Guild Wars 2

In a 3 server matchup, it is usual for the 2 stronger servers to gang up on the weakest as the WXP earned from capturing objectives is the same. It would make sense to take objectives in a shorter time from an weaker opponent.

The WvW dev has shown to be obstinate about giving real buffs to outmanned servers but acts like santa claus on steroids in dishing out WXP. So lets go along these lines and put in a multiplier on WXP earned by taking out objectives of the world leading the ingame wvw scoreboard. This should be easy to program and rewards players for taking out the harder opponent. This can lead to the 2 weaker servers ganging up on the strongest and keep the scores more competitive. When the scoreboard leader changes, players will redirect their efforts to current leading server.

Nice idea. The incentives must be considerably more for aiming at the stronger server. It should give a direction for the devs, where to go from here.

Great idea, although it would most likely lead to players letting their servers lose for the first day or so of the matchup in order to get an increase in WXP later in the week. If WXP bonus was instead given out for capturing points from higher ranked servers, it would encourage players to focus on the biggest threat (assuming the wvw ranking system is an accurate representation of servers’ strength) , while also giving players extra incentive to want to move up tiers to face opponents ranked higher than themselves instead of purposely sabotaging their server’s rank in search of easier match ups in the future.

Are we trying to coax the fairweathers into playing more, or are we trying to coax PvEers into playing at all?

I think a strong (50%) WXP boost would be enough to get the fairweathers to seriously consider playing in a matchup they might not otherwise do well in.

To get PvEers to play, they need some other kind of bonus. In my opinion, add XP/Karma/MF/GF to the buff. However, I think it will be very difficult if not impossible to coax PvEers into WvW unless the reward scheme is changed significantly. PVE projectile vomits rewards at you in a constant stream, WvW does not.

Sir Tripsalot.1803:

Great idea, although it would most likely lead to players letting their servers lose for the first day or so of the matchup in order to get an increase in WXP later in the week.

Perhaps you can only get the buff if you’re in third place, or have 85% or less the score of the first server, whichever comes first?

WvW players can roughly be separated into 4 categories :

(1) Hardcore : will play to win at whatever cost for little / no reward
(2) Roaming : looks for less geared/less abled/upleveled noobies to gank
(3) GvG : dissatisfied sPvP looking for alternative team play options
(4) Casual : plays a mixture PvE / achievement hunters maximising rewards

The casual player base is large and probably called " fairweather ". This is important group as they form the bulk of the zerg balls / walking meat shields. A nicer term would be new entrants to WvW playerbase. Rewards / maximising gains is very important to this group. Without an incentive to attack harder targets , they will always make a beeline to the least guarded, easiest to capture objective (which usually is the weakest server with lowest score). This is bad habit as it conflicts with the overall strategy of fighting to win on score by end of the week. By making it very worthwhile to attack harder targets, we can entice casuals to contribute to the grand strategy by dropping the points of the score-leader.

This can be done by calculating the score differences between the lead server and the opposing servers.

If difference = 5000 , multiplier = 1.5
If difference = 10000, multiplier = 2
If difference = 20000, multiplier = 3
If difference = 50000, multiplier = 4

This system will result in less Pvdoor and more interaction as players will attack guarded objectives of the stronger server and the time spent is justified. It will also condition the casual players to always seek out the leading server to pull it down and there will be closer scores for 1st,2nd and 3rd positions. As score is updated every 15mins, this system should be updated in that time frame as well.

I could definitely go for a time multiplier. The longer a server has held a keep, the more value there is in taking it.

I am reluctant to doing it by score though.

This idea makes a hell of a lot of sense even something like 1st place server gets 50% wxp 2nd place gets normal 3rd place gets 150% wxp.. This should have a profound effect on the ‘casual’ players.

In fact, the idea makes so much sense that it does not stand a snowball in hells chance of being paid any attention to by the Devs.

WXP_Gain = WXP_Base * (The_World_You_Killed_Or_Capped_Score / Your_World_Score)

Sometimes math really is that simple.

Dawdler.8521:

WXP_Gain = WXP_Base * (The_World_You_Killed_Or_Capped_Score / Your_World_Score)

Sometimes math really is that simple.

Unfortunately, maths involving a constantly moving variable (due to pts on stomp) gets tricky.

I really like this idea, but fear it conflicts with Anet’s current direction which seems entirely based around increasing rewards for leaders.

