Guild Wars 2

We have many threads here concerning the issue of unjust point distribution in WvW with certain servers winning the tourney due to being ridiculously overstocked on round-the-clock manpower – I’m sure everyone on EU is by now aware of the Gandarran Effect as someone has articulately designated it (free transfer to an already well-to-do silver server for people from ‘ELO hell’ bottom bronze tiers? Yes please, let’s flood it!).

I’m also fairly sure that there are dev people who do not find this to be working as intended – wins by simply PvDiing off-peak. This has nothing to do with personal skill, or tactics, or strategy and is pretty unfair towards other servers that have substantially less people but will wreck hell upon the opposition when online.

I have summed up two different approaches to tackle this:

1) Mad solution. Rework BL geography to match EBG more, where objectives are more densely spread and it’s easier to defend for a smaller group. Not gonna happen, so

2) Radical solution. Make WvW sessioned, not 24/7. Say, 12.00 to 22.00 GMT for Europe and then freeze current results till next session. This way PPT servers will have to fight their opponents instead of just stealing their kitten. I don’t favor this option myself, so

3) Balancing solution. Rebalance the point generation algorithm:
- award 2x normal points for taking keeps/towers that are manned (i.e. a fight actually takes place);
- do not awards points per sentry posts or camps;
- award 1/3 normal points for brainless PvD on empty border;
- award point-per-playerkill as that is the only 100% true indication of PvP activity in WvW.

Please consider and/or discuss.

I really hope they do something about it. ANYTHING.
In fact, I’d choose the mad solution over anything.

They did a great work with the feature pack but I think they should do something bigger.
Adding new skills. Doing big changes.
Entirely reworking WvW. New systems. They need to pull out papers and come up with new ideas. Radicalize the design.

Right now it’s some zergfest bullkitten with no strategy whatsoever, no emphasis on defending. Just zerg around because choochoo karma train.

In conquest mode sPvP, matches are supposed to be played by teams of equal size with normalized gear. One only has to look at what happens in an sPvP match when one team has someone dc or afk to understand the inherent flaw of applying a similar scoring system to a game mode played by teams of unequal size.

Just introduce a rating system based on current map population.
If teams are balanced it stays as it is now, if one of the team is outmaned either it will get more points per controlled objective or te leading teams will get a lower score per tick.

Rewarding points per kill is actually bad for the system, it causes the game to move from being about taking and holding points. OP’s solution #1 is likely the best option, in that the EBG map layout causes a the central keep and its towers to create a defense network.

In all reality, the only real change that the North half of the borderlands need to be like that is to pull the 2 north towers closer into garrison by 1000 range or so. Doing so would allow trebs on the outer walls to engage the lords room of NW tower, and to engage the front door of NE (although NE is pretty well defensible on its own).

The problem in the BLs is that:

• Garrison has no real scoutable defense from the south except right at gates (which causes golem rushes to be successful too often in getting through outer)
• Bay has no defenses against close in attacks to its north side, except for door trebs, causing it to be a bit too easy to get in to.
• Hills is actually the best designed of the 3 (plenty of good chokes etc), the problem for hills, is the 4 outer walls sitting next to each other, meaning a 5 man can do a ton of damage really quickly without scouting seeing them.

Solution 1 above while removing point-per-stomp encourages tactical play (allowing deaths without penalty) and makes a much more interesting byplay between the 3 teams, by allowing a bunker defense to truly work.

OMG. This again?
Yes shut WWW when I’m not playing.

System works if my server win.

I would like to see a scoring system that uses PPT, but in set time blocks. Think sort of like the EotM 4 hour blocks to decide a winner, except apply it in a way that rewards a number of points based on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in that time frame.

Maybe have six 4 hour time blocks each day. Now let’s make 1st place in a block = 5 points, 2nd place = 3 points, 3rd place = 1 point. So this would mean if your server has a strong day time crew, and you gain the most points in 2 time blocks, you have 10 points. Now say the 3rd place server in both of those time blocks has only 2 points, but they have a nice night time crew and get 1st place in 2 off hour blocks, which puts them at 12 points, meaning the overall score appears to be competitive. Now of course there would need to be some tweaking in a model like this (whether it be the hour lengths of the time frames, or the point rewards), but I think it would be a lot better than our current PPT that simply rewards whoever has the largest group of players on at a time when their opponents have no coverage. It would at the very least give the perception of a competition, rather than logging on and seeing your server is 50k behind in PPT after one night in the matchup, and knowing it’s going to take your server working overtime to catch that score. Meanwhile that “stacked” server has the ease of not having to put in 4-6 hours per player, every day.

There’s currently a thread titled Nerf the domination of Coverage in which the suggestions here as well as many others are being discussed in detail.

Along the lines of the “change how PPT is calculated” suggestion there’s this post.

To be honest, i am so sick and tired of people not getting it that this is NOT a 4 hour a day – seven days a week competition. It is a 24 hour a day, seven days a week competition.

If your server cannot deal with nightcapping, find a solution. Perhaps push harder during daylight hours, or Lyssa forbid, buy a guild or two playing during your servers “downtime”……

There is nothing stopping you from gathering up. There is nothing stopping you from coordinating your servers effort differently.

