Guild Wars 2

If we are sticking with the seasons concept, what about considering something like a Big Ten Conference method (american college football – which eveyone knows is the only football worth cheering for).

-Go Bucks!
[err, um, i mean Go [Server]/[Server’s] playoff guilds!]

Easy

Only player kills count for score.

Nabrok.9023:

Johje Holan.4607:

Nabrok.9023:

John Corpening.9847:

Someone had a question on this one from Phys that I wanted to answer:

• Break the day into scoring periods. The match is decided on the scoring periods not PPT.

Doing this would greatly buffer runaway score. If it is off hours and one world can cap most everything because of greater coverage they still just win the scoring period rather than rack up triple score all night. It means off hours play time still has value without creating blow outs. In conjunction with some of the other suggestions it has potential. I thought that was a pretty interesting suggestion from Phys.

Lots of great ideas guys, thanks for getting this rolling!

John

I posted that two years ago … https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Queue-size-data-from-9-14-to-9-18-NA/first#post202069

I call it “Game, Set, and Match”. Like in tennis, it’s splitting the match up so one person doesn’t just run away with it.

In addition to time blocks, score it per map (the API has per map scoring data, so I know you have this). For example instead of 3 points for winning all of the time block you might get 3 points for winning EB + 3 points for the home border + 2 points (2nd place) for each of the other border maps for a total of 10 points. Meanwhile opponent 1 gets 2 points for EB + 3 points for their home border + 2 points for my home + 1 point for the other border (8 points) and opponent 2 gets 1 point for EB + 3 points for their home + 1 point for my home + 1 point for the other border (6 points).

I like the idea of different time periods separated, each with their own score. However, I would prefer it if each time period was a completely separate match. Each time period would be matched up against other time periods of similar Glicko (representing population). This would solve both issues at once – population imbalance and coverage.

The problem with having different time periods but still having all time periods in the same match is this:

A server that can tick 500+ during their time period on Saturday will not have anything to do for the rest of the week. The match will be frozen at that point and when it starts back the next day they will still be at 500+. There would have been no other time zone people to take back the stuff.

Now this might still be ok. Because it might be great fun fighting over a smaller number of objectives. Actually now that I think about it, this might be great…

Honestly, right now, I’m in favor of any change whatsoever, even one I disagree with.

John, the thing is we will not know the effect of any of these suggestions – until they are live in game. Can you all do this in such a way that it can be reversed if it turns out to be an unmitigated disaster. If you could do that then it could be put into the game so we could try it out. And you all wouldn’t have to worry about making a disastrous change. It would give you more freedom to experiment.

I vaguely remember the 24 hour match-ups they had at launch before they went into the 1 week matches. They sucked. There’s no investment in anything, nobody upgrades anything because there’s no point.

If the overall match is reduced in time, all of WvW will degenerate into what EotM has become.

When I say each time period is a seperate match, I mean a week long match. At the end of each time period, the game is saved. Then the next day it starts up again from where it left off.

Make completed upgrades give points maybe?

This is my idea for Bloodlust:

-Server in first place can not have the bloodlust buff.
-Server in 2nd place can only have 1 stack of bloodlust buff.
-Server in 3rd place can have up to 3 stacks of bloodlust buff.

When server in second place is within the range of points with the server in first place, this second server will lose the bloodlust buff.

Server in 3rd place will have 2 stacks of bloodlust as long as server in 2nd place is out of the range of points with the server in first place.

If server in 2nd place is within the range of points with the server in 1st place, then, server in 3rd place can have up to 3 stacks of bloodlust.
Once this last server gets within the range of points with the 1st and 2nd servers, server in 3rd place will lose all bloodlust buff.

If server in 2nd place and 3rd place are within the same range of points but not in range with the 1st place server, this 2 last servers can have up to 2 stacks of bloodlust each.

Edit: Added last variation.

If we are going to stick with a change in scoring, then my vote would be to remove possession based scoring and switch to objective based scoring. In other words, every 15 minutes servers would fight over select objectives for points during that round.

As an example, a server with twice the population may be tasked to hold 5 camps on a map for the duration. A less populated server would be tasked with taking and holding one camp.

The objectives would be spread out making it impossible for a single zerg to lock them all down. Winning each round would require coordination to take/defend all the points on the map which would cause players to spread out more. They could also change up the objectives based on current world population increasing the difficultly for more currently populated servers.

Each 15 minute round would award X amount of points as it does today but the points would be based on how successful the server was at performing their objectives.

Luna.9640:

You guys in ArenaNET thought that underdogs would team up vs strongest enemy server which was another ground breaking mistake – even in real life people stand united with stronger and smash the weaker.
This is what was happening past 2 years in wvw since the launch – strongest server attacks weaker and the other weak server just backdoors the weakest server. (why go poke the beast while you can just go pile points on the weakest server)

My suggestion is to give rewards to encourage players to attack the 1st place server, if they’re winning by a substantial amount. If server A is winning by a large margin, give some sort of buff (magic find, wxp, xp, hp + power, whatever) to server B and C when attacking A. Or, if A (in 1st) and B are heavily dominating C, then the buff is given to B and C for attacking A. If you want this threeway style fighting, then you have to encourage people to work together, otherwise people just take the easy road and dogpile on the lowest server, as previously stated. This would encourage lower servers to work together as Anet wants and keeps things (hopefully) more exciting if one server does have a substantial lead.

Athough it might help normalize servers that win mainly via offhours pvd, tweaking the scoring system may not be a good solution overall.
A blowout matchup is still a blowout, even if you give the losing server enough handicap points to go up a rank and fight stronger servers next week.

I want to address something that many people are suggesting – points for player kills.

I don’t think this is going to have the effect that most people think it will. The people suggesting it are thinking about it from the mindset of a hardcore PvP player. The one’s whose juices get flowing thinking about the kill.

I would gather to say that most people playing WvW are not hardcore PvP players. Points per kill will not have the same effect on them as it will on hardcore PvP people. Let’s look at some issues:

Coverage/Runaway Scoring The only way points per kill would have an effect on this issue is if PPT were dramatically reduced. If PPT remains the same as it is now, ticking 500+ for hours during certain time periods is going to dwarf any contribution that player kills can make to the score.

