Guild Wars 2

ScaryHydra.3165:

Roe.3679:

Berk.8561:

Phedre Scion.1520:

Again your saying your awake time is more important than someone else’s.

I don’t think that’s really the complaint. I think the complaint is that 5 people’s awake time shouldn’t be worth as much as 100 people’s awake time or that 5 people’s time doing PvDoor against undefended targets shouldn’t be worth 60 people’s time prying towers and keeps from a similarly sized opposing force. No, it’s not you fault that the enemy has nobody on, but maybe it would be good for everyone to encourage SEA/Oceanic players to distribute so they fight each other instead of NPCs guarding doors.

The problem isn’t the amount of people, it’s the difference. You can have 200 WvWers and it won’t matter as much if the enemy has 250. You could have 5 and it doesn’t matter if they have 15. The problem is your server has no sea/OCX coverage, not that the other server does. You don’t see OCX/SEA players complaining about strong NA prime times.

That’s beacuse the OCX/SEA players are playing on servers that are not their own because they lack a set of servers to call their own, which sucks. I think that the EU and NA servers should be for NA and EU players and that new servers for OCX/SEA and Asian players should be put in place. It would ease congestion on the servers and allow for a much more consistent WVW experience.

There’s not a large enough player base of oceanic and Asian (not including Chinese) players for wvw to be viable on dedicated servers in that region

Timezones don’t matter….You people always get hung up on Ocx,SEA,NA,EU, etc….Pay no attention to people that say “at night”, “while we sleep, or while we are at work”…NONE of that matters….

What does matter is the population variation, be it in regard to server or time in a matchup. If you have 50 people that play consistently on an “off-peak” (in regards to PPT not timezone) situation, their “time” is worth far more than that of the hordes of players that pile in and queue maps in the “on-peak” (again in regards to PPT not timezones) sections of the day.

If servers A/B/C all had “decent” coverage for 3/4 of the 24hr day and next to nothing the remaining 1/4 of the day, then it is likely the matchup would be “somewhat” close.

However, if Server C has a decent number of folks that are playing during that 1/4 of the day (where no one essentially is online for A/B) then those people in that 1/4 of a day in Server C are worth a great deal in the current system.

I’ll This this one ^^

A server’s victory with the current score system is determined by the time frames where it has coverage while opposing servers do not match that coverage.

Break up a day into 4 equal blocks of time A, B, C, and D. Server 1 has 100% coverage in blocks A and B, 50% coverage in C and 10% coverage in D.
Server 2 has 100% in A and B, 20% coverage in C and 100% in D. The outcome for those servers becomes the difference between the coverage percentage roughly. Blocks A and B cancel out. Over the course of these timeframes the PPT between the servers will even out. Server 1 cannot defend more than Server 2 can attack, Server 2 cannot attack more than it can defend from Server 1.

At time block C Server 1 has 30% more coverage (based on maximum possible player capacity in wvw) than server 2. It can take about twice the objectives of server 2 and hold them. The PPT will show this and server 1 gains score over server 2.
At time block D server 2 has 100% coverage and server 1 has 10%. This will result in server 2 gaining the most PPT as it can suppress server 1. Server 2 has a stronger overall coverage than server 1 and will come out of the matchup victorious. The skill level of players on each server doesn’t matter, just that one server has more players than the other for more time.

Since the score evens out due to coverage in blocks A and B the players who are able to play in those blocks do not make much of an impact on the score. The players who play in blocks C and D contribute far more to the score. Server 2 in the above scenario gains a significantly powerful advantage because it has coverage in block D.
If we replace the PPT system with a system that rewards active capture and defense (like the points to PK system I saw and also proposed in another thread like this one) then the skill of players from blocks A and B contributes to the server’s score. The players in block C and D do not contribute as much anymore since they do not fight against players as much as the even coverage blocks. This system ends up measuring each servers’ player skill rather than coverage. To keep the players from block C and D actually mattering the score system allows some points to be generated by upgrading structures and defending them. The efforts of server 2’s block D now shine because they reward more points for defensive efforts in block A and B. A server could take a hardline defensive stance with a slightly smaller population (or a vastly smaller with good siege placement) and emerge victorious overall.

