Guild Wars 2

As a general comment….Ancient warfare generally did involve blobs, granted many were more organized than that but, blobs none the less. That seems to be the genreal era, maybe renessaincish (also blob-like armies).

Geurilla warfare really only became a serious tactic with the invention of guns (which are far more deadly in realife than in Gw2, where my rifle bullets are made out of rubber apparently) and high explosives. If we had weapons like that, one shot = kills entire zerg, yer kitten right there’d be little sneaky groups and alot less zergs.

BUT, thats not the case.

Tryxtr.6295:

I’m so glad that this discussion is finally taking place, however I am a little concerned about the idea of splitting the day into chunks with a server being able to “win” a chunk of the day. You can never really predict when certain servers will be active and it just seems like there could be plenty of problems with such a system.

I’m wondering what the result would be if we simply went with this:

1. You get points for taking an objective (more points if it’s upgraded)
2. You get points for defending an objective (less points if it’s upgraded)
3. You DO NOT get points for holding an objective
4. You get points for upgrading an objective

This would result in a servers points only going up when they have people playing and nobody can earn a massive amount of points for passively owning something.

This system would only require a rebalance of the point system. I’m sure Anet could monitor a few server matchups and come up with something.

Thoughts?

^ this = Karma Train

nekretaal.6485:

Just hide the score/hide the tick.

This will not help with the big coverage/night capping issues, but it will help immensely with the #1 and #3 servers focusing the #2 sever issue.

It will also be better for morale.

LOL…lets just sweep this one under the rug. Funny though.

PabbyGaul.9682:

As a general comment….Ancient warfare generally did involve blobs, granted many were more organized than that but, blobs none the less. That seems to be the genreal era, maybe renessaincish (also blob-like armies).

Geurilla warfare really only became a serious tactic with the invention of guns (which are far more deadly in realife than in Gw2, where my rifle bullets are made out of rubber apparently) and high explosives. If we had weapons like that, one shot = kills entire zerg, yer kitten right there’d be little sneaky groups and alot less zergs.

BUT, thats not the case.

Heh, yea, no AOE limit to real hand grenades and land mines.

Stagnation vs uneven match-ups. What’s worse?

Would you rather fight new opponents each week or have balanced matches each week, realizing that depending on your servers strength you may not get both. Hello, T1!

Mattargul.9235:

Stagnation vs uneven match-ups. What’s worse?

Would you rather fight new opponents each week or have balanced matches each week, realizing that depending on your servers strength you may not get both. Hello, T1!

I’d rather fight the same enemies every week than have uneven matchups.

In fact, I did fight the same enemies every week in DAoC, like so many other people (and the sides were uneven there, too: I saw a Hib once! No lie).

You can actually keep the current system if you can “adjust” the score based on the coverage of any server in the match at a given time. Apply an algorithm to each tick that increases/decreases ppt depending on the variance vbetween the servers in the match. Largest server gets 5(.5) points for taking a red camp if they have twice the population on that specific map at the time of taking the camp. Similarly, Red gets 5(2) for taking the same camp back from Green if Green has twice the number of people on map st the time. Apply an additional value to the algorithm if Green/Blue are fighting over a Red objective.

I haven’t read this entire thread so my appologies if a similiar idea is already in there.

Sarcastically:
“You already ruining WvW…. Why just not remove it…. = You have no Blobs, Trains, Players… You have no problems…
White Swords, PPT…. They all go to the historical records.”

At that point i just laugh more and more after every decision on their side…
For me WvW is dead till they fix it… I have only the hope now… ;(

Hey you, Anet, this is what I want, don’t care about all the other stuff, it’s all American problem anyway, nobody really cares in EU about coverage + our servers healthier for it.

I guess it fits under category against stagnation or whatever.

A WvW map, with just the 3 spawns and something like StoneMost Castle in the middle.
No Towers.
No Camps.
Gates like walls currently, cannot be damaged by player abilities.
No siege allowed other than what may be dropped from the supply drop as mentioned below.

System wide (across all servers on the map) announcement every 1 hour (or whatever, maybe more/less) and pinged on everyone’s map, maybe icon showing on map, of a weapon/supply drop that includes stuff like Scorpions from EOTM and maybe some other cool stuff, dunno, put your minds to it.
This is to stop one server having complete control over the central SM like castle and promote an interesting 3 way fight over the weapon/siege drop.

