Guild Wars 2

Wouldn’t it make sense to have how many points you get on each map scale with a ratio of amount of players from a server and the total amount of nodes they hold?

After all if one server has forty people on a map and another server only has ten and say they both control two towers, shouldn’t the ten be rewarded more since they are holding off a force 4 times their size?

The only issue I can see with this system is a huge zerg taking over a whole map then having everyone leave just before a tick to get max points. But I feel this can be easily dealt with if you use the average number of players from a server on a specific map for the whole time duration in-between ticks.

Please feel free to share concerns and pros/cons and I am sure I have not thought of everything.

*This I think will also impact the style of game play where you have a zerg that is constantly map hopping find easy targets to hit. I think this system would force Commanders to have to actually accomplish something on a map if they take their zerg there.

If you don’t you’ll just add to the tally of the average amount of players from your server on that map for a set time period. So if you go to a map with fifty people and don’t really take anything your server will get less point for the nodes it holds that if your zerg never went there.

I don’t know if this is a negative or positive on a whole, I personally don’t like that style of WvWing (map hopping CONSTANTLY) but I am sure some do. Would be interesting to see how many like that style of game play and how many don’t.

+1

rgdfseyqhrtnjyghf

To add to that, scores should be scaling up the longer you hold a point. Forces people to defend if their high scoring keep is undefended because of zone flipping and hopping.

People already frown upon the upscaled for making the queues longer. With your suggestion newcomers, upscaled, pugs and people using crafting stations would certainly get their share of roasting.

Your system rewards servers which brings the fewest players on map. Once your server controls a map you’d be wise not to enter that map at all. Maybe even to a point it makes no sense to go back and defend until certain percentage of the map has been captured by the enemies.

Points system would get overly complicated. Nobody could tell how many points your server gains in the next point tally. You would (probably) gain fractions of points.

Carefully monitoring points gained vs nodes controlled, onecould derive the amount of players for each server on each map. Playing with a spreadsheet open in next window is not fun.

I do not want to see this kind of meta playing.

First off wanted to say you had some great points Korgov, definitely got me thinking. I’ll try to address them here:

1.Your system rewards servers which brings the fewest players on map

I think rather than rewarding servers bringing the least amount of people. It rewards the server who can hold points, complete objectives with the least amount of people.
For example Black gate has 10 people on a map, Jade Quarry has 40…Blackgate it only rewarded if they are an EFFECTIVE 10. So it is a very “results oriented” reward system.

The problem I see with this though is a rise in elitism. Hardcore WvW’ers might end up feeling with this system in place the casual guys/pugs who are not as organised as a WvW guild are holding them back.
Will try to think of any way to change that, let me know if you have any ideas.

2. Once your server controls a map you’d be wise not to enter that map at all.

It is true that if Blackgate controls lets say 90% of the map and has 50 people on that map it would lower their score, but again that’s only if the 50 people aren’t doing anything (actively taking points, fending off attacks, killing dolyaks etc.)

Now I think what you were getting at is something like this:

Case:

Say 5 guys from Blackgate decide to be heroes and try to take a Jade Quarry tower by themselves on a map where Blackgate controls most of the points, and this map has been deserted by Blackgate so this particular time tick will reward the most points.

Senario 1.
If those 5 guys take a tower great! If Jade Quarry had 20 people on the map, then those 5 guys in my opinion should be rewarded for overcoming those odds and getting a node.

Senario 2.
Jade Quarry responds by sending its 20 people on the map to the tower being attacked and crush these five guys. These 5 guys have accomplished nothing and just made your server’s score lower than if they had just stayed away.
HOWEVER this is not an issue if the system does not penalize the SMALLER force for not overcoming the odds.
So if at the end of this point tick period the average number of Blackgate guys on this map was 5 and Jade Quarry 10, Blackgate’s score would not be reduced because it was so outnumbered.

The system is designed to only penalize large zergs that hop to a map to get swords up on a keep/tower, wait for enemy response to defend and jump maps again to gain the advantage of surprise.

Now there is is issue of people crafting, buying stuff from vendors and scouts. We all know scouting is not very glamorous job, you get less loot, its more boring than combat etc. I think that the system should not include people who were not in PVP combat for that time duration. So having awesome scouts who don’t get caught won’t affect you negatively. In an case if you server has left the map and has only left a handful of scouts behind, they would be outnumbered anyways and as previously mentioned if you are outnumbered you don’t incur any penalties. Now how the ratio of being outnumbered affects the amount of points you get extra or if you are the larger side and are the “outumberer” how much penalties you get is something that would need to be tweaked by the devs.

3. Maybe even to a point it makes no sense to go back and defend until certain percentage of the map has been captured by the enemies.

This may be a problem but I see it as an opportunity cost. There is a risk involved in abandoning a map for the duration of a tick period. If the enemy server scouts that you have all left, then your nodes are ripe for the picking.

Again the numbers would have to be tweaked so it is never advantageous to leave a whole map undefended and hope that after the end of the time period you have enough points on it to make it worth while abandoning it.

4. Points system would get overly complicated. Nobody could tell how many points your server gains in the next point tally. You would (probably) gain fractions of points.

I agree (the fractions thing shouldn’t be a problem, there are equation that should solve that). Don’t really know how it being complex can be addressed, maybe others have some ideas on it.

5. Carefully monitoring points gained vs nodes controlled, one could derive the amount of players for each server on each map. Playing with a spreadsheet open in next window is not fun.

This would not be possible unless you knew exactly how many people each of the three server had on the map for the whole time period and all of the nodes that had been attacked and defended by all three servers.

But hey man if you can somehow keep track of all that information, in real time then formulate strategy around it then kudos sir/mam you are a genius and probably deserve some sort of bonus.