Guild Wars 2

I feel there is no difference between the new scoring and the old one, is maybe even worse.

As suggestion, what about new points for each skimish:

• 5 for 1st;
• 4 for 2nd;
• 3 for 3rd.

In that way would alleviate the differences between the servers (the 1st isn’t 3 times ahead of 3rd, but almost 2 times). Maybe other values like 4, 3, 2 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd if the diference is too low?

Mikau.6920:

I feel there is no difference between the new scoring and the old one, is maybe even worse.

Why would there be a difference? Coverage still affects it the most, and scoring does not physically change population. You can fiddle with the scoring numbers all you want, but it will still be an inconsistent experience to the players unless they are moved around in a balanced manner.

Mikau.6920:

As suggestion, what about new points for each skimish:

• 5 for 1st;
• 4 for 2nd;
• 3 for 3rd.

In that way would alleviate the differences between the servers (the 1st isn’t 3 times ahead of 3rd, but almost 2 times). Maybe other values like 4, 3, 2 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd if the diference is too low?

Why would you seek to remove the ‘differences between the servers’ in a match up?

I am against artificially handicapping scores to make up for gaps in population (again, coverage helps current scores the most). What you suggest is to have match-ups linger on due to closer artificial scores despite drastic differences in populations.

This game mode lives and dies by its population, it is unfortunate and short sighted that people felt that scoring should take priority. I believe if population/coverage was resolved scoring would have been less of an issue….regardless that is another topic.

2, 1, 1.
Shove the double team onto the team leading.

Math nerd here.

Just for future reference any suggestions of scoring along the lines of 2,3,4, or 5,6,7 or even 100, 101,102 will result in larger scores but everyone will still be exactly the same score apart as 1,2,3. Suggestions like 2,1,1 could also be replaced with 1,0,0 or 101,100,100.

What may be required is to have scoring based on opposition overcome. Close skirmishes should give higher score and blowout skirmishes should give lower score. I know lots of OCX and SEA would say that devalues their efforts (I am OCX) but the reality is that they are not likely facing the opposition that is available in Prime and so have an easier time in getting the skirmish win. Real rewards for real effort!

Roscoe.2348:

Suggestions like 2,1,1 could also be replaced with 1,0,0 or 101,100,100.

You mean 200, 100, 100, or 50, 25, 25, or 20, 10, 10, or 10, 5, 5 etc etc etc etc etc.
Because no one would give a care for 101, 100, 100, use x not +. The point is putting 2nd and 3rd at the same points to motivate them to go after whomever is leading. Rather than what we have had for the past 4 years, 1st and 2nd beating on 3rd because it’s easier points to fight over, 2nd sees they can’t catch 1st so no point on focusing them, they just make sure to beat 3rd.

If you point 2nd and 3rd towards 1st constantly you can overcome a bit of 1st’s coverage and population.