Encourage Fighting/Make it more Fun This may encourage fights to the hardcore PvP types – but then they already play for the fights. But I think it would have to opposite effect on casual players and on PPT players.

• Casual/PPT players are not going to be encouraged to attempt to fight actual players if they know their death will result in giving points to the other side.

• A pugmander would be crazy to lead his 40 pug group into hand to hand combat with a 20 person guild group. They’d know there’s a good chance that they’d just be giving 40 points (or more under some proposals) to the enemy. The pug group would just run to the nearest structure and jump on some siege.

• If a group gets wiped once, they sure has heck aren’t going to go back for more. And they are going to avoid the group that wiped them for the rest of the match.

• Unless it brought back many of the hardcore PvP people who have left (which is doubtful), it will result in a net reductions of fights.

• Be prepared for even more tower hugging and open field siege.

Other points

• It would kill contesting the circle to prevent a cap until your force showed up. You’d just end up giving the enemy more points than the cap is worth.

• Points for stomps should not be worth more. It would encourage an Alt-F4 mentality.

• If a player kill points are added, do away with Bloodlust. Points for Bloodlust should not be more. In addtion to the Alt-F4 mentality, if player kills are a significant portion of total score, the more populous servers will be able to keep bloodlust more often thus undermining the whole point.

In conclusion. I am not completely opposed to this idea but I don’t think it will have the effect that most people think it will. But at this point, I’d welcome any change – even one I disagree with.

Also, what defintiely should be done is to give more rewards to player kills. If you want to encourage actual fighting then reward player kills more than NPC kills.

A few things:
Splitting the day up or limiting PPT will effectively ruin WvW for everyone not on the top 3 servers which are currently FULL. I think the ethno/geographical centric mentality behind this idea is not constructive and ultimately selfish.

Adding points for all kills seems a positive change, or at least all stomps. I read the concerns that it my intimidate some players, but then the servers with that good of combat skills should move up. The current glicko rating system doesn’t necessarily reflect the skills of the players.

A tweak to scoring that rewards the two lower ranked servers to attack the stronger server is also a good idea. All too often the lower road or “playing for second” becomes the norm. It’s boring for the strongest server, and gives the weakest server no incentive to play hard.

TexZero.7910:

BrunoBRS.5178:

TexZero.7910:

Want people to actually take objectives through a multitude of means and strategies ? Get rid of Siege Disable. That abomination ruins any thought out or coordinated pushes during even resistance time zones and only enforces off hour PPTing.

i don’t know, ever since siege disabler became a thing, my WvW group (we never get larger than 15 people, usually 5-10 people) has used a bunch of varied siege to take objectives, rather than just stacking a bunch of rams.

Why should any siege or strategy be made obsolete ?

Rams are in the game for a reason, right now its clearly to be the punchline of every other siege weapon.

they’re not, that’s the point i’m making. rams still see use, but now there are other, equally viable strategies to just “water field tanking” rams. you just have to stay at range and spread out when the objective has people defending it, rather than stackstackstack.

the one thing i’d change about siege disabler is give it a clear animation. like make it super shiny and easy to spot (both the animation and the projectile), and give it a good 1 second cast time. as it is, it’s too hard to see the kitten thing to pull up your bubbles/reflects.

but that’s a discussion for another thread.

•24 hour coverage •How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score?

•Snowballing •How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match?

•Stagnation •How do I feel continuously challenged when my world is ahead?
•How does my world break the hold that other worlds have on me when I’m behind?

I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now. I haven’t read all the posts, so I may be duplicating some suggestions.

24/7 coverage: Aside from the suggestion that was brought up, about making points basically worth less during non peak hours, I am not sure how this could effectively be implemented. What are “peak” and “non peak” hours? Are the worlds that are able to provide “non peak” coverage playing on their worlds “peak times”? With the variance of time zones, and EU players on NA servers, and NA players on EU servers, this makes it very difficult to regulate. So while server A and C might be on traditional PST peak times, server Bs peak time happens to be non peak for A and C. So you would in essence be punishing server B for not being able to field enough players at the right time. This brings it into the set times for world bosses. Many players were effected by this, and as it is now, with my play times, I haven’t been able to do certain bosses. The same thing would happen here. As a possible solution I would suggest maybe matching up servers with similar peak times, as well as maybe initially matching players to servers that match their average play times as a reccomendation when selecting servers. Of course they still have the option to transfer, or select another server,but knowing that a different server means that their play times generally do not fall into that servers peak times.

Snowballing: Maybe put a cap on how many points you can get from stuff that you hold. Say, you only get points for 3 ticks on what you hold, then you stop getting points for those. In order to get more points, you need to take more stuff. However, to prevent constant flipping, add points for successful defense. You would need to change how the defense events work, so that it only triggers when walls/gates are tagged with seige, instead of a couple of players just tagging the gate with a ranged weapon. Of course reward more points for longer defenses. So a seige that lasts 20 min. give more points then a seige that lasts for 5.

Stagnation: The defense I feel will help with this. Instead of being so far ahead that you don’t care about defense, and just flip objectives back and forth, why not grant a bonus chest for successful defense as well? So players can still feel rewarded for actively doing something even if they are dominating.

These are just brain storming suggestions, and of course may not be the best options, but I’m just throwing them out there to consider. Thanks!

Jerus.4350:

MakubeC.3026:

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Here’s a proposal I pieced together from several ideas posted by forum users:
(exactly one year ago! o_O)

http://youtu.be/qHcO6Xo8eJ8

Dude…This is like real good.

• We don’t lose server pride.
• We are still merged.
• Loving the idea of assisting other matchs on different tiers.
• Reducing queues.

Attention to this man.

Can we discuss this?

I feel this idea would be spreading everyone too thin. While generally in t1 you can find fights at any time, and that’s why I enjoy it, even in t1 sometimes there’s just dead periods, and spread that population out over half a dozen servers… that’s going to mean a lot less action.

Contrary to popular belief we’re not queuing maps 24/7, we have a deep queue reset night, then we queue one map if that at any given time, we may see 2 maps queued on a saturday/sunday but that’s about it.

A year ago when the guy made the video it may have been solid, but I really don’t think the current population can handle that without it being a pretty spread out and small force type thing which honestly would have me not very interested in WvW anymore as even now I’m logging off sometimes when after 30+ mins we can’t find a force to fight. Walking Yaks isn’t fun to me.