Do i play in EU? yes
Do i feel the effect of nightcapping when up against larger servers? YES
What do i do in light of this? I maximise my effort in order to secure more PPT while I can play.
Do i complain? NO
why? because i put in personal effort to make a difference!!

So why do you have any more right then me to complain when BOTH suffer the same problems??
I’d really like to know that.

Real life gets in the way of “pushing harder during daylight hours.” Real life gets in the way of “coordinating your servers efforts differently.” If someone has an 8 hour work day, they can’t up and play during hours where their server lacks manpower.

As to the prospect of buying guilds… that always leads to a negative perception of the server buying the guilds, which in the future leads to less guilds wanting to be associated with that server.

You state you suffer from the same problem, yet you don’t think there’s a problem with PPT? That seems silly to label something as a problem but not think it should be met with a solution. Problems require solutions, that’s why they are called problems.

The method I posted earlier wouldn’t just remove the relevance of any time zone btw, it would actually enhance it. Players that play mostly within certain time frames would find themselves to have a great impact on the overall server performance, whether they are NA prime time, or Oceanic.

Flameseeker.1563:

Just introduce a rating system based on current map population.
If teams are balanced it stays as it is now, if one of the team is outmaned either it will get more points per controlled objective or te leading teams will get a lower score per tick.

I would think this would be the fairer option.

Prysin,
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL…. coming from a former TC member. Don’t you get it yet that people are sick and tired of playing that kind of game? With a scoring system designed for teams of equal size? That’s what all these posts are about. Players are sick and tired of it.

And at the same time you manage to completely belittle the efforts of people on other servers not blessed to be the unofficial RP server who have spent a good part of the last 1.5 years doing exactly what you say, trying to “gather up” or “coordinate effort differently” or “pushing harder” or “buying a guild or two”. Sick and tired of it…

godz raiden.2631:

Real life gets in the way of “pushing harder during daylight hours.” Real life gets in the way of “coordinating your servers efforts differently.” If someone has an 8 hour work day, they can’t up and play during hours where their server lacks manpower.

As to the prospect of buying guilds… that always leads to a negative perception of the server buying the guilds, which in the future leads to less guilds wanting to be associated with that server.

You state you suffer from the same problem, yet you don’t think there’s a problem with PPT? That seems silly to label something as a problem but not think it should be met with a solution. Problems require solutions, that’s why they are called problems.

The method I posted earlier wouldn’t just remove the relevance of any time zone btw, it would actually enhance it. Players that play mostly within certain time frames would find themselves to have a great impact on the overall server performance, whether they are NA prime time, or Oceanic.

i work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week + some overtime every now and then. Still i manage to find time to contribute a little here and there.
How do i do this?
I log on my ranger, or my ele. I hop into any non-queued BL and take a camp, or i hook up with a friend or two and ninja a tower. Then i hold that tower and that camp for as many tick’s as possible, or until we have a map-blob going in that BL. Then i move on.

Chaba.5410:

Prysin,
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL…. coming from a former TC member. Don’t you get it yet that people are sick and tired of playing that kind of game? With a scoring system designed for teams of equal size? That’s what all these posts are about. Players are sick and tired of it.

And at the same time you manage to completely belittle the efforts of people on other servers not blessed to be the unofficial RP server who have spent a good part of the last 1.5 years doing exactly what you say, trying to “gather up” or “coordinate effort differently” or “pushing harder” or “buying a guild or two”. Sick and tired of it…

nice try. I started playing in EU, and played ther for over a year. Then i moved to NA in hopes of learning some new tricks. It was fun, until some “wise heads” tried to conspire together to manipulate the scoring system in an effort to make BG lose. guess what? IT FAILED. So i jumped ship before it all crashed and burned, and went back to EU.
Less tears, still some drama, but atleast the fight’s were good and i didnt have to play according to 12 different timezones to find activity throughout the day.

iFruit.6190:

We have many threads here concerning the issue of unjust point distribution in WvW with certain servers winning the tourney due to being ridiculously overstocked on round-the-clock manpower – I’m sure everyone on EU is by now aware of the Gandarran Effect as someone has articulately designated it (free transfer to an already well-to-do silver server for people from ‘ELO hell’ bottom bronze tiers? Yes please, let’s flood it!).

I’m also fairly sure that there are dev people who do not find this to be working as intended – wins by simply PvDiing off-peak. This has nothing to do with personal skill, or tactics, or strategy and is pretty unfair towards other servers that have substantially less people but will wreck hell upon the opposition when online.

I have summed up two different approaches to tackle this:

1) Mad solution. Rework BL geography to match EBG more, where objectives are more densely spread and it’s easier to defend for a smaller group. Not gonna happen, so

2) Radical solution. Make WvW sessioned, not 24/7. Say, 12.00 to 22.00 GMT for Europe and then freeze current results till next session. This way PPT servers will have to fight their opponents instead of just stealing their kitten. I don’t favor this option myself, so

3) Balancing solution. Rebalance the point generation algorithm:
- award 2x normal points for taking keeps/towers that are manned (i.e. a fight actually takes place);
- do not awards points per sentry posts or camps;
- award 1/3 normal points for brainless PvD on empty border;
- award point-per-playerkill as that is the only 100% true indication of PvP activity in WvW.

Please consider and/or discuss.

