Guild Wars 2

I 100% agree with this. i suggested this method earlier but i think i didnt communicate my idea very well.

Heh let’s just base the winner off how much glicko you can gain in 7 weeks.

Ebay 1st place Gold League baby!!

Base the winner off of which current T4 guild can drop enough points to fall into T5. Wait a minute…

In order to spur competition I think the winners need to get the better reward, but definitely the most improved reward shouldn’t be too far behind it.

The reward for winning definitely needs to be greater than the reward for improving. Otherwise, you’ll begin to see the “troll” emerge that dooms their server so they may fall, and rise to the top again.

Granted this would be more difficult than in most ranked systems (i.e. a Moba style game) where the player can intentionally perform bad, in order to fall to ranks where they are far more skilled. Only to rise up again. If the rewards for improvement are too high, you could see larger more impactful guilds pull themselves out to fall, and put themselves back to rise.

Most people simply doesn’t know or don’t care about the rating system. I doubt people would encourage server-mates that "Hey! We’re gaining ratings this week, keep it up!" while losing in scores.

So, how about adjust the starting scores of the match-up according to relative ratings. For example, if A server is 1500 rating, B is 1200 and C 900, maybe let server C starts at 50k points, server B at 20k with server A start at 0 (requires precise calculations, I know).

In this way the lower-rated server would actually know what they are fighting for (which is holding the point lead until the end of the week) and this gives them a actually feel of the relative server ratings with the opponents and how big the uphill is such server fighting.

Atine.8623:

Most people simply doesn’t know or don’t care about the rating system. I doubt people would encourage server-mates that “Hey! We’re gaining ratings this week, keep it up!” while losing in scores.

So, how about adjust the starting scores of the match-up according to relative ratings. For example, if A server is 1500 rating, B is 1200 and C 900, maybe let server C starts at 50k points, server B at 20k with server A start at 0 (requires precise calculations, I know).

In this way the lower-rated server would actually know what they are fighting for (which is holding the point lead until the end of the week) and this gives them a actually feel of the relative server ratings with the opponents and how big the uphill is such server fighting.

I discussed this at length in a previous thread (I think the matchup thread)

but anyway, flat increases in score aren’t a good handicapping system when the total score of all 3 servers varies by the end of the week.

A better handicapping system is to increase or reduce score gained by a % based on the relative rating.

Also my suggestion here is in addition to whoever is ‘top server’ rewards. I think the more rewards goals we can throw out that encourage servers to get better the more ideal.

Right now I don’t think the last place server really has a hope of beating the 13th placed server in NA, but the last place server certainly can try to gain the most rating. While the 13th through 18th servers probably wont be able to gain enough rating to gain ‘most improved’ they at least have a good shot at winning their league.

This reward in addition to the winning reward means that everyone has a goal to shoot for which I think is better than just having a winning reward.

Jinks.2057:

Heh let’s just base the winner off how much glicko you can gain in 7 weeks.

^^THIS!! A MILLION TIMES THIS!!!

This still spurs competition, but it normalizes the results to levels attainable by all. Also, it gives an incentive to transfer to lower servers where getting +glicko scores will be much easier, thus evening out the competition overall. This solves so many problems with the current wvw setup! Make it happen, please!!

DevonCarver.5370:

Good suggestion, I will see what I can do.

Good suggestion??!!!

Transfer to low server, ride it to the top, collect rewards, repeat.

Server hopping is already an issue, why encourage it?

Svarty.8019:

DevonCarver.5370:

Good suggestion, I will see what I can do.

Good suggestion??!!!

Transfer to low server, ride it to the top, collect rewards, repeat.

Server hopping is already an issue, why encourage it?

Because having people transfer to the low servers eventually equilibrates all servers to a place where they are closer to equal, eventually negating that method in the long run. Its the difference between positive feedback (where there is more incentive to go where there are already more people) and negative feedback (where there is incentive to go where there aren’t as many people).

Svarty.8019:

DevonCarver.5370:

Good suggestion, I will see what I can do.

Good suggestion??!!!

Transfer to low server, ride it to the top, collect rewards, repeat.

Server hopping is already an issue, why encourage it?

Top servers still gain the top rewards so there is no incentive to jump from a top server to a bottom server.

Servers on the bottom should have something they can realistically achieve. A server like NSP which is a top of bronze tier server has no real hope of beating FA or SBI, but they are definitely going to be improving their rating.

~bump for continued discussion and a reminder.

Draygo.9473:

Svarty.8019:

DevonCarver.5370:

Good suggestion, I will see what I can do.

Good suggestion??!!!

Transfer to low server, ride it to the top, collect rewards, repeat.

Server hopping is already an issue, why encourage it?

Top servers still gain the top rewards so there is no incentive to jump from a top server to a bottom server.

Servers on the bottom should have something they can realistically achieve. A server like NSP which is a top of bronze tier server has no real hope of beating FA or SBI, but they are definitely going to be improving their rating.