I don’t think it’s a bad idea, I just don’t think the current population can handle that many servers. Alliance up and use fewer overall servers for a season then we could talk but not half a dozen servers with 4 maps each spreading the current populations over all that area.

I see.
I play on a low-tier server, Sorrow Furnace to be precise, and we see queues very very rarely. Even in reset nights for this leagues I’ve seen them only once.
I think you are right on the thought of spreading us thin. Maybe then, remove the feature of server hoping?
But then that will leave us with servers ranting because their low tier companions didn’t even make it to 75k PPT. How could we resolve this? Or does this trash the whole idea?

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Here’s a proposal I pieced together from several ideas posted by forum users:
(exactly one year ago! o_O)

http://youtu.be/qHcO6Xo8eJ8

a very good idea really.
+1

24 hour coverage
Break up the 24 hour cycle into sets of 4 or 6 hours, minus a short break in between. Establish scores for each of these sets, and match them up. Accumulate all scores over the week for overall rankings. The current scoring averages out over 24 hours, which gives a server’s weak timezone block a higher score than they should get. A possible result being them getting matched up against a much stronger opposition, making the game boring for both sides.

Whether to preserve the state of the maps from the end of a set’s match (say: Wednesday, 16:00 UTC) to the start of the set’s next match (Thursday, 10:00UTC, if we assume 6 hour long matches) would depend on server technology. If you save the state, everything should be frozen during the off-line hours (scoring, yaks, workers, upgrades) and at start, all destructibles and NPCs should have a 60 second invulnerable buff. Or not, it would make the start of each period quite interesting.

This break-up will implicitly get rid of the importance of off-hour coverage, because in each set you will be matched up with servers of similar strength in that set. Also, you will always have fights, because your queued-across-all-maps server won’t be matched up against a server that fields 20 people across 4 maps. You also have a better sense of accomplishments, as you don’t have to content with PvD wiping out all you worked and paid for in 30 minutes or less. Your time zone set would also be directly responsible for its score, no more “we won by getting carried by our strong X”, or “our Y didn’t put in enough hours this week and that’s why we lost”. Further, this method would prevent snowballing, which happens when you match servers of very different strengths. Each set would be balanced around the server’s score for that set. If your server’s previous timezone block is weak compared to yours, you’d still get matched to an opponent of your strength, independent of how your previous or following timezone performs.

E.g. during EU prime time hours you have a set where servers A, B and C play against each other. But when you move into the NA prime time set, server D has a better NA score than C, so now it’s A vs B vs D.

I understand this will possibly change who you play against from one set to another, but the listed advantages far outweigh that. Lots of people also don’t play 12 hours. A 4 or 6 hour set is something close to what people play anyway, giving them a natural starting and stopping point.

Snowballing
Would be much less of an issue. Introduce dynamic events that would entice a 2v1 while one server is clearly ahead. Work out a reward ratio, such that the 2 losing servers would have a real enticement to attack the leader, while making the leader rewards worthwhile hanging on to that spot, to avoid trading off the lead position to game these events. Remember, if you offer a reward, people will find and use the easiest way to get there.

Also, since matches would be shorter, there at least be less time in which to get snowballed. In the long break between sets, you can also rebuild your morale again and came back to the fight fresh.

Stagnation
Better matching provides more of a challenge and less uneven matches. See snowballing above.

John Corpening.9847:

Great start guys! There are a lot of good ideas already.

Here is a high level summary (not a proposal) of what is currently being discussed:

• Some sort of point scaling based on population or prime time hours
• Break the day into scoring periods. The match is decided on the scoring periods not PPT.
• Consider score for taking objectives either in conjunction with or in place of PPT
• Add score for kills
• Boost the outnumbered buff (in a number of ways)
• Consider adjusting score based on placement
• Adjust score of objectives based on upgrade level
• Create special objectives/achievements that occur when you are behind that give you a special reward for completing them

Someone had a question on this one from Phys that I wanted to answer:

• Break the day into scoring periods. The match is decided on the scoring periods not PPT.

Doing this would greatly buffer runaway score. If it is off hours and one world can cap most everything because of greater coverage they still just win the scoring period rather than rack up triple score all night. It means off hours play time still has value without creating blow outs. In conjunction with some of the other suggestions it has potential. I thought that was a pretty interesting suggestion from Phys.

Lots of great ideas guys, thanks for getting this rolling!

John

I have reversed engineered some of the points that are being discussed and you mentioned in your quote above. I am only looking at the non-feasibility of these suggestions as everyone has pointed out well the feasibility.

1. Do not do population based scaling, prime time hours if your going to do point scaling. Population based scaling encourages people to try to thwart the system by controlling populations. No fun for anyone.

2. Break the day into scoring periods-(I am for reducing match times this gets plus plus) However to break the day into scoring periods I will have to think on the down sides for that as I cant come up with one at this moment.

3. There is already a scoring application for kills, I do not know that this would help the smaller server succeed in winning against large groups. Or encourage people to group more and constantly try to kill smaller numbers. (camping spawns ect.)

4. Dismantling PPT and rethinking scoring has a huge draw to me as I love things that move outside of a box. However, there is no full proof way to fix scoring issues of this kind, one must weigh if the overhaul will be enough of an improvement or just cause new issues to arise.

5. Boosting the outnumbered buff is viable however does not address the issue entirely really, and if you make it to good people will once again try to work the system and play the numbers (game).

6. Adjusting Score based on placement feels non-genuine to me, and makes me feel that there has to be a better way to do this. I am all for underdogs but to much intervention where we pat everyone on the back and tell them their a winner is not helpful. It doesn’t encourage people into WvW.

7. Adjust Score objectives based on upgrade level. I personally would rather see upgrades thrown out the window. Yep I said it, I think that people could be doing alot funner things with their time then running after dolyaks or spending money on upgrades that will be taken a few moments later. Truth is that I see more demoralization by stalwart faithful WvWers cause they stayed up all night upgrading a keep and way-pointing. I also see servers getting into dramatic episodes over people not walking dolyaks, upgrading supply camps, ect. Some people just don’t like to do this.