WvW is a game as much as it is a war simulation. In war the bulk of conflicts are not balanced. Generals from each side see to it as fighting an unbalanced fight means less strain on resources. Even fights will devastate resources on both sides. WvW is a game though. Players won’t play a game they have no chance of winning. Same for forces fighting against odds IRL. They’ll surrender or flee (unless they’re stupid). Having your server surrender after a day isn’t fun. Changing the point system would make it possible for unbalanced matches to be fun.

People are getting very confused. Basically the issue is this;

If at any time during the 24 hours the three servers are matched in population in WvW, these players have less effect net PPT effect than the players online during a miss matched population period. ( even fights, less captures )

Posters can rant and rave either way, it is just a fact of how WvW currently is when the 3 servers in a matchup do not have equal 24/7 coverage.

Just as a note DAOC DID NOT solve this issue of mis matched servers, if it was solved it was done by individual servers and player co operation.

Their is one and only one way to fix this issue, everyone, everywhere quits their jobs, moves to America (preferably the same state.) then agrees that the hours of 12 midnight to 8am is sleeping time. We eat at 9am, 12noon and 6pm, our shower is at 7pm and lasts for 15 minutes. The rest of the time every player plays WvW.

Cause how else would it be fair right?

Because guess what it isn’t only the australian’s ect that are apart of our nightwatch, its people who work afternoon shifts at their jobs, or people with no job and spare time, people on vacation or breaks.

More importantly the reason GoM has caught back up was because 40 people decided to sacrifice sleep for many nights in a row, to catch up. This is a war, a contest. The rules are given to us and we work towards our strengths. Can we match other servers with numbers, kitten no, its a pve server primarily. However those who do WvW are some of the most dedicated kittens you could ever meet, We are willing to not sleep, to play more hours and try harder then our competition right now, and thats why we are doing well.

So yeh, let this drop, the only way to fix it is to discriminate against everyone who isn’t living exactly your situation, you might as well complain about the fact people who only play 3 hours a day arn’t making as much gold as people who play all day. The game as it stands doesn’t discriminate against anyone personally, your either restricted by your real life situations and desires, or you aint.

And that I think, is the way that is fairest to the community, not the individual.

Type Moon.5820:

Their is one and only one way to fix this issue, everyone, everywhere quits their jobs, moves to America (preferably the same state.) then agrees that the hours of 12 midnight to 8am is sleeping time. We eat at 9am, 12noon and 6pm, our shower is at 7pm and lasts for 15 minutes. The rest of the time every player plays WvW.

Cause how else would it be fair right?

Because guess what it isn’t only the australian’s ect that are apart of our nightwatch, its people who work afternoon shifts at their jobs, or people with no job and spare time, people on vacation or breaks.

More importantly the reason GoM has caught back up was because 40 people decided to sacrifice sleep for many nights in a row, to catch up. This is a war, a contest. The rules are given to us and we work towards our strengths. Can we match other servers with numbers, kitten no, its a pve server primarily. However those who do WvW are some of the most dedicated kittens you could ever meet, We are willing to not sleep, to play more hours and try harder then our competition right now, and thats why we are doing well.

So yeh, let this drop, the only way to fix it is to discriminate against everyone who isn’t living exactly your situation, you might as well complain about the fact people who only play 3 hours a day arn’t making as much gold as people who play all day. The game as it stands doesn’t discriminate against anyone personally, your either restricted by your real life situations and desires, or you aint.

And that I think, is the way that is fairest to the community, not the individual.

Please, stop complaining and making alaborated sarcastic posts excusing the fact that you are tacking advantage of a mechanic that could be improved.

It has already been stated before that this thread is for ideas on improving such system.

On another subject:

I think the problem with PPT being attached with server population is that other servers might run to their BL or other map in order to avoid the winning side from gaining points.

How could this be addressed?

You address both with a player kill and active capture based point system. It’s like how you get 5 points per kill in sPvP while the capture points ticked. I’ve seen matches where one side’s points were almost entirely from PK while the other side was from the capture points. We can bring that to WvW. (I sound like a broken record below… hehe)
1. Remove PPT, then

• Each PK is worth 10 points, + 5 for each level of bloodlust owned.
• Each defensive PK (players killed by players defending an objective they own) gets a bonus for the upgrades at the objective that are completed. Defensive PK bonus applies to guard posts too for base point bonus.
  • 5 point base bonus
  • Keeps get +2 points per upgrade bonus on the kill points.
  • tower and camps get +1 points
  • Stonemist gets +3 points per upgrade
• defensive PK bonus is in addition to the bloodlust bonus, making it possible to get up to 60 points per kill defending stonemist.