Tired of these threads. When server transfers happen, coverage shifts, servers rise and fall based on that. You then settle out in a tier that you might be competitive in, depending on the 2 servers in that tier with you.

the 1 point-per-player kill actually does add up, but the server with the most population will get more points with this than the other servers. Don’t be fooled by saying “Player skill” will be the deciding factor, because most of the time the bigger zerg wins, and the winning zerg will stomp more than the losing zerg. Normally, within the zerg, people don’t even stomp most the dead. Sometimes you must blast them down in the early parts of the fight so they can’t rally (and you can rally your side). As the fight drags on, there is more chances to stomp, and that is usually done by the larger force.

Sure, PPT might not be perfect, but strategy is involved. Sure, I am in t3 atm, but we really have t4 numbers. CD doesn’t have the numbers we have at night, but they ticked really well last night because they know how to manage their numbers. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Map hop. Take towers and camps in other BLs, don’t always focus on the keeps. Unless you are in t1 or t2, then havok groups can really change the outcome of a match. It only takes about 10-15 IoJ (maybe even less) to take all of CD BL at night, and then they come to SBI and we win some and lose some to them.

So, I think the current system is fine. If you don’t have the coverage at a certain time, then that is that. The other server might not have the coverage you have at a certain time, which helps keep the match competitive. People need to figure out how to work within the system, not cry about changing it because they are losing.

Prysin.8542:

Chaba.5410:

Prysin,
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL…. coming from a former TC member. Don’t you get it yet that people are sick and tired of playing that kind of game? With a scoring system designed for teams of equal size? That’s what all these posts are about. Players are sick and tired of it.

And at the same time you manage to completely belittle the efforts of people on other servers not blessed to be the unofficial RP server who have spent a good part of the last 1.5 years doing exactly what you say, trying to “gather up” or “coordinate effort differently” or “pushing harder” or “buying a guild or two”. Sick and tired of it…

nice try. I started playing in EU, and played ther for over a year. Then i moved to NA in hopes of learning some new tricks. It was fun, until some “wise heads” tried to conspire together to manipulate the scoring system in an effort to make BG lose. guess what? IT FAILED. So i jumped ship before it all crashed and burned, and went back to EU.
Less tears, still some drama, but atleast the fight’s were good and i didnt have to play according to 12 different timezones to find activity throughout the day.

I’m not talking about you. None of what you wrote changes that people on servers not blessed to be on a top tier server have tried exactly what you suggest for quite a long time and are sick and tired of that kind of game, especially when free transfers have a much more immediate effect. When one of the top tier servers collapse, where do the people go? History has shown they certainly don’t go to a server in a lower tier that has greater coverage gaps than higher tier servers.

PPT is a scoring system meant for teams of equal sizes. People want to play the game, not spend time doing work to recruit or buy guilds.

LOL I see it now… tPvP match and one person quits one of the teams… What to do? Quick! Buy another player! It’s fine. It’s strategy. /sarcasm

Prysin.8542:

To be honest, i am so sick and tired of people not getting it that this is NOT a 4 hour a day – seven days a week competition. It is a 24 hour a day, seven days a week competition.

If your server cannot deal with nightcapping, find a solution. Perhaps push harder during daylight hours, or Lyssa forbid, buy a guild or two playing during your servers “downtime”……

It’s a videogame at the end of the day, you can understand why many will not put in the hours for the sake of PPT when most Match-Ups are decided by off-peak capping that leads to one-sided match-ups, as much as it does not help their wvw community – there is nothing they can do within their powers unless WvW populations are balanced.

You also have to think about those Servers on the EU who all speak one universal language, compared to Communities like Desolation’s who have a whole bunch of players from all over the World, there’s not many Guilds or players they can ‘buy’ or recruit that can speak their language.

In the past we’ve had a French Server: Vizunah who everyone must of heard of, whom dominated the EU Ladder for extended periods of time no matter the Ups and downs they had against ‘International’ Servers and those who tried everything to stop their Domination.

Many accused them of having Canadians playing off-peak, but I believe them when they said they had none – which gave birth to the ‘Viz Zombies’ meme.

CrimsonNeonite.1048:

Prysin.8542:

To be honest, i am so sick and tired of people not getting it that this is NOT a 4 hour a day – seven days a week competition. It is a 24 hour a day, seven days a week competition.

If your server cannot deal with nightcapping, find a solution. Perhaps push harder during daylight hours, or Lyssa forbid, buy a guild or two playing during your servers “downtime”……

It’s a videogame at the end of the day, you can understand why many will not put in the hours for the sake of PPT when most Match-Ups are decided by off-peak capping that leads to one-sided match-ups, as much as it does not help their wvw community – there is nothing they can do within their powers unless WvW populations are balanced.

You also have to think about those Servers on the EU who all speak one universal language, compared to Communities like Desolation’s who have a whole bunch of players from all over the World, there’s not many Guilds or players they can ‘buy’ or recruit that can speak their language.

In the past we’ve had a French Server: Vizunah who everyone must of heard of, whom dominated the EU Ladder for extended periods of time no matter the Ups and downs they had against ‘International’ Servers and those who tried everything to stop their Domination.

Many accused them of having Canadians playing off-peak, but I believe them when they said they had none – which gave birth to the ‘Viz Zombies’ meme.

