Guild Wars 2

Just a thought, but wouldn’t this eliminate most population imbalance problems?
I am currently on Desolation, or Tankolation as some would put it. Regardless of how we got into silver league, we don’t really belong there with the surge in numbers.

If a server got points on capture, it would make defending an objective so much more important, you wouldn’t get replies saying “We can cap it back later for the tick” because if they capped that tower or keep that team would get X amount of points. This would also help when a server goes to sleep. As I said being from Deso, most nights/morning when the enemy sleeps we tick atleast 500. This continues until they wake up which varies with the server, but is still usually enough time to get us 10k ahead Saturday mornings. If you only got points for capping things when you capped them, then come Saturday morning we wouldn’t be out of reach. Yes we will still have capped a lot of objectives, but the enemy server could, when they wake up, put up a great fight and cap them back plus some.

I think this would really help with population imbalances and encourage smaller roaming so you can flip more things ( camp snipers, more guild groups etc).
I just thought of this while looking at my server’s tick earlier, but I’d like to know what you guys think.

What would make for an interesting score system would be awarding points for upgrading things (promoting capture and hold) while also making sure the points awarded for capturing an objective are equal to the points that are gained in upgrades (i.e. t1 keep with no upgrades is 25 points to the capturing team, t3 fully upgraded is 100 points to the capturing team, upgrades themselves grant 75 points to the holding team meaning that both teams gain 100 points in that outcome).

A well coordinated surge at the right times could promote comebacks in any matchup, assuming points for stomps didn’t decide it (i.e. roughly even stomps from bloodlust on both sides). Population and coverage would still be a large determining factor but also surges of server coordinated assaults backed up by heavy defense could pull upsets.

I agree with this idea. I actually had a similar idea myself. I think that some things should remain PPT though, those things being EB keeps and SMC. That would encourage defense of key structures while reducing the effects of server stacking. In that system, the PPT for holding structures would halve, and the point value for taking a location would be double what it’s PPT was worth.

Glad to see this kind of thinking going on.

The problem, I see with this is, that the system is easy to abuse.

First problem: If an objective switches constantly between two servers, both those servers will get even points in the end.
In an uneven matchup, where one server totaly dominates, one barely hangs on and the other one has basically given up, the actions of that third server will determine the winner.(can you say “kingmaker”?)
The point flow will be totally even, thus, it will not matter, who HOLDS the objective the longest, but who will eventually CAP them. It means, servers with only one small time window, where they can dominate(typically nightcap) will be able to get all the points their opponents have gotten during the day and break even… Untill the opponents take everything back and pull ahead again.
In a straight up 1v1 with these rules, the winner would be the one, who during the last second of the matchup holds the most objectives.
If you add a third server to the equation, things get wonky once that server is severely weaker than the other two. He can basically determine the winner by taking all the fully upgraded objectives from one server, so the other server can’t get the bonus for taking an upgraded objective. The game will not be about who can HOLD stuff, but about just karma training through and capping all of the objectives in hope, your opponents servers will break even in taking them back, so you can pull ahead.
The current meta is way too offense heavy and you want to introduce a system, which actually promotes going on the offense with no regards for defense?

If one server defends, while two servers just keep taking eachothers stuff, the server, which just defends and holds its stuff, will lose with this system, even, if they hold 66% of the map. The mindless karma train in the rest of the map would simply generate more points.

There are still a ton of problems, but I think, the ones I listed above should be enough.

warriorjrd.8695:

Just a thought, but wouldn’t this eliminate most population imbalance problems?
I am currently on Desolation, or Tankolation as some would put it. Regardless of how we got into silver league, we don’t really belong there with the surge in numbers.

If a server got points on capture, it would make defending an objective so much more important, you wouldn’t get replies saying “We can cap it back later for the tick” because if they capped that tower or keep that team would get X amount of points. This would also help when a server goes to sleep. As I said being from Deso, most nights/morning when the enemy sleeps we tick atleast 500. This continues until they wake up which varies with the server, but is still usually enough time to get us 10k ahead Saturday mornings. If you only got points for capping things when you capped them, then come Saturday morning we wouldn’t be out of reach. Yes we will still have capped a lot of objectives, but the enemy server could, when they wake up, put up a great fight and cap them back plus some.

