Guild Wars 2

For example:

8:00-8:15: 400 players on all servers combined divided by the maximum number of players (or 2/3 of the maximum or whatever you like). Maximum = 500.

Score Weight Points
TC 200 * 400/500 = 160
JQ 300 * 400/500 = 240
BG 200 * 400/500 = 160

2:00 am 100 players online

TC 100 * 100/500 = 20
JQ 400 * 100/500 = 80
BG 200 * 100/500 = 40

This way the scoring reflects the number of players playing, making it more democratic. It doesn’t have to be completely proportional – you can take some type of logarithm of the score.

Taking Stonemist when 40 people are online should not be accorded the same weight as doing so when 400 are on.

Representation by population!

Not intending to disparage your suggestion as it’s not entirely without merit. It’s just that it’s been suggested before…and before that…and before that, too…and even before that one. I know; I made a suggestion similar to this over a year ago myself. It’s just that there’s no communication forthcoming from the other party or the communication amounts to, “We’re working on something but can’t tell you what it is.”

So we, as players and contributors to the forum, can discuss the pros and cons of your suggestion until the cows come home but will not hear word one from the other party about it. And in that vacuum there can be no confirmation one way or the other about whether your suggestion – or any of the scores of other suggestions made here – will ever be given consideration. It may be discussed for a bit by the players, but will then will fall off the first page and into the abyss. There is no direction, no roadmap, no framework to help guide us in making suggestions that fit with a larger vision.

So watch in despair as suggestions are planted like tiny seeds filled with hope and promise, only to wither and die from neglect. And don’t dare try to resurrect it if it’s longer than 30 days since the last post was made or the Boogie Man will get’cha!

You’d have players harassing up-levels (and anyone else they thought was under performing) so that the PPT-per-player be maximised.

You’d have people telling up-levels, rangers, non-GWEN, roamers, anyone who wasn’t running the approved builds to GTFO.

we we’re told by TC before to get good at recruitment. :P

Yeah, it’s a problem recognized by the players since the 1 week matches were started and not accepted as a problem by ANet since them.
See the thread in my signature for a discussion of it from last winter.

Such scoring ideas have been brought up in the past and I agree with them.

I mean, lets take a moment when its in the middle of the night. Say that green is holding entire border. All sentries, all camps, all keeps, everything. There’s no enemies at all nor will there be any in the next 5 hours.

Why in this situation should they get full ticks from the keeps? Its not even passive defense – there is no defense. There is no activity. They’re just racking up points from their border. So yes, PPT really should scale with players on that specific border. If WvW players choose to only populate EB in the middle of the night (because there’s no population for the borders) then 90% of the score should come from what happens on EB.

Its the same thing as turning of the lights in a room you’re not using, heh. Adjust for coverage.

This has been suggested since beta by myself even. Anet never gave an official response. Not sure why.
I guess there is an potential exploit where everyone jumps out of wvw just before the tick to artificially increase ppt.

Quick Mouse.7635:

I guess there is an potential exploit where everyone jumps out of wvw just before the tick to artificially increase ppt.

Leaving WvW would decrease score. Anyhow, simply take the average population of the tick, not the one at the end of the tick, to disable such manipulations.

Quick Mouse.7635:

I guess there is an potential exploit where everyone jumps out of wvw just before the tick to artificially increase ppt.

If you leave before the tick, you lose score. Points are adjusted follows:

Total players in wvw/maximum players in wvw (or it could be 1/2 or 2/3 of maximum and you could cap the numerator so 2/3 full is treated the same as completely filled)

The losing side might might choose to leave. To avoid this problem, I would calculate the number of players at the beginning of the tick, or at the halfway point.

You could count sub-80’s as 1/2 a player.

One would not calculate the players on individual maps due to map hopping. Total players playing wvw would be used.

The problem with score manipulation is that is simply doesn’t solve the fundamental problem… being out numbered leads to ridiculously sucky fights. PPT is a symptom not the problem.

The problem with this idea is already rearing it’s ugly head in the top tiers (at least in NA); and this idea will make it worse.