Well, for SoS, off peak capping used to be your Peak capping. Too many people are selfish in this game. Sure, it is a competition, people want to win, it is a game, but tell me how many people play competitive games to have fun? They play them to win. I understand that some people play casually, and that is their choice. Some are hard core and that is their choice. But, people need to quit crying about coverage. All the people complaining are the ones that lose to better coverage (and are normally primetime players). If anyone can complain, it is the off hour people that lose match ups because their na can’t hang.

CrimsonNeonite.1048:

Many accused them of having Canadians playing off-peak, but I believe them when they said they had none – which gave birth to the ‘Viz Zombies’ meme.

Well, what i can tell you is that you are half wrong there. I m sure VZ had Canadians, i know that beacouse some of them are now playing on SFR. They didn t had a Canadian army ofc but like 30-40 players who were more than enought to grant a boost in off peak hours…

Andrew Clear.1750:

Well, for SoS, off peak capping used to be your Peak capping. Too many people are selfish in this game. Sure, it is a competition, people want to win, it is a game, but tell me how many people play competitive games to have fun? They play them to win. I understand that some people play casually, and that is their choice. Some are hard core and that is their choice. But, people need to quit crying about coverage. All the people complaining are the ones that lose to better coverage (and are normally primetime players). If anyone can complain, it is the off hour people that lose match ups because their na can’t hang.

Well the issue is that coverage gaps between servers that are matched against each other have the potential to completely remove the competitive aspect from WvW. You can sit here and say people play to win, and that winning is all that matters in competition. But you’d be wrong. There’s a reason some guilds only search for fights, or only takes objectives to force the enemy map zerg to come fight them. It’s because challenging themselves is the epitome of competition to them. Outside of the T1 servers, WvW populations are so mismatched that there is rarely a challenge to make the competition lively.

For example, in BP’s matchup last week with CD and SoR. SoR is a non-factor in the matchup since their fall from T1 (which is unfortunate). That leaves BP vs CD. BP generally has the ability to keep a high PPT during the day time hours through NA prime time. But after NA prime time, CD takes the reigns and has enough players to keep everything in their ownership all night. Am I complaining about CD having a “night crew?” No I’m not. I’m worried about the health of WvW because from CD’s perspective, BP’s daytime force might seem too strong, while from BP’s perspective, the matchup is pointless because they get more free PPT over night than BP does throughout the day. The issue is that it’s hard to find anyone to fight for CD when the majority of their players are on, and the fights that BP finds are sub-par during that server’s prime time.

It’s alright if your idea of competition is putting at little effort as possible into securing a win, that would be ideal after all probably. At least if this was something where you were trying to get the most out of using the least amount of resources. But this is a game. We all play WvW to play with and against other players. Servers with a large oceanic presence that fight a server without one can’t possibly be having much fun. And same goes with any server that has more players filling one time zone over the others. There is no competitiveness in those cases. If you ever hop into a friendly zerg in WvW and flip 6 keeps, but only see 10 enemies during that time, you’ve fought more NPCs than you have enemy players. That’s called PvE, not WvW.

Prysin.8542:

To be honest, i am so sick and tired of people not getting it that this is NOT a 4 hour a day – seven days a week competition. It is a 24 hour a day, seven days a week competition.

Sick? Oh oh! Maybe you should sleep more and play less 24/7

Andrew Clear.1750:

Well, for SoS, off peak capping used to be your Peak capping. Too many people are selfish in this game. Sure, it is a competition, people want to win, it is a game, but tell me how many people play competitive games to have fun? They play them to win. I understand that some people play casually, and that is their choice. Some are hard core and that is their choice. But, people need to quit crying about coverage. All the people complaining are the ones that lose to better coverage (and are normally primetime players). If anyone can complain, it is the off hour people that lose match ups because their na can’t hang.

Uhh…nope. Nice try speaking for everyone and making blanket assumptions.

I’ve played under both circumstances; losing to coverage and winning because of coverage. Neither is an enjoyable experience from my perspective (note how I’m not generalizing my opinion to be the opinion of everyone on the planet) nor from the perspective of the dozens of players that I communicate with on the server on which I play nor from the perspective of many who post on the forums.

Your assumption that those arguing in favor of changing how the scoring system works are exclusively on the losing side is completely, utterly, and totally false. We aren’t looking to change the scoring system to give the losing side an advantage (at least some of us aren’t). We’re simply looking to eliminate the advantage that coverage allows when it comes to earning PPT.

This isn’t a L2P issue. L2P is about lacking the individual skill to overcome a challenge in the game. When it comes to coverage, you can be the most skilled player in the game and still lose. That runs counter to one of the most central tenets of gaming; skill = success. It’s not the responsibility of the lone player who logs on to play for an hour to magically recruit a hundred new players to deal with coverage disparities.

When the gaming environment and scoring system penalize players in ways that are outside of their immediate control to change or to counter, that’s bad game design. Yet that is exactly the situation that prevails inside of WvW. Coverage, in conjunction with the current scoring mechanic, creates a situation which disproportionately rewards the server with the greater coverage (passively earning PPT) for very little effort (PvDoor) and with no means of countering it within the context of what is happening in real time during a single player’s current gaming session.