I think this would really help with population imbalances and encourage smaller roaming so you can flip more things ( camp snipers, more guild groups etc).
I just thought of this while looking at my server’s tick earlier, but I’d like to know what you guys think.

Sigh … I can’t believe that anyone would post such a suggestion after spending even three minutes thinking about it. All it would accomplish is to encourage all three teams to flip objectives back and forth for the various non-point rewards, and it would always result in essentially a stalemate since by definition over the course of a week each server would have captured every objective an equal number of times. It would have exactly the same affect as awarding each team in basketball one point for every possession (which are always an equal number) instead of scoring baskets.

Its a interesting idea but honestly it will just be exactly what we have now the 2 larger worlds will pick on the 3rd for points and that’s in a evenish match up. In the current imbalanced league match ups the largest world will just constantly flip both worlds stuff and be in front by a large margin. Points from capture will not help any when most of the people coming to WvW are just here to PvE door for XP /karma /loot not for PvP

Keeps and garrisons or even your 1/3rd in a map should be PPT.
Everything else should be points for captures.
All kills should give 1 point each without bloodlust.
While it won’t fix everything, it’s certainly better than what we have now.
They need to give mercenaries more use, and better upgrades for the guards/lords.

I think this could work actually. If there is one thing it breaks is the effect of coverage. It needs to be designed to address abuses but it can be a lot better than PPT.

On-flip rewards. Reward includes equal total points from the upgrades rewarded to the objective.
camp : 100 points
tower: 500 points
Keep/castle: 1000 points

On upgrade rewards
Camp t1 upgrades 200 points
camp t2 upgrades 400 points

tower T1 1000 points, T2 2000 points, T3 3000 points
Keep/castle T1: 2000 points, t2 4000, t3 8000

PK (player kill) points: 1 point per kill, bloodlust bonus for stomp
Yaks: 10 points per kill
guard posts: 10 points

So… To address the concerns

1. Keep karma train trading: Servers engaged in this wouldn’t generate points as fast as upgrading a tower would. Taking a fully upgraded tower will reward significantly more than flipping a blank structure.

2. Coverage gaps: This is why I added the extended points for flipping upgraded objectives. A server which keeps their own BL defended will prevent an enemy server from “catching up”. This catchup is possible if they flip all of that server’s objectives. A server that is inactive during a coverage gap will not be too far behind the active server. If two servers are the active ones then they’ll constantly flip enemy objectives to prevent upgrade score. The coverage gap to maintain is smaller if server C is able to produce a strong primetime presence. Coverage problems still exist, but their impact is greatly reduced and matches would still be competitive. If server C is good at flipping camps they can wrestle a large bonus from the enemy servers back to them.

2b. If coverage is still a problem, then double the points per upgrade on flip.

I vote for diminishing returns on PPT, not points per capture. That way if the dominate server triple keeps a BL, then after the first hour of holding them the ppt could diminish from 25 to 15 then 5 etc. per keep. This is just an example, not sure its what would work best.

It would still encourage more flipping of points to determine a match, but that kind of already happens. This way you don’t wake up to a 10k+ plus deficit just because the other server has better coverage.

A large percentage of players out there already only care about flips, (because the scoreboard is meaningless) and I have no idea why you think the devs would want or need to encourage it further instead of fixing the scoring system.

Really, I don’t get it. FYI there’s already a lot of roaming and ganking of sentries and camps for the points, perhaps you are just playing on a server that’s overcrowded?

naphack.9346:

The problem, I see with this is, that the system is easy to abuse.

First problem: If an objective switches constantly between two servers, both those servers will get even points in the end.

I don’t see this as a problem. In the proposed system those two servers are active and competing against one another equally so they should be getting equal points. If the third server snipes a t3 keep during this constant flipping then the server who had held and upgraded it to t3 will pull ahead.

Although the team being attacked is being 2v1 they can also choose to try to fight things in favour of the third server, creating a 2v1 scenario where the defender and one attacker ensure the other attacker won’t take it.

In an uneven matchup, where one server totaly dominates, one barely hangs on and the other one has basically given up, the actions of that third server will determine the winner.(can you say “kingmaker”?)