8. Create special objectives and achievements to help when you are behind.. I actually had an idea near this but not quite this and it wasn’t to help with being behind but incentivising(which helps in the long run). Once again special objectives to help with being behind could work but it would have to be things that people ahead couldnt do. Again it borderlines a pat on the back everybody wins concern.

I have suggestions completely apart from these but, alas my lunch is over

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Here’s a proposal I pieced together from several ideas posted by forum users:
(exactly one year ago! o_O)

http://youtu.be/qHcO6Xo8eJ8

Seems like a good idea.

In terms of a low-hanging fruit, relatively easy/cheap to implement solution to scoring that could have a large impact on making matches seem more fair and fun, I believe that the scoring periods idea has the most potential. I’ll try and illustrate why.

Here’s an example of a server matchup, broken into six 4-hour scoring periods per day. The table shows the average percentage of total players in the match commanded by each server during each scoring period over the course of one day:

                      1        2         3        4         5         6
Server X    85%   60%    25%   20%   10%    20%
Server Y    10%   30%    40%   35%    40%    35%
Server Z      5%   10%    35%   45%    50%    45%

As you can see, Server X is extremely dominant during the first scoring period, fairly dominant during the second, and not a force to be reckoned with the rest of the day. Server Y is weak in the first period, but more even throughout the rest of the day. And Server Z is largely MIA in the first and second periods, but makes a strong comeback in the rest of the periods and clearly seems to be the dominant server the majority of the day.

Let’s assume for the moment that a server’s current % of total player population in a match is linearly correlated with its current PPT (not a completely valid assumption in every situation, but I think most agree that population = PPT much of the time). We might intuitively assume that Server Z, as the dominant server the majority of the day, ends up with the most points. But here is what the scoring breakdown looks like using the current scoring system and that assumption:

                      1          2         3          4         5          6      Total (day)   Total (week)
Server X    9452   6672   2780   2224   1112   2224      24464         171248
Server Y    1112   3336   4448   3892   4448   3892       21128        147896
Server Z     556    1112   3892   5004   5560   5004       21128        147896

Server X wins the match easily, simply because its utter dominance in scoring periods 1 and 2 carries it the rest of the match. The weekly total also assumes that each server carries on with its normal player populations during the week. In reality, we know that as servers fall behind on points during the week, especially to a server with vastly superior off-hours coverage, those servers that fall behind are likely to see a drop in morale that results in less players showing up. So in reality, it’s likely that Server X would win by a far greater amount of points at the end of the week.

Now imagine instead, using the exact same population % values in the first table, that the scoring were based on each period, rather than total PPT accumulated over the match. Say, for example, that in each scoring period, the winning server would receive 5 points, 2nd place would receive 3 points, and 3rd place would receive 2 points (I happen to like this scoring allocation as it gives a lot of credit to the winning server without putting losing servers too far behind). Here is how the match would look with that scoring system:

                     1        2        3        4         5        6         Total (day)       Total (week)
Server X      5        5        2        2         2        2               18                       126
Server Y      3        3        5        3         3        3                20                       140
Server Z      2        2        3        5         5        5                22                       154

Now Server Z wins the match and Server X is 3rd place, which makes more intuitive sense given its their respective dominance of the match over the course of the whole day, not just isolated time periods.

Importantly, I should note that there is no need to reset the entire WvW matchup (i.e., reset ownership of all keeps, towers, etc) every 4 hours. You only need to reset the total points that have been accumulated during that 4 hour scoring period; ownership of all current objectives, as well as all upgrades, siege, etc can carry over into the next period. This means there is still an incentive for servers to upgrade and siege up objectives, as these efforts will be passed on to the players in the next scoring period.

(continued from previous post)

There are a number of reasons why this scoring system has the potential to make matches seem more fair and fun (and thereby stimulate greater player interest in WvW).

1. It rewards servers (or possibly Alliances in the future) for developing player populations that have balanced coverage throughout the day, rather than stacking an extremely high amount of coverage in a single time slot of the day.
2. Even if a server still has a stacked player population during typical off-hours for that region, it will not put them so many points ahead as to decrease morale for the player populations of the other servers.
3. Every scoring period still feels like a victory for the winning server in that period. Even if that server doesn’t win the match, the guild groups and other players in a given period can feel a sense of accomplishment for their victory in that scoring period (you could even, say, reward players who play for at least an hour in a given scoring period some kind of chest for getting 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place in that scoring period).
4. Over time, this scoring change could have an impact on shuffling around player populations through transfers, to better even out the servers (at least in terms of having balanced player populations throughout the day).

My big problem with the split days is in the details. How would it happen? Completely new matches that kick everyone out and restart sorta like EoTM/resets?

If so what are the cutoffs? If NA time is say 6pm eastern to 12pm eastern then that’s 3pm pacific to 9pm pacific, that means pacific players have their time split in half. If an Eastern player plays their 6 hours that’s fine, but the pacific player would play from 6-9 in one time and then get kicked out, have to hop back in and play their other 3 hours in OCX…that just doesn’t seem right.

While in theory it sounds great, in practice I think many people will have some strange situations due to where the cutoffs are placed. I mean if you get ready to play but there’s only an hour left do you even bother? Do you wait for the next round which you’re going to only be able to play an hour of? then again, why bother? If your playtime is right on that cutoff is that really going to be fun doing an hour in one and an hour in the other for your run of the night?

Split the 24h period into 3 × 8h periods.

So, for instance, 6pm-2am, 2am-10am, 10am-6pm.

Rank each server separately for each of these 3 periods. So a server might be considered T1 for 6pm-2am, but then is considered T4 for 2am-1am and T2 for 10am-6pm.

Matchups are still 1 week long. However now there are 3 matchups occuring “simultaneously” (with 16 hour intervals).

All timezones are treated equally. Nobody is made to feel less valued or prevented from playing.

However a server cannot win a matchup by dominating one of these periods and sitting back for the other two.

This solves the coverage issue, without creating new problems for off-peak players.

It also solves the problem of “stale” matchups by adding a great deal more variety.

MakubeC.3026:

Jerus.4350:

MakubeC.3026:

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Here’s a proposal I pieced together from several ideas posted by forum users:
(exactly one year ago! o_O)

http://youtu.be/qHcO6Xo8eJ8

Dude…This is like real good.