• Each capture is worth
  • 250 points per camp
  • 100 points for guard post
  • 500 points for a tower
  • 1000 for keeps and stonemist
• Each completed upgrade rewards the same points as if the objective was captured.

This makes the conflicts between servers the primary source of server score while off peak/unbalanced conflicts can derive points from defensive upgrades and small objective flips.

Not sure about the PK points. Definitely not the bloodlust part, I’m still waiting for them to get rid of it.

The reason is in addition to people yelling about rallybots now people will be yelling about playerkillbots.

It may encourage tower hugging and avoiding fights.

MakubeC.3026:

The league started again without resolving this issue.
Its just nonsensical to rally up and do an effort along 3 days to make a 10k points gap with the nearest server, just to wake up losing.

3 days of fighting, 3 days of winning, 10k points, lost in a single night.

Proposal Overview
PPT points awarded by total population porcentage of all three maps plus all holded structures.

Goal of Proposal
The issue right now is that coverage is affecting the overall performance of servers during a match, being the case that a winning server can be “flipped over” completely in a very short time while it has no coverage. This issue mainly presents in server’s night time because of the different playing schedules players have.

Proposal Functionality
The WvWvW server’s capacity for all three Bordelands Maps is presumably 1800 players. 450 for every Bordeland, including Eternal Battlefields.
The server must then account for all present players on all three maps and assign a percentage to the gained PPTs based on them for that tick.
This scheme will reward servers for being more active and balance the points in a manner more attuned with the challenge they’re facing. Having always in mind that the core systems of W3 is PvP.

An example for this proposal would be:

Grouping poblation for points:

From 1-200 players online 30%
From 201-500 players online 50%
From 501-1800 players online 100%

At some time during the match there are 201 players distributed in all maps. The server proceeds to calculate the given percentage of points to give for every hold structure based on total online players. For this example it would be 50% of all points, given that 201 falls in a mainly PvP envirorment, because it is impossible for 201 players not to clash and be able to defend themselfs.

For that match the Blue Server has a tower that is worth 35 points per tick, it would then tick for 18 points. But if 100 players leave, under this new scheme that same tower will grant 10 Points Per Tick.

This scheme will reward servers for being more active and balance the points in a manner more attuned with the challenge they’re facing. Having always in mind that the core systems of W3 is PvP.

Additionally, this system should exclude the server’s Borderland, so structures reward the whole amount of their worth regardless of online players in the home land.

Associated Risks
*Given that less players overall, mean less points per tick, a server could make a huge void in the score and then flee. However, this tactic would be nullified by the fact that BLs give the whole points and that even with a huge difference, leaving the BLs completely alone will mean other teams will hold those structures.

• Another risk would be to tick for a huge amount and then mass leaving the BLs when losing, just to return later with more strength. This would be denied by storing in cache the highest amount of players for a number of ticks and only diminish it after the 10th tick or so.

• Will update the suggestion with any additional risk you guys suggest.

P.S: The numbers here are not final and thus, are due to change. The percentage should be adjusted more fairly.

I updated the 1st post with a suggestion.
Please check it out.

Wow – all this time and people still qq over the fact that it is a 24/7 game. That is just laughable. Please modify your game Anet because I like my server and want to stay here and it is not our fault they are poorly organised and don’t make any attempts to have 24/7 coverage.

You guys have to realise that is the game you are playing and move on. Your power to change it rests with your server choice or your server organisation and not with qq’s to the game owners.

MakubeC.3026:

I think the problem with PPT being attached with server population is that other servers might run to their BL or other map in order to avoid the winning side from gaining points.

How could this be addressed?

If you want to adjust points based on population, it must be based on essentially the current number of players in WvW because not only do different percentages of a server’s overall population participate in WvW but a different percentage may participate from week to week. Not only do you have Living Story events and personal absences from the game changing the number of people in WvW but there is also the often-discussed “fairweather” effect, where a large number of PvE players may run with a server’s zerg while they are winning but then leave WvW for PvE if the server is losing. So you need to base the comparison on current populations, which will also deal with the coverage issue, by dynamically adjusting for changes in relative population throughout the day.