Greater coverage is a de facto god mode; only that rather than applying to an individual player, it applies to a server. All a server need do is have more players on the map at certain times of the day as compared to their opponents and it becomes an automatic IWIN for that server. We don’t accept god mode for individual players; neither should we accept it for an entire server. If a player could turn on god mode in this game, the forums would explode with righteous indignation with calls to eliminate it immediately. Yet that is – functionally – exactly what we have in WvW, only at a server-sized scale.

Having greater numbers on the map at certain times of the day or night is not the issue; at least not the issue for some of us. We accept WvW will likely always have population imbalances; we’re fine with that. What we object to is when it becomes an IWIN in the absence of any counter mechanism. Keep the coverage disparities; just give us viable counters and a change to the scoring mechanisms such that coverage alone does not equal an automatic victory.

I feel like Devon’s suggestion from way back when could still address this by dividing match ups into 21 8 hour segments, with essentially 3 point resents per day. That way if someone dominates a certain time zone it gets them the win for that time, but doesn’t cement the entire match up for them.

Roe.3679:

I feel like Devon’s suggestion from way back when could still address this by dividing match ups into 21 8 hour segments, with essentially 3 point resents per day. That way if someone dominates a certain time zone it gets them the win for that time, but doesn’t cement the entire match up for them.

I’ve been suggesting this over the past few weeks; create 3 separate time zones of PPT, that way if one time slot dominates, it doesn’t guarantee victory over the other 2. I can think of 2 servers in gold league this method would completely crush.

I think i’ve come up with a better solution for points which I’ll create a thread for as it’s a bit convoluted.

Roe.3679:

I feel like Devon’s suggestion from way back when could still address this by dividing match ups into 21 8 hour segments, with essentially 3 point resents per day. That way if someone dominates a certain time zone it gets them the win for that time, but doesn’t cement the entire match up for them.

The problem with this solution is it doesn’t solve the real problem.

Imagine a WvW round with three more-or-less equally matched servers. One of them, however, is able to field more players than the opposition during one of the 8 hour segments per day; the “night cappers” *.

What happens? Equally matched during the other two segments of the day, none of the servers come out a clear winner in the points game. During the third 8 hour segment, the “night capping” server sweeps the maps and wins that segment every night for a week. At the end of the week, that server will have automatically won 7 of the 21 segments.

Using my previous given that the servers are otherwise equally matched, this means they will evenly split the title of “winner” of the remaining 14 rounds; roughly 5 rounds for each server. Let’s say, for the sake of the math, the other two servers each win 5 rounds and the “night capping” server wins 4 rounds. At week’s end, the “night capping” server has won a total of 11 segments versus the other servers having won 5 each.

Who is declared the overall victor? The server with the coverage advantage; right back where we started! All this suggestion accomplishes is making the scoring more granular without addressing the underlying problem.

To fix the problem, we have to identify it first:

Is the problem the coverage disparity?

No. It is one of the three ingredients of the problem, but not the problem itself. WvW is inherently imbalanced with regards to player population and most likely always will be short of an EotM-style balancing solution (to which many in the WvW community are opposed).

Furthermore, from the solo roamer to the 100+ blob and everything in between, WvW should allow players a wide variety of approaches to forming groups. That freedom to choose how to play is a strength rather than a weakness and is actually healthy for WvW.

Large groups of players outnumbering their opponents is not, in itself, the problem.

Is the problem the scoring system?

Partly. The scoring system that currently exists is terrible in the context of a competitive and numerically imbalanced arena (it works fine in a numerically balanced game mode such as sPvP; but not WvW). It encourages and rewards passive play and avoidance of confrontation with real players, which is greatly magnified by the coverage disparities.

Which awards more points as a defender?

A) Spend an hour defending a single tower against an opponent?

B) Let the opponent capture the tower (maybe slowing them down with a skeleton crew of defenders) and use that hour, instead, to capture one of their towers and maybe a second tower or some supply camps, as well?

Which awards more points as an attacker?

A) Spend an hour attacking a single tower tenaciously defended by real players?

B) Spend that hour capturing multiple undefended supply camps and towers?

The other failing of the scoring system is it allows servers to passively earn PPT with no effort required to build or maintain the conditions that give them those points. All they have to do is put forth a singular effort to capture an objective and it then continuously amasses PPT in the background.

This works when teams are perfectly even in number; you risk losing your point generating structures if you abandon them. In the face of WvW’s coverage disparities, the server with the greater numbers can afford to abandon their structures and play strictly offense to capture more territory.

This is because the outnumbered server either can’t capture back that territory fast enough before the enemy zerg descends to wipe them out or they can’t capture it back faster than the outnumbering server can capture even more new territory in the same period of time. Either way, the scoring system gives a decided advantage to the server with more numbers; thus the runaway PPT scores.

However, though the scoring system needs to be redesigned, it – itself – is still not the root of the problem

(continued)

(continued)

So what is the real problem?

The real problem is not the coverage disparity. The real problem is not even entirely the scoring system (though it does need to be modified as part of the solution). The real problem is there are NO counters to either of those factors.

WvW has conditions which – if met – allow one server to amass a runaway score with nothing to counter it. Those conditions are:

1) Grossly outnumbering the opposition (it’s assumed this isn’t going away, so no solution is offered to address this directly).

2) A scoring system which awards points passively (PPT).