No moar gaem ded, gaem fun again.

Thank you.

Has this topic gone anywhere?

John Corpening.9847:

Hey Guys,

• 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?

Gonna group these together as I realized my first suggestion for question 2 also applies to question 1.

More buffs to Outnumbered, increasing buffs to outnumbered the longer it’s applied to a Battleground, or realm buffs based on score difference?

Not sure how viable that last one is, but the first two, maybe? Have outnumbered grant more score on kills, or grant score when capping/defending a camp/tower/keep? If you can keep track on how long a realm is outnumbered in a borderland or EB, you could scale those buffs up, starting at 0 and moving up every… hour? 30min? Every time points tick over? Timing would depend, but that way underpopulated realms (or people playing in off hours) would find it easier to gain points.

As for unbalanced matchups (Rank 12 realm against rank 6 or something like that)… not sure? Maybe buff Siegerazer? Make it easier to use him to take back close towers? If you can do something based on score, make it easier for a team lagging behind to recap their own keeps and garrisons? Realm buff to siege damage, more Siegrazer-esque NPCs to help assault them, longer sword timers for high-scoring realms to keep them from easily waypointing back?

John Corpening.9847:

• 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?

Oh, either these questions are just very similar and I only noticed now, or I’m terrible at answering the question I was actually asked… anyways…

Changes based on score is starting to seem more-and-more the answer to these problems. I don’t know how easy such a thing would be to implement, but buffs to reduce siege costs and assault timers for realms that are behind, increased timers and reduced RI for realms that are ahead… The easiest way I can think of to keep the challenge is to make it harder for realms that are winning to hold camps/towers/keeps, and easier for losing realms to take and hold them for themselves.

As someone who roams solo/with a very small group (2-4) most of the time, you can take camps and towers fairly easily… so long as you don’t get chased out by a zerg. Any changes that help those small groups for losing realms could make it easier for them to stay competitive even when outmatched, especially since it would improve how well their zergs could take things, by extension. Give losing/outmanned realms longer grace periods to assault camps and towers before swords appear, make it easier for a couple people to quickly knock down a tower wall or gate and kill the lord, and reward them for it. Make it easier for losing realms to claim Bloodlust, or make the ruins in their borderland unflippable by other realms until their points are closer.

In most cases, making things easier for small groups unfortunately makes things easier for zergs, but if you can have buffs and nerfs apply ONLY to one realm or another, based on score, you could help the roamers and zergers in just the losing realm(s), which might go a long way to helping the point disparity.

Its really not that difficult, come on.
Before attempting to fix something you first have to find out what the actual problem is:

• Population imbalance or no coverage at night.
  My server for example is always very strong at the start of the week. We are usually up ahead in no time. At prime times we have great coverage and fights. At night, noone plays, literally noone, while the enemy zergs in 50-100 people and gains ticks for 2/3 of the day.

This leads to the next problem:

• A server should not be able to get points while the enemy is not even present!

So, what do we do? Get rid of ticks? Bad idea.
If only capturing and killing would grant points the server with more players would have capped out the map in no time and cant progres from that point on.

Shorter rounds? Probaby, but does not help at all during night times etc.

Obviously the solution is a mix of everything:

- A Match should only last for about 3 hours total! (Maybe even 2 hours) The server that has won the round gains a total score of plus 1 (Seperate scoring)
Edit: This is of utmost importance. As many have mentioned its is impossible to balance something that has a 24/7 uptime over a whole week

- Points via ticks must never be the only option to gain them. We need to be rewarded with points upon capturating a tower or camp. Also Killing someone should grant a point by default. An additional point if you stompt them with Bloodlust.

- Outnumbered buff should pop in if one server has 15% less population than any of the other two. A Match will not count towards the total score if one server had an outnumbered buff for 50% of the match duration.

Now, this is something that would certainly help.
If I imagine the scenario that we get matched with another server that has higher coverage at night for example. Only the matches during prime time would count towards the total score which is needed to determine the winner at the end of the week. (Which is absolutely fair. Its only logical that a match can only be ranked if the team sizes are sometwhat even)
All matches at night would be meaningless IF one server tries to zerg.