That said, you don’t want a simple instant snapshot of the population to be used. As you pointed out, a server could leave WvW just before the points tick to make an opponent get too many points. My recommendation is the count both the snapshot current population a server has in WvW and take a one hour rolling average, and use the greater of the two for the purposes of calculating the the population. What that would mean is that the benefits of abandoning WvW would happen slowly, so there would be little benefit from jumping out and jumping back in again. On the other side, a server that suddenly has a very large WvW population would not get any benefit from having a much lower population just before those people entered WvW.

Finally, I think you’d want to count total WvW population and not count on a map-by-map basis. Map jumping just happens too much and I think it would dilute the benefits with respect to overall score, so I recommend counting the total WvW population. If a server’s population is poorly distributed, I think they should suffer for it. The only problem with not doing it map-by-map is that it won’t help a server that is being ganged up on by who other servers.

Aku Punksha.4895:

Wow – all this time and people still qq over the fact that it is a 24/7 game. That is just laughable. Please modify your game Anet because I like my server and want to stay here and it is not our fault they are poorly organised and don’t make any attempts to have 24/7 coverage.

It’ wouldn’t benefit ANet if the players on the lower tiers all abandoned their servers to play on servers with 24/7 coverage, only to have the lower tiers become WvEvE because nobody is showing up in WvW on one or two of the servers and all that’s left is PvDoor for the server that’s left.

I also find the idea that it’s all the fault of the players for not trying hard enough, not being dedicated enough, not being organized enough, or not being willing to organize their work schedule and lives to be up all night so their server can win insane. People who don’t have problems always love telling others how easy it is to make their problems go away.

Seriously, I guess skill lag, queues, hacking, and saboteurs aren’t really a problem because I rarely, if ever, see any of those problems at my tier and the people complaining about them are just crybabies who are too selfish, lazy, or simpleminded to transfer to a different server that doesn’t have those problems. ANet should stop spending time and money trying to fix problems that don’t really exist except where they are caused by incompetent players who create the problem for each other. ANet has repeatedly warned of performance problems for stacking and it’s not their fault people don’t listen to them and do the smart thing. Does that sound right to everyone in the top tiers?

Aku Punksha.4895:

You guys have to realise that is the game you are playing and move on. Your power to change it rests with your server choice or your server organisation and not with qq’s to the game owners.

Exactly. Queues and skill lag are part of the game you are playing. Stop QQing to the game’s owners and either suck it up or transfer. ANet even made the solution free for you for a while. If you didn’t take the hint, it’s all your fault and you shouldn’t hold ANet responsible for the problems you are experiencing. ANet, please allocate your resources to more Living Story content and let the the top tier players learn how to transfer or learn how to be happy just pressing 1, once they actually get into WvW.

The motto for WvW should be, “I’m happy and I don’t care if you aren’t.”

Aku Punksha.4895:

Wow – all this time and people still qq over the fact that it is a 24/7 game. That is just laughable. Please modify your game Anet because I like my server and want to stay here and it is not our fault they are poorly organised and don’t make any attempts to have 24/7 coverage.

You missed the point of the complain. The complain is not the 24/7. the complain is:

The times with the fewest players in the match are the most decisive ones for the match-outcome

And this is of course non-sense. The opposite should be the case.

Dayra.7405:

You missed the point of the complain. The complain is not the 24/7. the complain is:

The times with the fewest players in the match are the most decisive ones for the match-outcome

And this is of course non-sense. The opposite should be the case.

I am astounded by your logic. The match is only equal numbers if all sides are full. It is unequal if one side is empty. Of course the match is most decisive at that point – as it should be. The game is not designed for you if your team doesn’t show up.

Football is a game of 11 on 11 (soccer if you are from US). Have 2 players sent off or not turn up and it is 11 on 9. That is the most decisive point. Should football amend its’ rules so that if one player gets sent off they play 10 on 10 rather than 11 on 10? That is the basis thrust of your assertions.

Simple solution – organise and don’t play short handed. If you are happy with the organisation and structure of your server then accept the shortcoming, and the endless opportunity to recap all that stuff back in your time zone. If not then try and change it or transfer.