That’s the accepted outcome of a 3 way fight. You will always have someone that decides the outcome based on their actions.

The point flow will be totally even, thus, it will not matter, who HOLDS the objective the longest, but who will eventually CAP them. It means, servers with only one small time window, where they can dominate(typically nightcap) will be able to get all the points their opponents have gotten during the day and break even… Untill the opponents take everything back and pull ahead again.

Working as intended. This system is not about who holds for the longest, but about who holds it long enough to get upgrade points out of it. After all, that group will be guaranteed points whereas the other 2 servers will be competing to grab those points off it. The values in terms of points would be massaged so that the time spent upgrading it will be far more efficient than letting it flip back and forth. If neither opposing server is able to take it then the upgrading server will come out way ahead.

In a straight up 1v1 with these rules, the winner would be the one, who during the last second of the matchup holds the most objectives.

Fair enough, but this isn’t 1v1. If it is, then the system doesn’t work.

If you add a third server to the equation, things get wonky once that server is severely weaker than the other two. He can basically determine the winner by taking all the fully upgraded objectives from one server, so the other server can’t get the bonus for taking an upgraded objective. The game will not be about who can HOLD stuff, but about just karma training through and capping all of the objectives in hope, your opponents servers will break even in taking them back, so you can pull ahead.
The current meta is way too offense heavy and you want to introduce a system, which actually promotes going on the offense with no regards for defense?

If points earned for upgrading far outweighs the points gained from pure karma train (i.e. flipping paper back and forth) then the upgrade and hold will win. A valid strategy is to snipe T3 upgrades for more points, but the defending server can also help determine which of the opposing servers will eventually cap it if it looks like it won’t hold (a defender 2v1).

If one server defends, while two servers just keep taking eachothers stuff, the server, which just defends and holds its stuff, will lose with this system, even, if they hold 66% of the map. The mindless karma train in the rest of the map would simply generate more points.

There are still a ton of problems, but I think, the ones I listed above should be enough.

That depends on point values for upgrades. Mine were just examples for clarity but it could easily be that T3 keep is worth 1000 points after all upgrades are done whereas flipping no upgrades is worth 25 points, with upgrades that take longer contributing more to value than shorter ones.

So in off-hours its easy points for upgrading keeps while everybody is sleeping…

kRiza krimos.1637:

So in off-hours its easy points for upgrading keeps while everybody is sleeping…

As long as the game mode is 1 week long and decided mostly by coverage/population that’s going to happen no matter how you craft a system. However, in this way a significantly smaller population can still stall upgrades in off-hours by sniping yaks and camps, forcing those who upgrade to dedicate more resources to escorts (which is decidedly boring, so only the true ppt warriors will do that).

This would create unfair situations and produce very volatile scores.

Hackuuna.4085:

kRiza krimos.1637:

So in off-hours its easy points for upgrading keeps while everybody is sleeping…

As long as the game mode is 1 week long and decided mostly by coverage/population that’s going to happen no matter how you craft a system. However, in this way a significantly smaller population can still stall upgrades in off-hours by sniping yaks and camps, forcing those who upgrade to dedicate more resources to escorts (which is decidedly boring, so only the true ppt warriors will do that).

It would make more problems than it would solve. 5 players cant be at more places at same time. 30 players can. Even if smaller population server could stall few yaks they can’t siege, and escort their own yaks and defend their objects all in same time. Which means they won’t get anywhere.

A 7am raid can take all maps while everyone is still sleeping. And then upgrade it in peace before any opposition even show up. And you still have coverage problems just in different form. And again servers with best coverage in off hours will get most points, because hey, try upgrading SM in peak times…

I think numerous things would naturally even out the population imbalance

- Points on capture (as you mentioned)
- Points for kills (extra points for stomping)
- Points for upgrading and/or defending
- Points for winning fights with smaller numbers

Cactus.2710:

warriorjrd.8695:

Just a thought, but wouldn’t this eliminate most population imbalance problems?
I am currently on Desolation, or Tankolation as some would put it. Regardless of how we got into silver league, we don’t really belong there with the surge in numbers.