~bump for continued discussion and a reminder.

I do agree that we need a true representation of effort and skill given to all participants in the league. The main issue is that, as of right now, it isn’t balanced, it has never been, it’s not really fair for the little guy, despite the efforts and skills employed to stay on the losing end and get nothing at the end of the day. It makes for difficult weeks ahead dying a lot to huge zergs suck even more when at the end they are being declared the all time biggest losers of their league.

That would be hard to measure though. Score wouldn’t be a good indicator of skill at all, it never really was since it’s been mostly about the 24h coverage ratio. In the case of NSP, they should be rewarded for getting kills while outnumbered or defending keeps while outnumbered. Some twist giving them more incentive to keep playing against the odds, something that isn’t just an XP/Karma/WXP boost but something that can actually improve their score or get a best effort award!

Like prizes to servers who, in their league had, most keeps defended successfully while outnumbered, most kills done while outnumbered, things like that. And of course, another prize for most improved rating during the league would be amazing.

You want to promote playing regardless of odds to encourage low pop server to fight more than they usually would, fight the “were losing, I aint playing WvW this week” mentality and make it an enjoyable experience for lower tiered participants in a league.

I play offpeak on a T1 server and even I see my fair share of the outmanned buff. In that situation, it’s hard to get anything significant done, and you’re mostly just trying to stick bandaids on things.

I would support rewarding effort in a significant way for lower pop/lower tier servers. It’s much easier to “contribute” and have the WILL do to so when you’re rolling. It takes a lot more guts to WvW as the underdog.

Svarty.8019:

DevonCarver.5370:

Good suggestion, I will see what I can do.

Good suggestion??!!!

Transfer to low server, ride it to the top, collect rewards, repeat.

Server hopping is already an issue, why encourage it?

moarrrr moneh to ANET/NCSOFT ……..

I’d like to see a “most skilled” prize given to the server with the best #kills/population.

Can you also provide a ranking that divides the total number of war points achieved per tick by the number of players playing WvW right at that tick (as in people that are in all WvW maps simultaneously) and use this metric at the end of the week as basis for assigning league points?

During peak hours (prime time) this metric would be very similiar between all servers if the population is similar in that time. But it would reduce the impact of servers that have a strong night coverage vs. servers that do not (see toy example in attachment)

In DAoC there was a feature for guild realm points. You had the overall RP per week that guild made and a separate statistic that told the RP per week per person in that guild.

I’m all in favor of having as many metrics as possible as it will reduce the impact of “the one” metric we have right now (aka ranking via war points at the end of the week)

Liete.5263:

Can you also provide a ranking that divides the total number of war points achieved per tick by the number of players playing WvW right at that tick (as in people that are in all WvW maps simultaneously) and use this metric at the end of the week as basis for assigning league points?

During peak hours (prime time) this metric would be very similiar between all servers if the population is similar in that time. But it would reduce the impact of servers that have a strong night coverage vs. servers that do not (see toy example in attachment)

In DAoC there was a feature for guild realm points. You had the overall RP per week that guild made and a separate statistic that told the RP per week per person in that guild.

I’m all in favor of having as many metrics as possible as it will reduce the impact of “the one” metric we have right now (aka ranking via war points at the end of the week)

I like this idea, but if implemented, the modified score value should be kept separate.
You don’t necessarily want to penalize the winners too much while rewarding the outmanned’s effort.

So maybe have the league points reward 1,2,3 for 1st second and third, and a bonus 2 points to the server with best “normalized score” and 1 bonus point for second best. So a stacked server that has a hard time capping everything against low pops might end up getting 3 or 4 points rather than 5, and low pop 3rd place could get all the way upwards to 3 points even when losing!

SCORE
1st Place 1pt
2nd Place 2pt
3rd Place 3pt

POPULATION NORMALIZED SCORE
1st Place +2pt
2nd Place +1pt
3rd Place +0pt

EDIT: I don’t know if you guys played or remembered mario party? But this is the same principle I’m trying to explain. Once the game ended, the players we have their stars but, they were bonus stars awarded for many different criteria, like winning the most mini-games, having the most coins, winning the most duels etc. I remember that part made me giddy because it could turn the game around very quickly! Even if you got lucky on the game map, players with skills could rack up bonus stars.

Now apply that to WvW with different metrics to award bonuses to servers, metrics that don’t simply favor the biggest server but that all servers have equal chance of getting.

The whole reward the server who stacked the most is kinda kittened you have to admit even if your on one of them. I for example had 2 choices. Transfer to a stacked server that was one of the top 3 of its league so I can get a reward but deal with insane skill lag and queues all the time. Or stick to my server and have a 0 percent chance of winning but have no queue and not much skill lag unless all 3 servers are in sm at the same time. Was a no brainer for me and stuck to my server and we been outmanned all week by a much bigger server. Were down something like 100k points.