• We don’t lose server pride.
• We are still merged.
• Loving the idea of assisting other matchs on different tiers.
• Reducing queues.

Attention to this man.

Can we discuss this?

I feel this idea would be spreading everyone too thin. While generally in t1 you can find fights at any time, and that’s why I enjoy it, even in t1 sometimes there’s just dead periods, and spread that population out over half a dozen servers… that’s going to mean a lot less action.

Contrary to popular belief we’re not queuing maps 24/7, we have a deep queue reset night, then we queue one map if that at any given time, we may see 2 maps queued on a saturday/sunday but that’s about it.

A year ago when the guy made the video it may have been solid, but I really don’t think the current population can handle that without it being a pretty spread out and small force type thing which honestly would have me not very interested in WvW anymore as even now I’m logging off sometimes when after 30+ mins we can’t find a force to fight. Walking Yaks isn’t fun to me.

I don’t think it’s a bad idea, I just don’t think the current population can handle that many servers. Alliance up and use fewer overall servers for a season then we could talk but not half a dozen servers with 4 maps each spreading the current populations over all that area.

I see.
I play on a low-tier server, Sorrow Furnace to be precise, and we see queues very very rarely. Even in reset nights for this leagues I’ve seen them only once.
I think you are right on the thought of spreading us thin. Maybe then, remove the feature of server hoping?
But then that will leave us with servers ranting because their low tier companions didn’t even make it to 75k PPT. How could we resolve this? Or does this trash the whole idea?

I think it kills the idea, I know I wouldn’t want my score to be determined by something completely out of my hands. I mean at that point might as well just roll a dice and that decides who wins for the week and do away with the scoring all together.

I think some alliances combining servers into one entity could mean more competitive “servers” but that idea was shot down by many smaller server players in the last discussion as they don’t want the larger population play style.

In the end at this point there is only one idea I’ve seen that I really think is solid and should be added. That’s points for kills. If those were very impactful it would reward good play, promote fighting, water down the PPT influence, and with that it’d automatically scale based on population as when there’s less people to kill you’ll get less kills meaning less points, and on the flip when there are more you can get more. So I think that idea is solid, the rest of them IMO still need to be worked out and many details kinda throw them into the “please don’t do that” pile for me.

John Corpening.9847:

Hey Guys,
I’d like to kick of a discussion on scoring in WvW.

Here is a summary of what you guys have brought up in our previous discussions:

• 24 hour coverage
  • How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score?
• Snowballing
  • How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match?
• Stagnation
  • How do I feel continuously challenged when my world is ahead?
  • How does my world break the hold that other worlds have on me when I’m behind?

These are all very much related and solutions are not just in one area but I’d like to keep this discussion focused on scoring. Also, if there is another aspect to scoring that we should consider that I’m missing please feel free to bring it up as we kick off this discussion.

We’ve had some great discussions so far and I want to thank you for keeping it constructive and friendly. I’m looking forward to what you guys bring to this discussion too.

Thanks,
John

Hello John.

I don’t think we need to complicate things too much.

Just apply a handicap based on server performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_race

Limit map populations to lowest server participation and remove map hopping.

Any attempt to handicap or manipulate the PPT is begging for player exploitation.

Closing EotM wont fix the problems of WvW that most claim its responsible for , WvW problems existed LONG before EotM.

Points for kills isn’t going to fix anything either – it just promotes avoidance of fights unless you’re absolutely sure you’re going to win.

And means that groups who’ll hold off an enemy force for as long as they can become a liability rather than an asset.

Ben K.6238:

Points for kills isn’t going to fix anything either – it just promotes avoidance of fights unless you’re absolutely sure you’re going to win.

And means that groups who’ll hold off an enemy force for as long as they can become a liability rather than an asset.

Not if you learn to fight, you can do a lot more with smaller numbers than people might think.

All you have to do is take out at least 1 for every person you have. If it’s 20 vs 60, if you can outplay them and take out 25, you’ve just gained points.

And I see this happen regularly, a team will bait the larger force stretching them out letting them loosen up, hit those that overpushed taking out 10, suddenly it’s 20 vs 50, rinse repeat and while you may lose the battle in the end you’ll have done so after taking out a mighty chunk of them.

It puts the power in the hands of people that know how to fight, a smaller but more skilled force will be raking in points even if they end up losing battles, where a larger force will only get the amount of points that you have people.

That’s what I meant when i said it scales well, in every way it scales. If you can take out at least one, maybe 2 people for every 1 of yours you’ve done your world a service.

Someone manning siege only needs to take out 2 people with an arrow cart to have gained points for his world, just 1 to break even.

John Corpening.9847:

Hey Guys,
I’d like to kick of a discussion on scoring in WvW.

Here is a summary of what you guys have brought up in our previous discussions:

• 24 hour coverage
  • How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score?
• Snowballing
  • How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match?
• Stagnation
  • How do I feel continuously challenged when my world is ahead?
  • How does my world break the hold that other worlds have on me when I’m behind?

These are all very much related and solutions are not just in one area but I’d like to keep this discussion focused on scoring. Also, if there is another aspect to scoring that we should consider that I’m missing please feel free to bring it up as we kick off this discussion.

We’ve had some great discussions so far and I want to thank you for keeping it constructive and friendly. I’m looking forward to what you guys bring to this discussion too.

Thanks,
John

Hey,

Ive been having an incredibly busy day so im not fully caught up. But from what i have been able to read, i’ve been noticing the same pattern in these discussions….. so its seems like a good time to go ahead of close this discussion out.

You’ve come up with some interesting viewpoints that well take back to the team to “discuss”. As you stated before the problem isn’t one aspect and that the solution isn’t limited to just one area.

so see you in next discussion

Jerus.4350:

Ben K.6238:

Points for kills isn’t going to fix anything either – it just promotes avoidance of fights unless you’re absolutely sure you’re going to win.

And means that groups who’ll hold off an enemy force for as long as they can become a liability rather than an asset.

Not if you learn to fight, you can do a lot more with smaller numbers than people might think.

All you have to do is take out at least 1 for every person you have. If it’s 20 vs 60, if you can outplay them and take out 25, you’ve just gained points.