Aku Punksha.4895:

I am astounded by your logic. The match is only equal numbers if all sides are full. It is unequal if one side is empty. Of course the match is most decisive at that point – as it should be. The game is not designed for you if your team doesn’t show up.

I do not talk about show up or does not.
If all sides appear with 400 people than it’s irrelevant for match outcome.
If one side has 50 in a time where the others have 20 they win the match decisively.
So 90 people make the match decision, 1200 people do not matter for match outcome.

Great game design

Aku Punksha.4895:

Football is a game of 11 on 11 (soccer if you are from US). Have 2 players sent off or not turn up and it is 11 on 9. That is the most decisive point. Should football amend its’ rules so that if one player gets sent off they play 10 on 10 rather than 11 on 10? That is the basis thrust of your assertions.

I like these football comparisons What do you think how a football match would be if it would be 24/7 long How many people would watch it? Who would win? The side with better players or the one with more players? How much money would be in football if matches would be 24/7 more than today as they are playing more? or less?

Aku Punksha.4895:

Simple solution – organise and don’t play short handed. If you are happy with the organisation and structure of your server then accept the shortcoming, and the endless opportunity to recap all that stuff back in your time zone. If not then try and change it or transfer.

I know a better thing: Play a better designed game. 24/7 with current scoring may be fun for a holiday week, but it’s a stupid game to be repeated week for week since nearly 2 years.

We will see if ANet will once be able to design a more interesting competition than coverage-by-numbers, but till then I only rarely play WvW anymore.

Aku Punksha.4895:

Football is a game of 11 on 11 (soccer if you are from US). Have 2 players sent off or not turn up and it is 11 on 9. That is the most decisive point. Should football amend its’ rules so that if one player gets sent off they play 10 on 10 rather than 11 on 10? That is the basis thrust of your assertions.

Have you ever watched a show called Survivor? Many countries have their own version of it, it’s so popular. Do you know what they do when the tribes are mismatched in numbers? They ask the tribe with more people to sit some people out for the challenge.

Professional athletes are paid quite well to show up and play for their team and they maintain a roster much larger than the required number needed to play so they have extra people to bring in if someone can’t play, which is why you never see a team short of players. But can a team just throw their entire roster of players onto the field at once? of course not. The game caps the number that can play to make it even.

If you want a better analogy, you should look at amateur and casual sports, including things like bowling leagues and pick-up softball games. How do they handle player disparities?

Aku Punksha.4895:

Simple solution – organise and don’t play short handed. If you are happy with the organisation and structure of your server then accept the shortcoming, and the endless opportunity to recap all that stuff back in your time zone. If not then try and change it or transfer.

Why didn’t anyone on the lower tier servers think of that?

Where’d the other Nightwatch thread go?

Johje Holan.4607:

Where’d the other Nightwatch thread go?

Fall back to Page 3

Well in the big tiers we get very good battles on the “nightwatch”. Maybe the issue is that there are too many servers and we should cut the number down to about 60% of what is out there now. Close the bottom 40% and forcibly merge them to even numbers and then open up the free transfers again so that there is no qq about being forced into any particular server. Sounds abrupt but it forces people to take action and responsibility because at the moment it sounds awfully whiny sitting in low pop servers and expecting Anet to """fix""" the whole “world is a revolving globe” thing for you.

It is the low tier servers that suffer night capping and the closer you get T1 the more the issue goes away. Can’t help thinking it would improve competition no end as well and shake up the current seasons which seems already to be looking lopsided everywhere.

Aku Punksha.4895:

Maybe the issue is that there are too many servers and we should cut the number down to about 60% of what is out there now.

If servers are reduced, I would prefer a reduction to just 3 servers (or maybe better: 4 server with 2 two-sided matches), but with several and different types of WvW-matches running each week, and everyone can choose where he want to play:

- the normal 24/7 match
- the weekend-match (fr 19:00 – Sun 24:00)
- the day-match (each day 8:00-24:00)
- the prime-match (each day 19:00 – 24:00)

Maybe some of them with more maps (EB twice or EotM included or Borders twice or …)

If you put all EU-nightforces together you probably to not get more than 1000 people.
on day you likely get 2000-3000 people and in primetime likely 6000-7000 people.
So each of the above matches could probably be filled while it is running, and queue should be reasonable.

I do not know NA number and my EU numbers are only estimates, but ANet should know the numbers and design the matches accordingly.

