this, what is exactly is PPT based on? What is the biggest factor in it’s total? If you’ve come to the conclusion that it’s coverage & population, so PPT is based on population and coverage, and the current system of population and coverage is imbalanced and/or broken..

Then PPT is in fact broken, this isn’t debatable. It is fixable however. This isn’t an opinion but complete fact, and an unfortunate reality.

If PPT wasn’t based on population and coverage but more so decided by skill, then you can easily argue that PPT isn’t broken because it’s soley based on what players can do either as individuals or a group.

As I’ve posted in several other threads (because I’m a sado-masochist who just LOVES having suggestions fall on the deaf ears of the devs), here are my suggestions for making PPT more about skill than coverage and numbers:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

1) Players in combat mode may not resurrect defeated allies.

2) The gates of towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle upgraded to the “Fortify” state (T3) can not be damaged by player skills. Only siege weapons can deal damage to these gates.

3) World Score points are awarded to the server which succeeds in capturing an actively defended objective. Actively defended is defined as at least one player who belongs to the world which owns the objective having been present within the objective’s sphere of influence (the “Defend the X” event radius) at any point during the current siege; they do not have to be present at the moment of capture. Each objective awards a base amount of World Score points on capture plus additional World Score points for each completed upgrade built at the objective.

4) No World Score points are awarded to a server for capturing undefended objectives (PvDoor will award nothing).

5) No personal rewards (loot, experience, karma, etc.) are given to players for capturing undefended objectives. The current rewards for capturing supply camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle will only be given out when capturing an actively defended objective (per the definition given in #3). To give even greater incentive for attacking actively defended fortifications, perhaps scale up the rewards based on the number of upgrades built at the objective.

6) The rewards for defeating real players are substantially increased over their current level.

7) World Score points are awarded for each player defeated in combat by default rather than being an award associated with the Bloodlust Buff. Maybe even give a bonus for stomps; sending a player to defeat without stomping awards 1 World Score point, stomping awards 2 World Score points.

8) Supply camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle no longer earn World Score points for the owning server unless upgrades are built there. The amount of World Score points earned every 15 minutes (PPT) will scale with the number of upgrades; the more upgrades built, the more PPT an objective earns.

9) For each “Defend the X” event completed at an actively defended supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle, the owning server earns World Score points. In recognition of the fact that the defenders have the advantage, the World Score points awarded will be a fraction of what the attacker would earn on capturing the objective; a 10-to-1 ratio is suggested as a starting point.

For example, if capturing a keep with some upgrades would award 50 World Score points to the attackers, the defenders will earn 5 World Score points for each “Defend the X” event successfully concluded at the keep. This only applies while there are players belonging to the world which owns the keep actively defending it; the owning world earns nothing if there are no players defending the keep during any 3 minute “Defend the X” event.

The above shifts WvW from passive rewards (earning PPT by sitting on empty, unupgraded objectives while PvDooring) to active rewards for engaging in conflict with real players and/or making investments in and defending one’s holdings while also addressing the issues of karma training and zerging.

It also recognizes the efforts of defenders and open-field PvP-ers by giving them the means to directly contribute to their server’s World Score (sorry builders, escorters, and scouts; I’m still thinking of ways to have your efforts recognized, as well).

A poster in one of those threads critiqued point #5 as being punitive to soloists and small roaming parties. I agreed and wrote a revision which scales rewards based on the number of players present when capturing an objective (the intent being to reward skill and effort rather than numbers).

Johje Holan.4607:

T5: HoD? Say what? I’ll chalk that up to a typo.

I agree PPT as currently implemented is a joke. And it is all about the fights.

However, there has got to be some goal. Can’t just run around fighting without a point to it.

I think the simplest thing Anet could do is to put in an incentive to attack the winning server.

This would create a closer match and it would create more fights.

Indeed correct, HoD was a Typo, I meant Devonas Rest

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

DeadlySynz.3471:

Easy way to go about this, what is exactly is PPT based on? What is the biggest factor in it’s total? If you’ve come to the conclusion that it’s coverage & population, so PPT is based on population and coverage, and the current system of population and coverage is imbalanced and/or broken..

Then PPT is in fact broken, this isn’t debatable. It is fixable however. This isn’t an opinion but complete fact, and an unfortunate reality.

If PPT wasn’t based on population and coverage but more so decided by skill, then you can easily argue that PPT isn’t broken because it’s soley based on what players can do either as individuals or a group.

As I’ve posted in several other threads (because I’m a sado-masochist who just LOVES having suggestions fall on the deaf ears of the devs), here are my suggestions for making PPT more about skill than coverage and numbers:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

1) Players in combat mode may not resurrect defeated allies.

2) The gates of towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle upgraded to the “Fortify” state (T3) can not be damaged by player skills. Only siege weapons can deal damage to these gates.