And I see this happen regularly, a team will bait the larger force stretching them out letting them loosen up, hit those that overpushed taking out 10, suddenly it’s 20 vs 50, rinse repeat and while you may lose the battle in the end you’ll have done so after taking out a mighty chunk of them.

It puts the power in the hands of people that know how to fight, a smaller but more skilled force will be raking in points even if they end up losing battles, where a larger force will only get the amount of points that you have people.

That’s what I meant when i said it scales well, in every way it scales. If you can take out at least one, maybe 2 people for every 1 of yours you’ve done your world a service.

Someone manning siege only needs to take out 2 people with an arrow cart to have gained points for his world, just 1 to break even.

You’re assuming the group of 60 even comes out to face the group of 20 in the first place.

You mean you’ve scared 60 people into hiding? take advantage and go PPT a bit till they feel the need to show themselves because they’re losing too much.

To me that’s what the PPT game should be, a way to create objectives that can be used to draw out fights.

They won’t come out and fight? take a tower,still not coming, take another tower and a camp, still no go? start Trebbing their keep, still nothing? take out another camp and maybe hit a tower and then when you’ve successfully demolished their keep with a treb consider hitting that too.

Cleaning up and adding to my list of considerations posted earlier in the thread (updates in italics):

1. Population-based adjustments must react quickly to upward population shifts but slowly to downward population shifts to reduce the benefit of quickly abandoning a map or WvW or rapidly surging into a map on WvW. In the past, I’ve recommended calculating a server’s WvW strength as a 1 hour rolling average (average population for the last hour) or current population, whichever is greater across all of WvW.
2. Population-based adjustments must never make it more beneficial to for players to leave WvW and let opponents rampage less impeded instead of staying in WvW and fighting to slow them down. This likely means a handicap that provides a partial benefit to the weaker opponent but does not entirely erase the disadvantage. This likely also means retaining some benefit to PvDoor so that an abandoned map remains beneficial to control.
3. Population-based adjustments must be gradual rather than having sharp tipping points, so that the presence or absence of one player never makes a huge difference and changes the game significantly.
4. Scoring should not be based on trading an objective back and forth because it will make score differences very difficult to move. The sentry flags are largely worthless to the score because each server gets a point when they flip it so more scoring like this is probably a bad idea.
5. Any scoring adjustments should not discourage players from entering fights or risking dying to an opponent. Dying while fighting shouldn’t be a liability to a server.

If T1 PPT-oriented players are already willing to jump off of a cliff to avoid giving opponents points from kills, which some have reported, that suggests that kill-based scoring is a bad idea. That last point is also why rallying (just rallying, not the whole downed mechanic) should be eliminated from WvW. It makes inexperienced players and uplevels a liability rather than an asset..

Royale.5863:

Hello John.

I don’t think we need to complicate things too much.

Just apply a handicap based on server performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_race

I like this. The thing is though we already have everything in place for it- it’s the projected change in rating. If the visible score online and the (hopefully improved) rewards for the week reflected who was doing best relative to their current rating any server could play any other and still “go for the win”. of course, in reality it still would not be much fun for anyone being in a T1 vs T9 matchup, but it would sure make current matchups more edgy and allow any team to go for the win and the rewards.

Ps. Please DON’T do away with ppt and move to points almost exclusively for flipping stuff. That will turn WvW into a karma train/farm fest overnight – why upgrade if you want the points for flipping and re-flipping stuff! I realise there are those who would prefer we got rid of all siege and even all walls and gates in favour of exclusively open field fights. I don’t have problem with a new game mode like that, but its not WvW.

With respect to splitting the match-up into time slices, one of my main interests in doing so is to prevent upgrades that I’ve spend a day managing from being flipped while I’m not playing. If the switch in time periods does not preserve the status of upgrades until the next time the time the same time slice comes back up and instead lets the next time slice play with whatever upgrades the previous time slice was able to hold or complete, I’m not that interested in that mechanism.

To the suggestion that upgrades be eliminated, I actually enjoy defensive play, upgrading towers and keeps, and even managing and running dolyaks. Eliminating upgrades would take something out of the game that some people actually enjoy.

What’s frustrating isn’t doing the work to complete upgrades or even losing a defended and upgraded tower to a tenacious opponent that does the work to take it. What’s frustrating is having it flipped by a PvDoor crew overnight while it’s not even defended because my server doesn’t have enough people on. Freezing the upgrades overnight and then restoring them the next day would help reduce that frustration, though depending on how the time slices are made, it might not solve the problem at all because it doesn’t take long for things to be flipped when nobody is on. If the time slice straddles any dead period for a server, you can kiss the upgrades goodbye.

I don’t really believe scaling PPT per population, either across all of WvW or within a map, to be an approach that would not lead to issues – either harassing of players to get out, or discouraging play by those in non-prime time. However, I have thought of changing PPT to level of upgrades as an alternative to promote upgrading and defending more.

In general, something along the lines of:

Resource Camps:
T0: 5 PPT
T1: 10 PPT Fully Upgraded

Towers:
T0: 5 PPT
T1: 10 PPT Reinforced Walls/Gate
T2: 15 PPT Fully Fortified

Keeps:
T0: 5 PPT
T1: 10 PPT Reinforced Walls/Gates
T2: 20 PPT Reinforced Walls/Gates and Waypoint
T3: 30 PPT Fully Fortified

Stonemist Castle:
T0: 5 PPT
T1: 10 PPT Reinforced Walls/Gates
T2: 25 PPT Reinforced Walls/Gates and Waypoint
T3: 40 PPT Fully Fortified

Additional modifications to PPT:
Open Wall/Gate – minus 1 level for PPT ; so a fully upgraded T3 keep would only count as a T2 if under attack. PPT could also be reduced for each wall/gate breached – outer and inner – so a T3 fully upgraded keep could be T1 PPT while under full attack and inner breached. Seal the outer or inner behind them, then it is up to T2 again. Repel fully and repair, back to T3.

Sentries could also add 1 PPT.

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Here’s a proposal I pieced together from several ideas posted by forum users:
(exactly one year ago! o_O)

http://youtu.be/qHcO6Xo8eJ8

Finally watched this (it would be helpful to just put the text into this thread). I have some concerns about it (specifically about PPT-oriented guilds from top-ranked servers coming down to “rescue” low-tier servers and clashing with the culture there because they play differently and making the lower tiers more zergy) but it seems like a better idea that forced merges and abstract match-ups to me. Not sure queues are the problem today that they were when the video was made, though.