3) Nothing available for the outnumbered servers to counter either (1) or (2).

The solution to this scenario has already been suggested. In short, the conditions which allow for the runaway score can now be countered by the opposition or don’t award points to begin with. Furthermore, servers will have to put forth an effort to actively build up and maintain PPT beyond simply capturing an objective to earn it passively.

Counter Design

Good game design in the context of a competitive arena allows for counters to everything. The simplest example of this is the game “Rock, Paper, Scissors”. In that game, there is always an option that will allow a player to beat their opponent. Even if you pick the wrong option and lose, there at least existed the potential that you could have picked the right option and won.

The reason counters exist is so players’ actions have significance. Imagine a game of rock, paper, scissors in which rock beat both paper and scissors. How many rounds of the game would a reasonable person play under those conditions? Just one; both would choose rock and that would be the end of it.

Now imagine the same scenario – rock beats both paper and scissors – with the added condition that one of the players is limited to choosing only paper or scissors. How many rounds of the game would a reasonable person play under those conditions? Zero; if you’re the one limited to just paper or scissors as a choice and rock beats both, you know it’s a foregone conclusion that you’re going to lose.

WvW, though superficially a more complex game, is currently functioning (or dysfunctioning, rather) similar to the rigged game of rock, paper, scissors. When no counters exist, players actions can not effect change within the context of the game mode they’re playing. In other words, no matter what they do, their actions are useless, pointless, meaningless. Under such conditions, why bother playing? Where’s the motivation, the incentive?

Counters are necessary to the enjoyment, health, and longevity of a game for all concerned. It’s high time some be added to WvW.

* I enclose “night cappers” in quotes in recognition of the fact “night capping” doesn’t exist; one player’s day is another’s night. What DOES exist is coverage disparities.

Prysin.8542:

Do i play in EU? yes
Do i feel the effect of nightcapping when up against larger servers? YES
What do i do in light of this? I maximise my effort in order to secure more PPT while I can play.
Do i complain? NO
why? because i put in personal effort to make a difference!!

So why do you have any more right then me to complain when BOTH suffer the same problems??
I’d really like to know that.

Exsqueeze me? You sound like you feel entitled and superior to others. Everything you write about your beloved self is applicable to anyone systematically playing WvW.

No one’s complaining for kitten. We’re discussing a well known issue that is a preoccupation for many players. Current system promotes numbers over quality. It is common sense that it is unjust.

You sound tired from all the night capping. Maybe you should rest.

Andrew Clear.1750:

most of the time the bigger zerg wins

Sorry stopped reading there. That’s completely opposite to what we play on our server, and we pride ourselves on the fact that we stand unshaken by overwhelming opponents. I have made 7k kills since tourney launch playing three hours a day with a 20man static. If our keeps could show similar results when we log off this thread would be inexistent.

Kraag,

You’re talking about changing the entire game mode, which might not happen ever, and certainly not soon. This solution doesn’t need any changes. And while a server with better coverage is still going to win, it at least gives servers a better chance against others with super heavy off hour coverage. Right now, a server with better coverage is generally winning before the weekend is over. With Devon’s suggestion, a server just needs to hang on during EU and NA to compete with or even beat a server with massive overnight PVDing, which unfortunately defines some servers.

Roe.3679:

Kraag,

You’re talking about changing the entire game mode, which might not happen ever, and certainly not soon. This solution doesn’t need any changes. And while a server with better coverage is still going to win, it at least gives servers a better chance against others with super heavy off hour coverage. Right now, a server with better coverage is generally winning before the weekend is over. With Devon’s suggestion, a server just needs to hang on during EU and NA to compete with or even beat a server with massive overnight PVDing, which unfortunately defines some servers.

Quite the contrary; I’m not talking about changing the entire game mode. The changes I’m suggesting, though potentially far reaching in impact, are actually quite simple to implement and many already have precedent in the game. Let’s look at them one-by-one (and using my original suggestion as the launching point):

1) Awarding a World Score point for stomping a player.

Already exists. When a server has the Borderlands Bloodlust buff, they are awarded World Score points for every stomp. My suggestion simply makes this universal; a very simple programmatic change that involves probably five lines of code at the most. My additional suggestion of awarding two World Score points when under the influence of the outnumbered buff wouldn’t be all that much more difficult to implement, either.

2) No World Score points awarded when capturing an undefended fortification.

Already exists; we aren’t currently awarded World Score points when capturing fortifications. The only change required here is to perform a check to see if any players belonging to the server which owns the fortification are within it’s sphere of influence. If not, then no World Score points awarded.

3) World Score points awarded when capturing actively defended fortifications.

Simply perform the mirror image of the previous check. If any players belonging to the server which owns the fortification are within it’s sphere of influence, then award World Score points on a successful capture. Give me 10 minutes and I’ll whip up a logic function to test for these conditions; free of charge.

4) World Score points are earned for each “Defend the X” event concluded at an objective actively under attack and actively defended by real players.

The system for checking this already exists. Tell me, what happens if you’re inside of a fortification under attack in WvW and 3 minutes elapse? Answer: you receive a notification and a reward for having successfully completed a “Defend the X” event at that fortification. The only addition here is that the server will also receive a reward of World Score points; that probably amounts to one additional line of code.

5) Modify PPT such that no points are earned from an un-upgraded objective.

