Guild Wars 2

Points (PPT) need to be awarded based on the number of players on each map.

Right now, keeps, towers, and camps all gives a consistent number of points. The challenge with this is that whoever has the most people on the map will win. It should instead work like this:

Server 1 has 70 people on one map
Server 2 has 40 people on one map
Server 3 has 10 people on one map

In this extreme case, server 3 has ~86% fewer participants than server 1. Server 3 should be rewarded with an 86% point bonus as well. (a camp would be worth 9 points per tick instead of 5)

So why implement this? Without a change in the scoring, the leagues are not going to be fun for anyone. It will just be blow out after blowout.

The scoring also negates the whole server transfer issue. Sure, someone could transfer to a T1 server, but that doesn’t necessarily increase their chances of winning. Overall, this will make the league much more exciting and without a determined outcome.

This was never suggested before and you are a genious, Anet is not ignoring the WvW community.

Because what we need is for players to yell at militia/pugs to get off the map to decrease point gains of enemy teams, good idea.

-Cap zone
-All but handful of scouts leave map
-Profit!

Enemy trying to retake?
-Zone in
-Wipe em until they leave-
-Exit map!
-Profit!

also:

-10 seconds to tick, everyone log out and then back in!

Asudementio.8526:

Because what we need is for players to yell at militia/pugs to get off the map to decrease point gains of enemy teams, good idea.

actually yes, thats what we need. the time of pugs stacking one server and that actually being benefitial has to come to an end. the only way for that to happen is if pugs are griefed and chased away by organized guilds

why do you think this is a bad idea? the coat tailer pugs were the ones creating the problem, they sure deserve to be publicly disparaged and heckled into leaving.

it should not be based by players on map but on the Glicko2 rating.

the server already evolves or de-evolves based on this prediction.

why not apply the prediction to PPT value and base evolution on the winner?

I have said for months now there needs to be a reward/ penalty for wvw population. But I don’t think the ppt is the place to do i. I think there needs to be a reward at the end of the week based on points score in comparison to wvw population.

Konrad Curze.5130:

Asudementio.8526:

Because what we need is for players to yell at militia/pugs to get off the map to decrease point gains of enemy teams, good idea.

actually yes, thats what we need. the time of pugs stacking one server and that actually being benefitial has to come to an end. the only way for that to happen is if pugs are griefed and chased away by organized guilds

why do you think this is a bad idea? the coat tailer pugs were the ones creating the problem, they sure deserve to be publicly disparaged and heckled into leaving.

If you think the answer to your personal issues with WvW population allocation is to publicly harass randoms and effectively make them a second class instead of integrating them into your server community in hopes of developing a more informed player base- then you, you are the problem.

This one is going to be longer.

There are many suggestions in the WvW community, that are controversially discussed. But what is the actual issue, what should a fix opt to do and how should this fix ocure?

Imbalance
This is nothing new to the community. The fact that the different amount of active players on different servers is the biggest indicator of who wins, makes competition in WvW meaningless. As this was not acceptable by many players, some in the community were okay with it for they did not care for the outcome of the matchup. Now with the comming league system, the rewards and therefor the placement of one’s server becomes a bigger issue for even those players. Additionally it would happen often, that a small group of the “weaker” server would get overrun by the bigger Zergs of the other server, making the whole WvW experience very painfull. The result in one server owning all the map 90% of the time makes the WvW experience fun for no side.

Where should we go from here?
Now, should we opt to create a balance, so that any server, no matter the population, could win the league or should we focus more on ways to create a playable surrounding even if there is one server dominating the other? I personally tend to the second option. Balancing WvW out would be a huge undertaking and one might question if that is even possible. Such a balance, if achievable, would also make matches between T1 and T9 servers possible. Meaning that 10-20 players would stand against 200 on an average evening. While we all wish to be heroic spartans, I doubt that this could ever work well. However, the main focus should be to allow every player to enjoy WvW on some level of competition, even under huge differences of population.