It does not even end here. Since this will lead to a lot less coverage at night on active servers if they are matched with one without night coverage, night times naturally becomes the roamers prime time.
If the outnumbered server has only a hand full of roamers the active server is forced to reduce their numbers to a few roamers themselves to be able to get a ranked match going. Again, even and fair.

With the simple introduction of these 3 changes not only population imbalance would be solved but also the unfair advantage of night time ticks which is the second most important problem that needs to be adressed.

I strongly believe that if a system like this would be enforced, the high population server guys would want to transfer down because they’d be restricted to play at night or absence of the enemy and thus make the overall population more balanced.
(Of coruse downgrading transfers must be free of charge)

Edit: Of course that system also has its flaws. If a server has been fighting for an hour and realizes they wont be able to win anymore, a major clan could just leave WvW for the rest of the match for it to not count in the end.

If this occurs a lot the match duration just need to be shortened even more. 1 hour total for example. Make the match duration be somewhat like the one of a Battlefield 2 game. This game has a similar scoring and capture system with ticks and kills but it works because of short rounds.

(Infact, I believe Anet could learn a lot just by looking at how the battlefield series handles its point and scoring system. The core mechanics are very similar to WvW)

@Derren. Buffing siegerazer will never be an option, in terms of getting a solution. Siegeracer is an NPC, with pre-defined behaviour, you can’t trust to it the “balance” of the MU, if your enemy outnumbers you 5:1 it has no effect.

@Flitzie. I think you walking in the right direction, maybe not straight as you said but that can be actually a good start to make the new system. I just disagree on one thing, if you make MU last only couple of hours, the part of upgrading is lost, there is no time to upgrade either towers or keeps, and of course you could reduce the timers but that would do nothing since has no sense to upgrade a waypoint in a keep in 1 hour or less.

You are right. I absoluetly forgot about upgrade times. But hey, thats just another timer to change right?
1h is now 1min. How about that? Of course the costs need to be drastically lowered aswell! Then again just some numerical values to change here too.

If a waypoint costs you 5 silver and is deployed in under one minute. Why not.

Disclaimer: Wether 1 minute instead of hours is better or not is for the balancing team to decide. I am just throwing out the idea that changing some time and costs values accordingly should not be the problem at all.

Been pondering some ideas to help improve the dynamic in WvW and help some of the servers that lack coverage and the ability to compete be able to stay in the game through the end of the match. Thus keeping the top dog busy and the battlefield active. This would also help keep scores closer throughout the week keeping people in the fight.

My proposal breaks apart matchups into different perks for each place.

Removing Cross Swords
1st place should have no swords
2nd place should have a 30 second delay on swords
3rd place should show swords instantly.

Build Timers
1st place Upgrades build 50% slower
2nd place Upgrades build at normal speed
3rd place Upgrades 50% faster

NPC’s
1st Place NPC’s have 25% less HP
2nd place NPC’s are normal
3rd Place NPC’s have 25% more HP

Siege
1st Place: Siege Weapons Cost 10 Supply More to Build
2nd Place: No Effect
3rd Place: Siege Weapons Cost 10 Supply Less to Build

By creating these tiered buffs you would make it so the underdog would have more of a shot of staying competitive to the end. I don’t know anyone that enjoys playing a blowout match. It would be better to keep things close.

So, I’m not here to design the system for ANET, but I think giving more value to kills and much less importance to ticks is the way to go.
Back when holding the 3 “center caps” gave 3 pts, WvW was a lot more strategic, punished zerging (whole map zergs).

I would probably test the avenue of being able to score based on structures held, but only award points for kills and also base the score multiplier on how balanced the fight was (example when odds are 1-3 against you, a kill would be worth a lot more than when odds are 1-1 the same way as winning a 3-1 fight would be worth a lot less) – have fun internally coming up with some formulas that would make this work.

Another issue with the current system (and the one I proposed) is “structure turtling”. That is currently a valid strategy and very effective. No real incentive exists to force people out of structures siege makes “turtling” an even more annoying.

Incentives to go out of structures need to be given.

Edit:
a good example is how on NA servers, other timezones are totally unbalanced to the point some can afford to steal everything uncontested and make their server win. In a system where you need kills/fights to score points there is no point fighting against a ghost town. (though players are at fault for this) Unless Anet forces some “potential population” balance, any scoring system will be broken.