Dead simple if/then logic. Perform a test: are there any upgrades at this supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle? If the answer is “No”, then that fortification produces no PPT. If the answer is “Yes”, then that fortification earns PPT using the same code that currently governs that action but with a minor modification. Now, the PPT is scaled based on the number of upgrades built at the fortification; a pretty simple look-up table or database query will do the trick here.

As far as the dynamics that deny a server PPT if supply is denied to their fortifications, there’s no new programming involved. Upgrades already require supply to bring them to successful completion and the code that governs this already exists. This subtle but powerful shift to the scoring system is achieved with the very simple programming changes associated with my last bulleted point above.

The point being that all of my suggested changes are brain-dead easy to implement from a programmer’s perspective. This isn’t by accident or coincidence; I carefully considered all of my suggested changes from the position of what benefits they would bring to the game and how easy they would be to program.

I code for a living, so I do know what I’m talking about. Everything I’ve suggested would take a programmer all of one afternoon to code. If it takes them longer than that, then ArenaNet really needs to consider getting themselves some better programmers.

I can understand those not having a programming background or a degree in computer engineering making excuses for ArenaNet. Believe me, though; not a single thing I’ve suggested should be difficult, time consuming, or beyond their capabilities. If it is, then we have much bigger problems to worry about than coverage issues in WvW.

It really breaks my heart to see threads like this pop up every day but, them never receiving dev attention.
It’s futile brother.

i thought it would make more sense to give a reward that was divided between their population. eg high populated dominating servers receive more but have more to divide the reward between.

and then of course youd factor how active the players are on each server and their contribution to wvw.

people are pretty much only motivated by rewards which is why there will always be the zerg trains with the way rewards are handed out.

Reikan.2908:

i thought it would make more sense to give a reward that was divided between their population. eg high populated dominating servers receive more but have more to divide the reward between.

and then of course youd factor how active the players are on each server and their contribution to wvw.

people are pretty much only motivated by rewards which is why there will always be the zerg trains with the way rewards are handed out.

Yes, for most (but not necessarily all) the motivation seems to be rewards. I’m curious to know, though, if you’re speaking to personal rewards such as loot or server rewards such as PPT and World Score points.

Even though it may not be applicable to the discussion of PPT, I would agree with you that dividing personal rewards among the number of participants would go a long way to reducing the dominance of zergs.

For example, if a reward for killing an NPC Lord is 1 silver and there’s a 50 player zerg that takes down the Lord, they each get 2 copper. Conversely, a 5 player party that kills the Lord would be awarded 20 copper apiece. This is consistent with the paradigm of low risk = low reward, high risk = high reward versus the current (broken, IMHO) system where low risk = high reward.

If, on the other hand, you’re referring to dividing PPT and/or World Score points by a server’s population, I’d like to hear your thoughts on how to achieve this. It’s an interesting concept. I think you’ll get a lot of push back, though, on the grounds it is too akin to devaluing the contribution of a server’s players.

IF it were implemented, though, I could see it working something like this:

• Let’s assume Server A has the potential to earn 495 PPT this tick; the other two servers will earn 100 PPT each.

• Sum the total number of peak players in WvW for each server for the previous 15 minutes. We need to use peak numbers rather than the number present when the tick reaches zero to prevent a server from making a mass exodus from WvW at that point in order to exploit the formula.

• Let’s assume Server A had – at it’s peak – 200 players in WvW in the previous 15 minutes, Server B had 75, and Server C had 50.

• Sum the two lowest values: 75 + 50 = 125.

• Divide this number by the largest of the three values: 125/200 = 0.625

• Multiply the potential PPT Server A can earn this tick by the result of the previous calculation: 495 * 0.625 = 309.375 (round to 309).

• The PPT Server A will earn this tick = 309 rather than 495.

Of course, it will never work because the players on Server A will complain that their contribution to the score is being devalued and it’s not their fault that the time at which they’re able to play is when their competition has fewer numbers. These would be legitimate complaints.

The system I’m proposing, by contrast, doesn’t devalue the contribution of any player nor penalize a server for outnumbering their opponents. It simply gives the outnumbered servers a much needed counter to the current domination by coverage and replaces the passive earning of PPT with a more active system based on merit (i.e. the harder a server works to earn its World Score points, the more its rewarded).

godz raiden.2631:

As to the prospect of buying guilds… that always leads to a negative perception of the server buying the guilds, which in the future leads to less guilds wanting to be associated with that server.

Yes, because no one wants to join BG, JQ and TC.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

Reikan.2908:

i thought it would make more sense to give a reward that was divided between their population. eg high populated dominating servers receive more but have more to divide the reward between.

and then of course youd factor how active the players are on each server and their contribution to wvw.

people are pretty much only motivated by rewards which is why there will always be the zerg trains with the way rewards are handed out.

Yes, for most (but not necessarily all) the motivation seems to be rewards. I’m curious to know, though, if you’re speaking to personal rewards such as loot or server rewards such as PPT and World Score points.

Even though it may not be applicable to the discussion of PPT, I would agree with you that dividing personal rewards among the number of participants would go a long way to reducing the dominance of zergs.