@Berk, I’m a little confused. Why would someone jump off the cliff? If they are in combat the kill is still awarded, if they aren’t in combat they could just waypoint out. I guess you could jump to avoid a stomp, but that’s already there and has nothing to do with the kill points.

Taggund.8936:

However, I have thought of changing PPT to level of upgrades as an alternative to promote upgrading and defending more.

I made a similar suggestion earlier in the thread, though your variation has some interesting extra twists, and plenty of other people have suggested the same in the forums. In general, the idea appeals to me because it adds another dimension to play decisions and the I think it might encourage people to attack the hardest targets rather than easier targets and engage in prolonged attacks. That said, it could make imbalanced matches even worse.

Having spent a lot of time at the bottom of the rankings, there are times of the day when a persistent opponent with a large numbers advantage can take just about anything they want if they are willing to invest the time in doing so, and this would provide a lot of incentive for a dominant server to go around and flip everything the weakest server has to reduce the point value. Right now, a lot of enemies (in the lower tiers, anyway) can be driven off by some defensive fire because they aren’t willing to spend a half-hour, hour, or even longer to flip a tower or keep when they can move on to many other easier targets, instead. This would give them more incentive to invest that time and there will be little a seriously outnumbered server will be able to do to prevent it from happening.

Jerus.4350:

@Berk, I’m a little confused. Why would someone jump off the cliff? If they are in combat the kill is still awarded, if they aren’t in combat they could just waypoint out. I guess you could jump to avoid a stomp, but that’s already there and has nothing to do with the kill points.

Right now, you get points if you spike an opponent but not if they jump to their death, so that’s why players are already doing it. It would work a little differently if the points were awarded simply for a kill and be a bit harder to evade, but I think the current behavior suggests the extremes players might go to in order to deny an opponent points for a kill. As other players commented, it may simply mean running into a tower or keep whenever outnumbered. It could also increase the use of open-field siege weapons to gain a kill advantage. While I don’t personally have a problem with open-field siege, I know a lot of players seem to dislike it intensely.

More broadly, people in my server will often throw themselves into an enemy regardless of how outnumbered they are just for the fight. To me, it seems like a problem to punish people for that sort of thing by rewarding their opponents with points.

As a disclaimer, I’m not a big fan of the Bloodlust bonuses, either.

So doing well in fights shouldn’t be rewarded because you should be able to freely kamakazee into things?

Ohh well, I thought that was a solid idea without any real down sides, it rewarded good play, scaled to actually reward more skilled yet smaller groups. Just seemed a solid plan.

If that’s a no go, then I’m back to thinking there’s no real good solution that doesn’t screw someone over enough to not do it.

Addressing Stagnation (and potentially in a way snowballing):

My most enjoyable aspect of WvW initially was always reset night. Not knowing the opponent, and knowing you’re trying to gain an advantage on the map, was enjoyable and challenging. Lately, the same matchups over and over have led to dullness, even for reset.

A recent thought I had was on not necessarily using the Servers in the matchup as the means of avoiding the stagnation, but some modifications on play and maps being reset.

Examples of thoughts in this direction:

Randomize the Map Objectives at Reset. (Avoids some stagnation even though matchup remains the same. Reset not predictable. )
1) The team that owns an objective is randomized at reset. It could be the keeps/towers could already start as owned by an opposing team or the Home BL team at map reset. (I would exclude the home BL diamond (northern towers/Garrison), and EBG keep and inner towers).
2) Randomize Upgrade Level at reset. A tower could randomly already have upgrades at reset, including waypoint and fortified walls.

Provide a means to trigger a map reset, but the weekly matchup remains the same.
1) Capturing a Fully Upgraded Stonemist results in a reset of the EBG map at next PPT or some other point in time in future (countdown or such). SM could remain in possession to those who captured it at reset.
2) Capturing a Fully Upgrade Garrison resets the BL map.
3) Capturing and holding (maybe require an upgrade or set amount of time) all 3 Garrisons provides a full WvW map reset.

Adding Cross-Borderland Impacts to Objective Capturing
1) Team does not own Home BL Garrison, a damage reduction buff exists on towers/keeps for that team in the BL of the team that does own it.
2) Team does not own southern keep/tower on one side, then a damage reduction buff exists on towers/keeps for that team in the BL of the team for that side. (I.e., Green does not own southern Blue Tower/Keep on the Green BL, then if Green attacks Blue BL, they have a percentage damage reduction against the Blue BL towers/keeps. Percentage could be based on each objective, and it would encourage focusing on recapturing objectives on own BL or those on the opposing teams to reduce their threat on your BL.)

Just some thoughts to add variety to the matchups, even if the severs within the matchups remain the same due to the slowness of the glicko to change.

you need to borrow from DAOC and use some of their systems to make wvw more fun for both pvers/pvpers

- implement a pve zone that can lose/gain control based on keeps taken. this zone is good to farm for money/ t6 mats or whatever as long as it gets more ppl to come out to the WvW zone. Would also make people have a reason to go for keeps besides ppt.
- Make the keeps a lot harder to take once fully upgraded. If any of you are bored look at old Dark age of Camelot RVR videos where you would have 100v100 and even larger , but 1 side didn’t steam roll and take the keep. Guards hit really hard basically 1 shotting you.
- redesign the maps , connect them all with gates to capture and control, would make people spread out more and could run to each zone without having to “zone” or wait in a que. you all have a lot going in edge of the mist should move some of that over to otherside.
Its hard to balance both hardcore WvW and PvE ppl but you all have neglected WvW for too long, unless you make all new maps, and or add a zone to WvW to give people a reason to come out and fight.

While generally productive a few posters get upset whenever their ideas of points increases for stomps or kills is challenged by other posters. There are many reasons some are cautious regarding removing the ppt model and replacing it with a pvp model. One follows.

IMHO;

Prior to increasing the score reliance on kills or stomps ANET should introduce in game moderators.

These moderators should be empowered to apply instant game bans for those individuals who constantly harrass and belittle any of their server members who “cost the team” by their presence in WvW.