Now come to the point! What should we do?
I don’t know. At least I don’t know for sure. I believe that everything, that encourages a big Zerg to split up into smaller groups, would make the matchups more fun. Not because I want to discriminate zerg players, but because it would allow that the outmanned server can actually have a way to fight an equal ammount of people. For example the bigger server, to achieve the final cap in the enemy borderlands, has to split up in 3 groups, while the smaller server only has about roughly half of the people of the bigger server. Here the smaller server, not needing to split up, would even get a numbers advantage when fighting one of those smaller Zergs. This effect should only occure the deeper you go into enemy terretory. Meaning on your own borderlands, close to your spawn, you would have the advantage of the enemy being forced to split up. And the deeper you have to go into enemy territory, the more that balance shifts in your opponents favor. Leading to the point, where you yourself has to split up and has to achieve multiple tasks at the same time.

And how shoul we do that?
The only way I can imagine that, is to implement critical events on the map. Like blocked choke points, that need to be crossed to advance further. So you have to “open” those choke points by doing/capping certain points/fortifications, that must be hold for some time all together to allow the block to be removed. And this is where the weaker server would have a chance of defending and actually having some chance for “achievment” by disrupting one of the attacking groups.

This is about it. I do not really know, how one could implement smth like that into the game. But I imagine that it would create an accaptable challange for both servers, even if one is of a great numbers disatvantage. The outcome of winner and loser of the matchup might not change, but the actual playable contend would be there for anyone.

Valik Shin.9027:

I have said for months now there needs to be a reward/ penalty for wvw population. But I don’t think the ppt is the place to do i. I think there needs to be a reward at the end of the week based on points score in comparison to wvw population.

it needs to constantly be visible on the scoreboard or many people will not even join WvW.

Solstice.1097:

it should not be based by players on map but on the Glicko2 rating.

the server already evolves or de-evolves based on this prediction.

why not apply the prediction to PPT value and base evolution on the winner?

That would take care of the problem with the organized guilds yelling “Get off my lawn”.

And sense trying to manipulate the system would hurt your ranking….. Yes this would work well.

Will not help the stacking though. It would just help balance the scores. It would be interesting how much of a boost the new bloodlust gives the lower servers. I hope ArenaNet shares the data good or bad.

Asudementio.8526:

Because what we need is for players to yell at militia/pugs to get off the map to decrease point gains of enemy teams, good idea.

Can’t wait to hear you whining about an unbalanced league.

style.6173:

Asudementio.8526:

Because what we need is for players to yell at militia/pugs to get off the map to decrease point gains of enemy teams, good idea.

Can’t wait to hear you whining about an unbalanced league.

I’m glad you can’t wait; i’d hate for you to devote so time to waiting for something that will not occur.

style.6173:

Points (PPT) need to be awarded based on the number of players on each map.

Right now, keeps, towers, and camps all gives a consistent number of points. The challenge with this is that whoever has the most people on the map will win. It should instead work like this:

Server 1 has 70 people on one map
Server 2 has 40 people on one map
Server 3 has 10 people on one map

In this extreme case, server 3 has ~86% fewer participants than server 1. Server 3 should be rewarded with an 86% point bonus as well. (a camp would be worth 9 points per tick instead of 5)

So why implement this? Without a change in the scoring, the leagues are not going to be fun for anyone. It will just be blow out after blowout.

The scoring also negates the whole server transfer issue. Sure, someone could transfer to a T1 server, but that doesn’t necessarily increase their chances of winning. Overall, this will make the league much more exciting and without a determined outcome.

How long have you been playing this game?? Your proposal has been raised in this forum many, many times over the last several months by people as ill-informed as you and refuted even more times by players who actually understand what would happen under such a scheme. The downsides are several and significant. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on them.

I don’t want to be overly negative but that idea would be as good as Anet doing nothing. It would cause the game to bleed players. I am from a xenophobic part of the world and all I can say is creating rules to prevent something negative is not a good thing if it stops all the positive effects there are from there having no rules.

Instead, they should focus on making WvW more attractive (just like we should focus on making our culture more attractive). But getting Anet to understand that is like trying to talk to a government that got elected on xenophobic beliefs to change our ways. It’s a lost cause.

The best change would be to give smaller group better mobility compared to massive zergs. As of right now group swiftness is too strong and stacks longer for zergs.

2nd, would be killing opponents to award pts for the server. Which is coming with the boodlust patch. However, I suggest that you always get points for defeating an opponent and maybe extra points on top of that from stomping/bloodlust. Possible to get 4 pts for stomping with 3x bloodlust.