I don’t think that’s their plan. Not intenionally. I sometimes think that the formu officials have trouble getting the important messages through to the devs who make the actual implementation. WXP gain based on score differences of the servers is so simple and good that it simply can’t be ignored.

Lurch.9517:

Dawdler.8521:

WXP_Gain = WXP_Base * (The_World_You_Killed_Or_Capped_Score / Your_World_Score)

Sometimes math really is that simple.

Unfortunately, maths involving a constantly moving variable (due to pts on stomp) gets tricky.

WXP_Base in my example would be whatever you normally get (be it 50 wxp on a stomp or 10 if he’s died earlier). I generalized it since I have no idea how GW2 does its scoring math.

Example #1: You kill another player from World 1. World 1 has 150,000 points while your kittenty world only has 80,000 points. Lets assume you would have gotten 60 WXP points normally. Now you’d get 113 WXP points instead.

Example #2: The player above kill you instead. He would normally have gotten 60 WXP points from you. Now he only get 32 WXP points instead.

So really, its not tricky at all. Its the simplest form of multiplier math. The closer the points of the two worlds are, the closer to 1 the multiplier is.

The multplier should also valid for the cap points for tower/keep/castle.

Lmao, not all roamers are hunting upleveled. Truth is, for me any zerglet will do.

Dawdler.8521:

Lurch.9517:

Dawdler.8521:

WXP_Gain = WXP_Base * (The_World_You_Killed_Or_Capped_Score / Your_World_Score)

Sometimes math really is that simple.

Unfortunately, maths involving a constantly moving variable (due to pts on stomp) gets tricky.

WXP_Base in my example would be whatever you normally get (be it 50 wxp on a stomp or 10 if he’s died earlier). I generalized it since I have no idea how GW2 does its scoring math.

Example #1: You kill another player from World 1. World 1 has 150,000 points while your kittenty world only has 80,000 points. Lets assume you would have gotten 60 WXP points normally. Now you’d get 113 WXP points instead.

Example #2: The player above kill you instead. He would normally have gotten 60 WXP points from you. Now he only get 32 WXP points instead.

So really, its not tricky at all. Its the simplest form of multiplier math. The closer the points of the two worlds are, the closer to 1 the multiplier is.

yes sure but what I mean is that the current score is constantly changing due to pts on stomp, so all I can forsee is them managing to create additional bloody lag from the calculation if by some miracle they actually took this excellent suggestion on board.

timidobserver.7925:

I could definitely go for a time multiplier. The longer a server has held a keep, the more value there is in taking it.

I am reluctant to doing it by score though.

This is a bad idea because why would anyone defend, it’d be better to leave the castle and take it after some time for better wxp. Maybe it’ll be better for defenders to get better rewards as time passes and they succesfully defend.

Also i don’t think punishing the wining server is a good idea. If you kill someone couple of times they give little wxp, why would you nerf it even more?

In order to promote players to still defend, they could promote a systems that gives buffs to towers/keeps that help defenders. These buffs would grow larger the longer the server holds the fortification for, until they reach a max level. Buffs could include resistance to siege, bonuses to stats, increased magic find, increased wxp, lower build costs, etc. by increasing these buffs based on how long you hold the keep/tower it will encourage players to focus on defending these points

Chicho Gosho.6507:

timidobserver.7925:

I could definitely go for a time multiplier. The longer a server has held a keep, the more value there is in taking it.

I am reluctant to doing it by score though.

This is a bad idea because why would anyone defend, it’d be better to leave the castle and take it after some time for better wxp. Maybe it’ll be better for defenders to get better rewards as time passes and they succesfully defend.

Also i don’t think punishing the wining server is a good idea. If you kill someone couple of times they give little wxp, why would you nerf it even more?

This wouldn’t change anything. As it stands, there already isn’t a real reason to defend keeps. My post wasn’t meant to address rewarding defenders. If it was I would’ve posted it in the thread about that.

It’s always the last place server in the match that ruins things.

1 will go for #2 because they’re the threat. #2 WANTS to go for #1 to pull off the upset. Then pesky #3 hits #2 because they’re too scared of #1 and since #2 is already fighting #1 its their best bet.

3 servers you NEED TO ATTACK #1 server and #2 will help you do it!

And while we are at it give 5 wxp per minute missing when refreshing siege.
10 would be really nice but for the sake of balance lets say 5.
That will keep at least 1 scout on each tower happy.

Edit: And add a title to it
X mins refreshed for x ammount of points towards title.