Edit 2:
Holding the 3 “orbs”/“mid points” when they were worth 3pts balanced the scores from the night capping because just to break one of the many T3 keeps they had upgraded overnight while you had no manpower, just due to the sheer amount of kills you got in the process of flipping that structure (respawns, warriors sacrificing to banner the lord, etc., a kill based system would also make people think, is it really worth saving (trying to) the structure and give the enemy countless kills or let it fall & regroup to adapt to the new situation.

PS: I also like the region/timezone based suggestion that was made and generally accepted, though I still think changing the scoring emphasis away from JUST holding structures needs to happen and would make the game mode into a much better one.

Foghladha.2506:

Been pondering some ideas to help improve the dynamic in WvW and help some of the servers that lack coverage and the ability to compete be able to stay in the game through the end of the match. Thus keeping the top dog busy and the battlefield active. This would also help keep scores closer throughout the week keeping people in the fight.

My proposal breaks apart matchups into different perks for each place.

Removing Cross Swords
1st place should have no swords
2nd place should have a 30 second delay on swords
3rd place should show swords instantly.

Build Timers
1st place Upgrades build 50% slower
2nd place Upgrades build at normal speed
3rd place Upgrades 50% faster

NPC’s
1st Place NPC’s have 25% less HP
2nd place NPC’s are normal
3rd Place NPC’s have 25% more HP

Siege
1st Place: Siege Weapons Cost 10 Supply More to Build
2nd Place: No Effect
3rd Place: Siege Weapons Cost 10 Supply Less to Build

By creating these tiered buffs you would make it so the underdog would have more of a shot of staying competitive to the end. I don’t know anyone that enjoys playing a blowout match. It would be better to keep things close.

If anything like this is ever implemented, a point buffer needs to implemented because I’d abuse it by sitting in 3rd on reset to get my structures upgraded faster than the rest only to be the first with T3 structures and keep the enemy with un-upgraded structures.

You can’t have something like this in a “competitive” system. Best example I can think of is how frustrating it is when your friend steals your win in mario kart because of the boosting they do for people lagging behind.

24 hour coverage could be fixed by combining the NA/EU servers together then breaking down the scoring system into 8 hour PPT grinds to give the NA/OCX and EU players something to work for a final score to be accumulated at the end of each 8 hour time frame.

Perhaps it should be that to get points, it’s not enough to have flipped it, you have to be present. Like the ruins. That would encourage holding groups and discourage trains.

There are basically two ways to look at the future of scoring in WvW (and WvW at large).

Either we reign in the coverage concept (that comes with ticks) or we build a completely new mechanical concept.

Captures, ticks and server numbers

If you want to keep so many points tied to captures and tick (over open-field encouragement and player-kills) you obviously need to do something about all hours coverage and point-distribution, such as making ticks in regional prime-time far more valuable than ticks in regional off-time. That would be enough to let whoever wins prime-time – when everyone has some coverage and where fights actually occur, to balance open-field and objective siege – also win the day and by extension the week. That’s the short-term benefitial and easily implemented option.

Kills and group numbers leading to server numbers

Long term, if you also want to deal with the issue of transfers, stacking and the most numerous servers becomming the most powerful through bodies on field (and AoE mechanics) you would do best to change the scoring mechanic itself to something akin to kills-per-death ratios or similar. It could be capture-based as well, such as captures per online numbers, giving more points when you don’t have queues etc, on some linear scale. However, for any such system, letting the kill-modifier be higher (and possibly also be kill/number or kill/death modified) is much more likely to yield positive results as it would encourage smaller groups (guilds) to engage larger groups (other guilds, server pickups) in open field and not just hold up in towers to cull numbers with siege weapons.

Scoring and numbers derived from combat mechanics

There are further options, as hinted above, to adress field-dominance with changes to combat mechanics (such as taking a look at the AoE cap and similar things), but it’s not as easy as to hastily remove caps or improve such damage since they serve a purpose to both balance numbers and offensive to defensive builds or tactics. That would mean that even details in the combat mechanics, if adressed, would need to be adressed with some scalable numerical concern (letting eg., the AoE cap glide based on numbers on screen or similar). It’s an intricate way to go about it that goes outside of the scoring portion, I just wanted to add it to provide some perspective on how scoring and numbers relate and point to other options or ways to approach changes.

Trying to have “scoring” and trying to make rvr a week long WoW battleground are part of the fail.