The hate/troll speak that is a noticeable part of Spvp would transfer to WvW if not moderated.

I have personally noticed that;

In that portion of the match where the outcome is not yet decided, PPT servers/teams avoid fights that they are not certain of winning, possibly due to stomp points.

PvP points and PPT are not 100% compatible. If the aim is to increase or maintain the numbers of gamers playing WvW, I do not believe points for stomps will help at all.

Points for Kills might have some value.

I hope that’s not in reference to me elkirin, I’m not upset, I just simply don’t understand. I mean to me the reason you score things is to create a winner and loser, to reward quality play while punishing bad play. If people are worried about a toxic environment I guess that makes sense, though to me on it already exists, hell one of the commanders I follow uses the word “Rallybot” so frequently it’s lost all meaning, but at the same time I love following that commander

Points for Kills?

hang on whilst I get on my spying account and repeatedly kill it, over and over and over again!

Really like the scoring periods idea. But whatever changes are made, I feel like they should focus on promoting fights, and to an extent, open field battles. Awarding kill scores could be great for this.

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

Points for Kills?

hang on whilst I get on my spying account and repeatedly kill it, over and over and over again!

It could be made so that only players that award 60 points are counted. Or just add a cooldown

Scoring system is perfect for a 24/7 gamemode.

The Issue with PPT/Stomps is that apart from it being open to manipulation, usually the Server with the better Guilds or even numbers would rack up the points, at least keeping it exclusive to bloodlust prevents this somewhat.

I’ve read the above suggestion to scale Points to Structure ugprades, but that wouldn’t stop zergs from PvDing things over and over with one big Border hopping group.
The only way of breaking that culture is introducing some kind of cap or limit to the amount of players that hop or lessen the reward.

Jerus.4350:

So doing well in fights shouldn’t be rewarded because you should be able to freely kamakazee into things?

You do get rewarded. If I kamikaze you, you’ll get loot bags from killing me. Isn’t that enough? I don’t have a problem with you being rewarded for killing me. I have a problem with my server being punished for me dying, even when no objective is involved or lost.

Why shouldn’t it affect is the score? Three main reasons.

1) One of the primary design objectives of Guild Wars 2 is supposed to be that you should always appreciate another player joining in and you players should never be motivated to tell other players to leave and not participate. Making players who die quickly because of lack of experience, skill, level, or focus on points violates that.

2) People keep claiming that they want fights and want to fight humans, not NPCs in WvW. Having death give points to the enemy gives players a reason not to engage in fights, which runs counter to the idea that you should be looking to get into fights.

3) As someone else pointed out, it’s fairly easy to manipulate with second accounts or spies letting themselves be killed to rack up points.

Jerus.4350:

Ohh well, I thought that was a solid idea without any real down sides, it rewarded good play, scaled to actually reward more skilled yet smaller groups. Just seemed a solid plan.

If the fights were 1:1 or always between balanced groups, then it might make a lot of sense and would probably work fine. The problem is that a lot of fights aren’t balanced. Tonight ET went on to AR’s borderland and flipped a bunch of stuff. To their credit, AR players showed up to fight us, even though they were unlikely to stop us. And I’ve been on the flip side of that equation, since ET is the bottom-ranked server in NA right now. But if the enemy server gets points for everyone they kill, there would be no reason to stick around and fight. The best thing you could do for the points is run away and slip out the back and let them PvDoor the objective, instead. I don’t see much fun in that for either side.

Jerus.4350:

If that’s a no go, then I’m back to thinking there’s no real good solution that doesn’t screw someone over enough to not do it.

Any solution is going to change something and that’s bound to annoy someone. But the reason I put together that list of considerations that I posted earlier in the thread is that each suggestion needs to be considered in terms of the play it will motivate and how it will work in practice with players trying to game the system. I could be wrong, but I don’t think we want to encourage players to run away unless they are pretty sure they can win, and that’s what several people suspect would happen based on behavior they’ve seen among PPT players. Personally, I would never think of jumping off a cliff to avoid being staked, but that apparently does happen with the hardcore PPT players, too.

Berk.8561:

A problem I think WvW has, in general, is that it’s simply easier to attack the weakest target (an undefended tower, the third-place server) than the strongest target that will put up the best fight. As such, there should be benefits to making the hard choices instead of the easy choices.

This line here got me thinking. What if when you are attacking an object, you got a counter for number of enemy players killed (NOT NPCs). Maybe you kill a few enemies taking a tower, get above average loot and rewards. Maybe you spend an hour taking on an enemy garrison killing hundreds of players. Perhaps the event could work like a defense event and have a timer so that even if you don’t end up getting the objective you get some points for trying to fight a huge defensive crowd

John Corpening.9847:

Hey Guys,
I’d like to kick of a discussion on scoring in WvW.

Here is a summary of what you guys have brought up in our previous discussions:

• 24 hour coverage
  • How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score?
• Snowballing
  • How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match?
• Stagnation
  • How do I feel continuously challenged when my world is ahead?
  • How does my world break the hold that other worlds have on me when I’m behind?

These are all very much related and solutions are not just in one area but I’d like to keep this discussion focused on scoring. Also, if there is another aspect to scoring that we should consider that I’m missing please feel free to bring it up as we kick off this discussion.

We’ve had some great discussions so far and I want to thank you for keeping it constructive and friendly. I’m looking forward to what you guys bring to this discussion too.

Thanks,
John

-24hr coverage
If the holding of objectives did not reward points, but the taking of objectives did, then the siege/defense dynamic would be more relevant. Off peak hours could clean out your battleground rewards, but after the map has flipped colours, the score would stagnate.

-snowballing
Again if the scoring rewarded activity and not possession, then individual efforts might be more worthwhile… There’s little interest now in holding an objective longer than it can be locked down for a ‘tick’.
Give outmanned buff some teeth in regards to taking and holding of objectives; the risk of getting Zerg one rolled is the same; but reward factor is in favour of the underdog

-stagnation
Put a viable breakout method on the map to allow a defensible toe hold (but also the only way the overpowering force can score is to take that flipped objective) it promotes the active taking of objectives and gives a smaller force the ability to deny points while strategically picking off their own (which if stretched too thin can be reversed… And vice versa)