But maybe even better is to let people/guilds build alliances (see https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists/3695388) and let them register for the type of match (from the above) they want to play the next week.

This way the 24/7 fans can play 24/7 and the prime-time only fans can play primetime only-matches. I do not see any reasons why they are force to play in the same match.

Of course there is even another possibility:

We have currently 3 leagues, why not permanently 3 leagues with different playtimes?

A league of 3-9 server playing 24/7
A league of 6-12 server playing 16/7 (wvw is shut-down there for 8h each day)
A league of 6-12 server playing 6-8/7 (wvw is shut-down for 16h each day)

Transfers between leagues are free, transfers within a league cost, and you cannot transfer more often than once a month.

People who argue against changing scoring rules to deal with the “nightcap” issue bewilder me. Are these players who want to pvd karma train without challenge? Are they afraid this will be taken away? Because none of their arguments hold up.

Improving scoring methods would improve the WvW game for everyone involved.

Here is the basic life of the WvW-only player:
1. Start out on some server. Start getting into WvW
2. Get serious about WvW, try to push server.
3. Server moves up or server stalls
4. Coverage gaps in server creates PPT wall the server can’t get past.
5. Coverage gaps create ridiculous score differences, lower impetus to play for many. Map and PPT situation gets even more difficult. Play time becomes work time.
6. Server either recruits or player switches server
7. Server recruits, moves up, still has coverage gaps vs Server X, goes back to step 5
8. Player switches server, goes to top tiers, ends up facing another wall of PPT and slight coverage gaps.
9. Player switches server again, moves up another notch.
10. Swathes of players and coverage suddenly makes player feel less vital. 24/7 grind by players to overcome coverage wars wears down player.
11. Player burns out, quits.

There are ways to address the over-importance of coverage wars. Right now, someone playing off-peak hours with a large group vs empty maps is worth more than those fighting against actual players. Player time is not equal. Coverage wars burn out players.

Changing the scoring system is the vest way to fix this.

sephiroth.4217:

The solution is simple:

NA prime all servers close and make a PPT cap.
EU prime all servers close and make a PPT cap.

All Oceanic’s are free to play after being victimized constantly by these threads…

Aussies get love too no? Or do our kangaroos give you nightmares?

You’re not allowed to cap things.
#’MURICA

Yes its disheartening knowing that my timezone will never have a strong impact on my server’s performance overall.

etiolate.9185:

People who argue against changing scoring rules to deal with the “nightcap” issue bewilder me. Are these players who want to pvd karma train without challenge? Are they afraid this will be taken away? Because none of their arguments hold up.

Improving scoring methods would improve the WvW game for everyone involved.

Here is the basic life of the WvW-only player:
1. Start out on some server. Start getting into WvW
2. Get serious about WvW, try to push server.
3. Server moves up or server stalls
4. Coverage gaps in server creates PPT wall the server can’t get past.
5. Coverage gaps create ridiculous score differences, lower impetus to play for many. Map and PPT situation gets even more difficult. Play time becomes work time.
6. Server either recruits or player switches server
7. Server recruits, moves up, still has coverage gaps vs Server X, goes back to step 5
8. Player switches server, goes to top tiers, ends up facing another wall of PPT and slight coverage gaps.
9. Player switches server again, moves up another notch.
10. Swathes of players and coverage suddenly makes player feel less vital. 24/7 grind by players to overcome coverage wars wears down player.
11. Player burns out, quits.

There are ways to address the over-importance of coverage wars. Right now, someone playing off-peak hours with a large group vs empty maps is worth more than those fighting against actual players. Player time is not equal. Coverage wars burn out players.

Changing the scoring system is the vest way to fix this.

A big NO..managed to play for over a year with usually free repairs outmanned in the time zone I and many of my guild play in .

Are we swamped yes often …do our pixels suffer horrible painless deaths …very often .(if you worry about your pixels WvW is not the place for you )

But we just keep coming back having fun other wise what the point and not taking as seriously as you seem to.

But I cannot see the point of making an effort if the set up is only "my time " are important.

Yes we play huge groups larger than you it seems most days BUT your argument is we should be devalued .