- Hiding player names
- No kill spam / tracking of real fights
- Rewarding zergs with Stacking, downed state, and flipping empty keeps
- Stupid small maps
- No instanced pvp scenarios/bgs for our real toons to play in whan rvr is either slow or is full of soccer moms flipping empty keeps

And yes, its time to delete spvp.

Only way to fix coverage is to only give points for active playing, you get no tick points, you get less if any points for capping a undefended building and then have so you get more points the better the building is upgraded and defended, both for defense and capping.

phys.7689:

break the 24 hour periods into 3 rounds
win two rounds, you win the day
win 4 days you win the match

this way, one 8 hour shift cant win you the day. 2 however can, but i think if you lose two timeslots, then ehhhhh you lost that day.

soo now there would need to be a reason to play when you are getting blown out.
hmmm

Might be better if you break 3 times in the entire week of matchup. If it’s too short, it’ll just turn into another eotm where noone gives the kitten about the score.

antonbalboa.7280:

@Flitzie. I think you walking in the right direction, maybe not straight as you said but that can be actually a good start to make the new system. I just disagree on one thing, if you make MU last only couple of hours, the part of upgrading is lost, there is no time to upgrade either towers or keeps, and of course you could reduce the timers but that would do nothing since has no sense to upgrade a waypoint in a keep in 1 hour or less.

This one has actually been discussed above. Some of the thoughts were that even though the match point was awarded to the servers after the ‘x’ hour matchup, the current control, upgrades and siege were persistent into the next round of scoring. The mini-matches were just used to calculate into the total weekly score. Side with coverage may still win but they won’t score 3 nights worth of points over a single night’s time.

sephiroth.4217:

24 hour coverage could be fixed by combining the NA/EU servers together then breaking down the scoring system into 8 hour PPT grinds to give the NA/OCX and EU players something to work for a final score to be accumulated at the end of each 8 hour time frame.

Out of curiosity are you picturing combining the servers or just the server’s scores? I get why they have EU/NA servers even if I prefer them mixed, but hadn’t thought about leaving the server’s separate but combining their points before.

1. How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score?
-Don’t allow transfers to servers that have full coverage. They should be “Full”, until their WvW population drops. Only allow free transfers to servers with the lowest coverage.

2. Snowballing
How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match?
-Give the third place server structural and boss buffs in their own BL. Give the second place server more points for stomping, give the third place server even more points for stomping.

3. Stagnation
-I have been asking for rotating WvW maps for over a year. I know it takes a long time to develop a map, so you should get started. By the way, Anet has an old map that never gets used. Start, by rotating in the old BL map with the quaggans. I think the response would be very positive. At least 3 to 4 rotating WvW borderland maps. How about a forest world map, a mostly water map, a desert map, the possibilities are endless. We all know the current map inside and out, a change is very needed.
a. How do I feel continuously challenged when my world is ahead?
-By playing servers that still want to fight. See above, give the second place server more points for stomping, give the third place server even more points for stomping. Give better drops for third place stomps as well.
b. How does my world break the hold that other worlds have on me when I’m behind?
– Server pride drives IOJ to keep fighting. I do appreciate previous posts pointing out that with the mega server, there is less server pride. This really needs to be addressed.

Catleana [WolF] IOJ

Change in Scoring:

-Points per kill accumulate and at a cap you get a reward chest.

-Remove rewards from lord kills and tower capture instead have the area around an objective reward double loot/server points per kill to the server that owns that objective. ( server buff) and double loot points, (scale up npcs, make the quartermaster be a threat not a treat)

-The buff that rewards the double points per kill is granted trough capturing the ruins , holding 2 towers or holding 4 camps or 1 keep. (math)

-Siegerazer v 2.0
Instead of breakout events, have repair and upgrade events.
Guild an npc from north camp to objective of your choosing (trough npc selection screen) and paying a gold fee.
This npc scales according to the amount of people guiding and attacking. (may grand buffs)

-Villager break out event. Guide 10-20 villagers from camps to towers or keeps to repair.
They will instantly trow their supplies in a designated keeps supply depot, or wall. (These npc’s will drop loot on the ground) and make for an excellent farm for both sides. these villagers fight back (sorta) and run at normal speed.