There are not enough OCX and SEA players, nor enough NA on EU servers and vice-versa; to create a balanced situation.

Any system that punishes off-hours players is going make those players transfer to servers higher up; with more coverage so their contributions count. This would lead to greater disparities, more sandbagging, and the #4 and #5 servers having a disenfranchised off hours population because #6 wouldn’t have the numbers; but they could not transfer due to FULL conditions at the top.

There is no way this can be implemented that doesn’t disenfranchise people who play in non-primetime hours. Sorry, this game isn’t just for people in the central timezone (NA example) who work 9-5 and play for 3 hours in the evening.

As before, this is a terrible idea. Any suggestion that punishes a server based on the lacking of the other servers is fundamentally flawed.

Samis.1750:

For example:

8:00-8:15: 400 players on all servers combined divided by the maximum number of players (or 2/3 of the maximum or whatever you like). Maximum = 500.

Score Weight Points
TC 200 * 400/500 = 160
JQ 300 * 400/500 = 240
BG 200 * 400/500 = 160

2:00 am 100 players online

TC 100 * 100/500 = 20
JQ 400 * 100/500 = 80
BG 200 * 100/500 = 40

This way the scoring reflects the number of players playing, making it more democratic. It doesn’t have to be completely proportional – you can take some type of logarithm of the score.

Taking Stonemist when 40 people are online should not be accorded the same weight as doing so when 400 are on.

Representation by population!

This, along with many many others is a good idea, the score reflecting populations ideas have been flaunted around since the game launched, unfortunately, dev fail, producer fail, management fail and CEO fail, therefore, you are beating a completely dead horse.

A long while ago there was something called “Community CDI” if I remember correctly, see the archived threads, including dev stickies, check their dates, compare the threads to what has been actually done / accomplished in the are since they got posted.

Draw your own conclusions from that data.

Then this point system is even more flawed, as it would greatly favor the server with more players on.
server A 100 *100/500 = 20 ppt
Server B 500 * 500/500 = 500 ppt
Server C 100 * 100/500 = 20 ppt
This would make population differences insanely dramatic for ppt. Dividing by populations however would make population differences far less dramatic, since each point garnered by the weaker server essentially counts for more. However the population would have to be averaged over time lest the exploit mentioned above be abused.

Chris.3290:

The problem with this idea is already rearing it’s ugly head in the top tiers (at least in NA); and this idea will make it worse.

There are not enough OCX and SEA players, nor enough NA on EU servers and vice-versa; to create a balanced situation.

Any system that punishes off-hours players is going make those players transfer to servers higher up; with more coverage so their contributions count. This would lead to greater disparities, more sandbagging, and the #4 and #5 servers having a disenfranchised off hours population because #6 wouldn’t have the numbers; but they could not transfer due to FULL conditions at the top.

There is no way this can be implemented that doesn’t disenfranchise people who play in non-primetime hours. Sorry, this game isn’t just for people in the central timezone (NA example) who work 9-5 and play for 3 hours in the evening.

So we stick with punishing the central timezone and have the off-hours players decide the matchup? Sorry, but the current system has disenfranchised a large amount of players for 2 years. Seriously, there is nothing more discouraging than knowing that even when fighting tooth and nail to gain an inch of ground in primetime that it’s basically wasted effort if you don’t have more OCX or SEA.

At the very least population based points would punish everyone equally. Primetime will get more points per objective but since there is a ton more opposition they will hold less. In off-hours they will hold more objectives but since there is little to no opposition each one will be worth a lot less. I don’t think it’s the best solution but it’s a lot easier and less complicated(IE ArenaNet might be able to achieve it).

This is a terrible suggestion because it’s essentially flipping the bird at anyone who lives outside of NA (on NA servers) or EU (on EU servers) prime time.

Currently no time zone is punished for playing under the current system. The NA players can score just as many points as the EU, SEA or OCX players. Altering the system so that NA prime time is worth more than others because of the numbers of players will result in players non-NA (or EU on EU servers) time zones mattering very little. It’s easy to not care about players who play during the times you don’t care, but those players want to have a valued WvW experience and their points aren’t worth more than NA players, they are worth the same. The fights fought for them tend to be less populated, but that’s no reason to decide that their time in the game is worth less than anyone else’s.