3) World Score points are awarded to the server which succeeds in capturing an actively defended objective. Actively defended is defined as at least one player who belongs to the world which owns the objective having been present within the objective’s sphere of influence (the “Defend the X” event radius) at any point during the current siege; they do not have to be present at the moment of capture. Each objective awards a base amount of World Score points on capture plus additional World Score points for each completed upgrade built at the objective.

4) No World Score points are awarded to a server for capturing undefended objectives (PvDoor will award nothing).

5) No personal rewards (loot, experience, karma, etc.) are given to players for capturing undefended objectives. The current rewards for capturing supply camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle will only be given out when capturing an actively defended objective (per the definition given in #3). To give even greater incentive for attacking actively defended fortifications, perhaps scale up the rewards based on the number of upgrades built at the objective.

6) The rewards for defeating real players are substantially increased over their current level.

7) World Score points are awarded for each player defeated in combat by default rather than being an award associated with the Bloodlust Buff. Maybe even give a bonus for stomps; sending a player to defeat without stomping awards 1 World Score point, stomping awards 2 World Score points.

8) Supply camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle no longer earn World Score points for the owning server unless upgrades are built there. The amount of World Score points earned every 15 minutes (PPT) will scale with the number of upgrades; the more upgrades built, the more PPT an objective earns.

9) For each “Defend the X” event completed at an actively defended supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle, the owning server earns World Score points. In recognition of the fact that the defenders have the advantage, the World Score points awarded will be a fraction of what the attacker would earn on capturing the objective; a 10-to-1 ratio is suggested as a starting point.

For example, if capturing a keep with some upgrades would award 50 World Score points to the attackers, the defenders will earn 5 World Score points for each “Defend the X” event successfully concluded at the keep. This only applies while there are players belonging to the world which owns the keep actively defending it; the owning world earns nothing if there are no players defending the keep during any 3 minute “Defend the X” event.

The above shifts WvW from passive rewards (earning PPT by sitting on empty, unupgraded objectives while PvDooring) to active rewards for engaging in conflict with real players and/or making investments in and defending one’s holdings while also addressing the issues of karma training and zerging.

It also recognizes the efforts of defenders and open-field PvP-ers by giving them the means to directly contribute to their server’s World Score (sorry builders, escorters, and scouts; I’m still thinking of ways to have your efforts recognized, as well).

A poster in one of those threads critiqued point #5 as being punitive to soloists and small roaming parties. I agreed and wrote a revision which scales rewards based on the number of players present when capturing an objective (the intent being to reward skill and effort rather than numbers).

+1 by me Kraag.

the ppt is not broken at all . it needs upgrade and fixes.

warriorjrd.8695:

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

PPT isn’t broken nor a joke. Not liking something doesn’t equate broken or a joke. It mean you might want to do something else. You win the game with points because you have to have some metric to measure the level of success. Is it perfect? Not at all. Should they improve? Absolutely! However, don’t try and pretend you have stated a fact when you have merely passed judgement based on personal preferences.

What in my humble opinion is badly broken is people’s attitudes and motivation in this game. If you need to be awarded a loot chest each time you make a step to even want to play I think the game itself isn’t rewarding enough for you and you might want to try something else. The game experience is the reward. If it isn’t…

Also, if the only way you can play is to not play the core game mechanic (points, structures, sieges etc.) then please don’t ruin it for those who like it and at least go play in OS so you won’t handicap a server queue by not only being useless to your server but by preventing some who might want to help to be able to do so.

Yeah, the coverage and population will dictate who will win. That is a fact. However, nothing prevent you to do all you can and measure your success according to how well you managed in the light of impossible odds in the time you were playing. The rest isn’t in your hand so why torture yourself about it? Maybe A-Net could provide a score reflecting all these variables or change the frequency or intensity of the PPT according to how unfair the actual fight is.

I love fights, but conquest is also very fun and I’m not ready to cast aside everything so the wannabe “elitists” can play their little flavor of the moment game. At least try to be constructive and remember that there are other games out there if playing the game is painful for you. Nobody forces you to play.

When the game is decided saturday morning, PPT is broken. The population imbalances completely negate any sort of competition with PPT, which is not what it’s intended to do, thefore it is broken. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.

I had understood perfectly your POV. but you apparently didn’t read much of of what I said. I explicitly said coverage and population will decide who win. My point is, look at how much you score when you play and stop worrying about the overall score accounting for when you don’t. Beside, most of the time the population imbalance isn’t in effect all around the clock and you can see how well your server does when population numbers are closer or how well you still manage to do when you are clearly outgunned. Yes the system can and should be improved, but the attitude of a lot of players also could.

Looks like I was right, exactly 7 out of the 8 matches were decided on the weekend, so yes, PPT is in fact broken.