-UI messages concerning keeps. “someone has killed the guards at watergate” 30 secs after all guards are killed.

-Remove (or rework) sentries and add something that contributes to the experience.
Sentries now show numbers and opponent dot’s on the minimap.

-Interactive, communicative minimap and UI.

-Rework outmanned buff to only for defending servers adding some defensive buffs to it might give the buff some purpose. (rework)

-Remove pve camps and mercenaries or make it something worth wile, rework or remove bosses that add nothing to WvW

-Balance servers on WvW population not on server pop numbers and adjust transfer price accordingly. (I wish i could hop servers for WvW but not have it cost me an arm and a leg just to see if it suits me.)

-Stop AA spam for tags trough rewarding stomps over tags.
Population and servers:

-Server pride as mentioned.

-WvW chat in pve/UI messages concerning WvW.

-Personalized weekly WvW achievement that adds bonusses/buffs (for PvE) upon completion and a global buff earned trough server accomplishments in WvW.
Create a server achievement each person can vote for during the week and will be implemented the next:
example:
Major objectives:
1) Capture and hold SM for 48 hours
2) Capture and Hold Garrison on your opponents borderland for 48 hours
3) Hold all your opponents towers for 24 hours
Minor objectives:
1) Capture and hold most camps for the longest time during the week
2) Kill most dollies..
3)etc etc..
4)..
Bonus objective:
1) Stomp Most players
2)
Each objective has its own server reward and up to 3 rewards can be gained trough the achievements.
This sets a goal for the server and creates a whole other gamemode and incentive to fight for your server.

-Merge NA/EU, or and let people choose servers according to primetime/coverage
iow show your statistics each week.

-Offer easier access to crafting , banking and buying in pve so WvW numbers are more acurate.

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

-(as mentioned) Split the day into segments for scoring.
-Outmanned buff, by either side. if a map becomes empty the points per kill increase.
-Reduce tick of the winning side in off hours when a server or 2 servers run a tick below 50 and other servers have the outmanned buff.
-Basically tie in score with population.

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

-Alliance.

After day 24 hours, when one world has a score that doubles the score of the other opposing servers , these two servers will automatically join forces for 24 hours, they will share their tick.

Stagnation
How do I feel continuously challenged when my world is ahead?
-Alliance, side events/achievements, server achievements.

How does my world break the hold that other worlds have on me when I’m behind?

Make the gameplay, events and objectives rewarding for small groups.

Merlin Dyfed Avalon.5046 24 or 48hours is to long even if you cant do it over 1 week, you then need to be online 7hours a day when your server have SM in EB then 3.5hour a day in 2 different borderlands so that makes it 14hour a day you need to be online if your server manage to hold it. Make it say 4hour for SM, 3hour for Enemy Garrison, 2hour for the 2 enemy tower next to there Garry a week.

I opend a new topic for that, i saw here many usefull suggestions! Good ideas ppl!

Bit late to the party but I’ll trow my 2c in the pot:

1. Scoring tick timer, scoring per objective captured…etc… remains the same
2. No scoring variability per timezone crap
3. Every player in a wvw map contributes a wvw score equal to, let’s say 5% rounded up to the nearest whole number, of the realm score, per tick (exact % value to be determined by the devs…heck…maybe even give a small multiplier bonus if outnumbered).

Effects

• scoring by objective becomes a base score, with it’s value diluted due to much better scoring in the populated timezone. But with this being a multiplier for every individual, it does not discourage wvw play in off-time.

Pros:

• easy to implement (maybe)
• rewards general participation in wvw
• Rewards realm effort through the whole day (why should I bother with stuff if my effort is not as valuable now, vs later?)
• provides incentive for the underdog to do something in wvw even if the realm has a abysmal score of 10 points/tick. Due to the rounding up to the nearest unit, even a lonely camp flipper can make a impact with his 1 extra score/tick simply by being there. If he remains there long enough (even if simply running around in spawn), eventually a second player comes in…etc…now is a party!
• fixes many a timezone hopping guild shenanigans
• paints a clearer picture of realm strength, allowing more balanced match-ups

Cons:

• It doesn’t fix overall imbalanced match-ups/imploding servers that are still high in the rankings, but fixing this is not the role of the scoring system

P.S. Would be extra nice if “things we captured score” and “total realm score” (that includes participation score) can be viewed together at the top of the screen.