If a server got points on capture, it would make defending an objective so much more important, you wouldn’t get replies saying “We can cap it back later for the tick” because if they capped that tower or keep that team would get X amount of points. This would also help when a server goes to sleep. As I said being from Deso, most nights/morning when the enemy sleeps we tick atleast 500. This continues until they wake up which varies with the server, but is still usually enough time to get us 10k ahead Saturday mornings. If you only got points for capping things when you capped them, then come Saturday morning we wouldn’t be out of reach. Yes we will still have capped a lot of objectives, but the enemy server could, when they wake up, put up a great fight and cap them back plus some.

I think this would really help with population imbalances and encourage smaller roaming so you can flip more things ( camp snipers, more guild groups etc).
I just thought of this while looking at my server’s tick earlier, but I’d like to know what you guys think.

Sigh … I can’t believe that anyone would post such a suggestion after spending even three minutes thinking about it. All it would accomplish is to encourage all three teams to flip objectives back and forth for the various non-point rewards, and it would always result in essentially a stalemate since by definition over the course of a week each server would have captured every objective an equal number of times. It would have exactly the same affect as awarding each team in basketball one point for every possession (which are always an equal number) instead of scoring baskets.

People flipping objectives for the non-point rewards back and forth already exists. I’ll be honest, I just thought of this spur of the moment, and there is a lot of flaws with the rough idea. However I think it’s safe to say that even this rough idea isn’t as flawed as the current PPT version. Like I said, some matches are decided Saturday morning because of night capping. There’s no fun in that, this would still be more reliant on coverage but not as much as the PPT method. The matches would be a lot closer overall.

I don’t know, maybe a mix of the two, PPT and points on capture would be better. Right not though, there’s little incentive to defend things that aren’t T3.

DeadlySynz.3471:

I think numerous things would naturally even out the population imbalance

- Points on capture (as you mentioned)
- Points for kills (extra points for stomping)
- Points for upgrading and/or defending
- Points for winning fights with smaller numbers

I like the third and fourth idea. I was also thinking that maybe upgraded objectives would count more towards the tick. For example with a keep, each upgrade adds 1 ppt to it.

Zosk.5609:

A large percentage of players out there already only care about flips, (because the scoreboard is meaningless) and I have no idea why you think the devs would want or need to encourage it further instead of fixing the scoring system.

Really, I don’t get it. FYI there’s already a lot of roaming and ganking of sentries and camps for the points, perhaps you are just playing on a server that’s overcrowded?

I don’t really care about the tick. Infact, it’s quite ironic that I would make a post like this with the mindset I have about the score. That’s only because of the way it works however. Right now the score is meaningless because whoever can morning cap the most wins the match and there’s no point trying to fight back. This method makes coverage much less of a deciding factor of course it will still play a role, but not as much, thus giving people a reason to play past reset night.

Cazanova.7845:

Its a interesting idea but honestly it will just be exactly what we have now the 2 larger worlds will pick on the 3rd for points and that’s in a evenish match up. In the current imbalanced league match ups the largest world will just constantly flip both worlds stuff and be in front by a large margin. Points from capture will not help any when most of the people coming to WvW are just here to PvE door for XP /karma /loot not for PvP

Keep in mind, in order to cap something back, the enemy had to have capped it, which means they would have gotten points from it. As I said, coverage will still be a factor, but much less of a factor than it is now atleast.

The problem is: It would just reward capping and recapping even more. You get karma and stuff already. Would be even more if you farmed it. Then just before matchup ends(all are at even points cause of capping and recapping) you defend 1-2 hours and win.

I still would like to see a system where upgraded objectives give more PPT – to reward defending more.

Give more points for defending. This will encourage defense, and discourage mindless zerging. If a zerg tries and fails to take something, they just wasted a lot of time and they give enemies points. If you lose a fight, your enemy deserves some kind of recognition. ATM there is no penalty for zerging and failing. Make zergs play smarter.

This puts a point emphasis on winning battles. If servers are asleep, their forts are only getting taken once. Servers with massive holdings should be required to guard those holdings. How many countries in the history of the world conquered something strategic, then left it unguarded? Is beating on empty keeps/towers really why we play WvW? Let’s give players a reason to fight each other.

TO THE VICTOR GOES THE SPOILS!

Not just the server with the most abandoned structures every 15 minutes.