Our job is to limit the damage the mass blob can do , sometimes we are sucessfull sometimes not .
I never thought WvW was fair or understand why it ever should be, a war is to use what resources you have .If thats more supply or more "night players " thats fine .Its not a sports game with set kick of and time outs .Go play EA sports if thats what you want.

I’d like we could take the original suggestion posted on the 1st post and moved on from there.
It seems like its viable. What could be improved?

The goal of any system we’re proposing is to shift the score from emphasizing times where coverage is not balanced to times when it is. Lets look at some situations for your score model.

To recap
Score model based on the total population that a WvW server can handle. The PPT is scaled by the current population vs the maximum population.

How this could work
First we need some equations and variables.
Max PPT = 695

PPT modifier = currentPop / maxPop -the proposed change

Then some assumptions about the population:
1. A server can never have more than 33% of the total population at any time.
2. Balanced matches may not have a full queue on every map and therefore the maximum cap might not be reached.

Assumption number 1 tells us what happens when a match is completely unbalanced. The server who unbalances the match will only get 33% of the maximum ppt (219) possible.

To find if this will solve our problem I need to model it over time.

Recently I constructed a model that models this exact thing. The new factor is the PPT modifier.

Let’s model that a server will provide the maximum coverage it is capable of when it is marked as covered (1) and nearly no players when it is marked as not covered (0)…

Coverage A 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Coverage B 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Coverage C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Server C models a T1 server while A and B model T2 servers.
All 3 have strong NA primetime coverage. Server C has a very powerful OCX coverage and is able to counter B and A at 4am to 6am (times based on east coast). Server A gets it’s OCX team in on 7-2pm. Then Server B’s Euro power comes to play. Server C may have some small coverage gaps. By 7pm it’s back to primetime.

Let these three numbers be a model of the coverage between 3 servers. This graph is simplified to say that a server gets 1 when it queues all the maps and 0 when it doesn’t.
To properly model coverage you would have to interview players on a map and see which hours the server has queued.
Server coverage = .25 * number of queued maps (up to 4).

You can go for a higher resolution model but that data isn’t avaialble.

PPT/hr = a * 4 * MaxPPT / (a + b + c)
This model for PPT will assume a server full queues all maps when coverage is 1. The model can be improved by using the server coverage formula above.
MaxPPT =( a +b + c )/ 3 * 695
-edit: Wait.. the 1800 is missing! But no. We can simplify the population into (a + b + c) / 3 because each server can only have 1/3rd max.

Daily score is the sum of the Hourly score over the full period.
Weekly score is 7 * the daily score. Yes this ignores that weekend coverage varies on most servers. It doesn’t vary by much though. Here’s the final outcome

Final score A 97300
Final Score b 97300
Final Score C 142706.6667

Interesting score. There is a final assumption in this model: That all servers’ skill is roughly the same. This is because it is. Guilds will be Guilds, pugs will be pugs. Doesn’t matter if they’re on Jade Quarry or Anvil Rock. The PPT variant on server population model will benefit the server with more overall coverage over the servers with even coverage. This therefore fails to meet the requirement that emphasis be moved away from unbalanced parts of matchups.

*If you find an error in the math let me know

edit* filterpwned

Second post for above’s math:

The math above made some assumptions. I’ll list them here with their strength

• Server skill is even: Servers are roughly even in skill. This means that they will trade targets and maintain a roughly even PPT though the course of an hour. The are a couple factors that can influence the PPT at this point.
  • First, upgrades to structures will lower the skill cap necessary to defend a structure and increase the skill cap necessary to take it. This imbalance pushes PPT towards the defending side. Ultimately this pushes PPT toward the side with better coverage as they can prepare better defenses than the other servers.
  • Second: A side with more population over another has the ability to split up and control more PPT. This doesn’t often happen.
  • Finally server skill is not actually even. There may be exceptions where one server is significantly better than another.

• That servers will full queue a map when they have coverage: This is not an accurate model of coverage but it is close enough to assume how a scoring system would work. To increase accuracy the server’s coverage has to be more accurately measured. The imbalance could actually be that one server is near queue while another is only half way there. I don’t know of any way to measure this directly though. It is something ANET tries to hide. In any case if a server queues a map then it is at pop cap for that map. Since there are 4 maps then a server is at 25% of its total pop cap for all maps if it queues one map. This resulted in the coverage equation above.

These assumptions break the model I proposed.