Consequences to changing this system would result in several other imbalances. Players that are currently ranked highly because of OCX/SEA coverage will likely drop, resulting in them landing in WvW tiers without players during those times. Currently non-peak hour players rely on playing in higher tiers to find comparable opponents. It would destroy WvW experiences for a lot of players who play on servers with high non-peak hour players. If their servers dropped tiers, there would be no easy way of finding a tier where they are guaranteed to see opponents at any time of the day.

Currently, on average, NA (or EU) players have to fight more opponents to capture a keep or tower but they also have more allies to capture them with. Altering the point system so that it is weighted towards populated times of the day would result in some times of the day being completely pointless for players to log in. Individually you might contribute less during NA (or EU) hours, but you are not alone during those hours. PPT matters during all times of the day (it doesn’t matter less during NA than it does during SEA or OCX) and for as long as WvW is a 24/7 match, that’s the only fair way for it to be.

I see value in reducing the match times (to six hours or less) similar to EotM, even removing server divisions and using an EotM style of match making (which is far more balanced and consistent throughout the day) but flipping the bird at non NA or EU players by reducing the value of playing during those hours is just excluding them from the WvW competition to favour the privileged “prime time” players.

Shiren.9532:

PPT matters during all times of the day (it doesn’t matter less during NA than it does during SEA or OCX) and for as long as WvW is a 24/7 match, that’s the only fair way for it to be.

This is true, but the problem remain the coverage. Yeah so maybe SEA is fighting like hell on EB during the night… Capping tons of stuff and creating a queue. That still mean 3 borders are completely empty – no one to attack, no one to defend. Whoever has the keeps is racking up points like there’s no tomorrow with no danger.

A suggestion I remember posting before is not to weigh PPT by people, but time it’s been in friendly hands and what upgrade it has, actually changing the ppt value. For example:

Upon capture, the ppt value of a keep is currentppt+(tier*2) up to a max of 14ppt (full value T3 keep captured, 8 base points plus 6 bonus points).

Each tick a keeps current value is above the minppt based on tier, it looses 1ppt.

Min for T0: 2ppt.
Min for T1: 4ppt.
Min for T2: 6ppt.
Min for T3: 8ppt.

Each tick a keeps current value is below its minppt based on tier, it gains 1ppt.

Yep, that simple. Defend newly capped high value keeps and upgrade them to improve value. The entire point of this is to drag out the scoring. Constantly flipping low value keeps (ie T0) yeild very little for ppt as its ppt will remain the same. Even if one side manages to siege up all their keeps to T3 during the late night, when the day crew comes on they will “balance” out the time a T3 keep was ticking points via the bonus they get for capping them.

Or at least that’s the intent of this ppt system, actual results may vary lol.

Right now, 1 Ocx/Sea player is worth about 10 NA players.

They say they don’t want to change the system because it would be unfair to off-hours players. Meanwhile they neglect the fact the current system is unfair to prime hours players. When 90% of your player base is insignificant, there might be a problem with your system.

There are a number of ways to address PPT, but this isn’t one of them.

Having more people is often a symptom of better organization or better play. However, this system would actually penalize the server for playing better. Yes, many matchups are inherently imbalanced by population, but not all of them are. In a more balanced matchup, you don’t want to penalize a server for getting organized and gaining momentum.

Also, as people have said, it’s ripe for abuse. Roamers, duelers, uplevels, rangers, etc. will be subject to toxicity. And it conflicts with Anet’s philosophy, since it discourages people from playing together.

PPT does need to be reworked. But not like this.

Shiren.9532:

Currently no time zone is punished for playing under the current system. The NA players can score just as many points as the EU, SEA or OCX players.

if 100 are in the match or if 1000 are in the match that score 695 gives 10 times as many score per player.

And between 300 vs 290 is 10 difference, between 20 and 10 as well, but in the second case the 10 difference make much more score difference than in the first. This has to end.

Whatever timezone it hits: 1 point score per player in the match is the goal!
NOT 0.7-20 points per player.