For example, if a reward for killing an NPC Lord is 1 silver and there’s a 50 player zerg that takes down the Lord, they each get 2 copper. Conversely, a 5 player party that kills the Lord would be awarded 20 copper apiece. This is consistent with the paradigm of low risk = low reward, high risk = high reward versus the current (broken, IMHO) system where low risk = high reward.

If, on the other hand, you’re referring to dividing PPT and/or World Score points by a server’s population, I’d like to hear your thoughts on how to achieve this. It’s an interesting concept. I think you’ll get a lot of push back, though, on the grounds it is too akin to devaluing the contribution of a server’s players.

IF it were implemented, though, I could see it working something like this:

• Let’s assume Server A has the potential to earn 495 PPT this tick; the other two servers will earn 100 PPT each.

• Sum the total number of peak players in WvW for each server for the previous 15 minutes. We need to use peak numbers rather than the number present when the tick reaches zero to prevent a server from making a mass exodus from WvW at that point in order to exploit the formula.

• Let’s assume Server A had – at it’s peak – 200 players in WvW in the previous 15 minutes, Server B had 75, and Server C had 50.

• Sum the two lowest values: 75 + 50 = 125.

• Divide this number by the largest of the three values: 125/200 = 0.625

• Multiply the potential PPT Server A can earn this tick by the result of the previous calculation: 495 * 0.625 = 309.375 (round to 309).

• The PPT Server A will earn this tick = 309 rather than 495.

Of course, it will never work because the players on Server A will complain that their contribution to the score is being devalued and it’s not their fault that the time at which they’re able to play is when their competition has fewer numbers. These would be legitimate complaints.

The system I’m proposing, by contrast, doesn’t devalue the contribution of any player nor penalize a server for outnumbering their opponents. It simply gives the outnumbered servers a much needed counter to the current domination by coverage and replaces the passive earning of PPT with a more active system based on merit (i.e. the harder a server works to earn its World Score points, the more its rewarded).

Well divided drops would do the most for discouraging zergs.
Isn’t there a reward for the tournament that goes to all the participating players? I haven’t done it before so I don’t know.
But say like if you won a round of wvw every player on that server could be rewarded gold or badges appropriate to their PPT score. But since its divided it may encourage them to go to a low pop server for higher rewards.

Reikan.2908:

Well divided drops would do the most for discouraging zergs.
Isn’t there a reward for the tournament that goes to all the participating players? I haven’t done it before so I don’t know.
But say like if you won a round of wvw every player on that server could be rewarded gold or badges appropriate to their PPT score. But since its divided it may encourage them to go to a low pop server for higher rewards.

That would certainly be one more method by which server stacking could be discouraged.

I’ve said this 1000 times and will gladly say it another 1000 times.

The most seamless solution is to have the “tick-rate” tied to the current total player activity.

Lots of players active = score “ticks” every 5 minutes.
Skeleton Crew at 5 AM = score “ticks” every 45 minutes.

It fixes most of the issues and is done without “punishing” or impairing anyone’s game-experience. It also doesn’t require changes to the maps or anything aside from the scoring system itself.

People playing on that “skeleton crew” hour would feel that their work is less valuable than the work of players on the prime time. And they would be right. One person’s 5 AM is another’s person 7 PM.

Instead of palliatives, we should go to the root of the problem and fix the coverage issue, not the PPT system.

yanniell.1236:

People playing on that “skeleton crew” hour would feel that their work is less valuable than the work of players on the prime time. And they would be right. One person’s 5 AM is another’s person 7 PM.

Instead of palliatives, we should go to the root of the problem and fix the coverage issue, not the PPT system.

Well that’s exactly how EVERYONE feels who plays during prime-time, you know the 1000* players duking it out every night, who know that what they do is irrelevant because the night-crew decides who wins.

I’m sorry we’re beyond the point where we “reward” people for PvD at 5 AM. That’s the reason this whole system is broken.

And btw. I have never heard anyone say “hmm, this really doesn’t feel worth while to me. The tick isn’t reflecting the effort I’m putting into breaking down this door”.

I’m not proposing excluding anyone from WvW. All I’m saying is that the score needs to reflect the “relative effort” a server is investing into achieving that score.

Dee Jay.2460:

yanniell.1236:

People playing on that “skeleton crew” hour would feel that their work is less valuable than the work of players on the prime time. And they would be right. One person’s 5 AM is another’s person 7 PM.

Instead of palliatives, we should go to the root of the problem and fix the coverage issue, not the PPT system.

Well that’s exactly how EVERYONE feels who plays during prime-time, you know the 1000* players duking it out every night, who know that what they do is irrelevant because the night-crew decides who wins.

I’m sorry we’re beyond the point where we “reward” people for PvD at 5 AM. That’s the reason this whole system is broken.

And btw. I have never heard anyone say “hmm, this really doesn’t feel worth while to me. The tick isn’t reflecting the effort I’m putting into breaking down this door”.

I’m not proposing excluding anyone from WvW. All I’m saying is that the score needs to reflect the “relative effort” a server is investing into achieving that score.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m on the “I know that what I do is irrelevant because the night-crew decides who wins” side. I know the feeling. I just don’t think that make our fuse PPT more valuable than other person fuse PPT is fair. Instead, leave the ppt system as it is and make sure that there’s no more “night crew”. Just fix the coverage issue, making sure that all 3 sides will have balanced people at all times.