Guild Wars 2

This is something I’ve mentioned in another post. Given the recent discussions about scoring I think it’s worth asking for feedback on this alone. The idea is that the WXP gained by the players would be used for scoring. Using WXP gain means the score reflects player involvement in WvW now.

The wiki gives a table of current values for WXP: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_Experience#WXP_Acquisition

I would change the WXP gained from killing players to add +10 WXP for each player rank (invader +0, bronze invader +10, silver invader +20 etc). Experienced players should be worth more WXP. Spawn camping would get you zero (players not alive long enough) plus the players rank (for basic invaders +0, for Platinum invader +50 because they should know there’s another exit!).

I would increase the WXP gained from defending an objective to be the same as that for capturing an objective so that defending is as worthwhile as capping stuff.

To get started:
1. Remove Glicko, and set all server scores to zero. It’s time for a fair and clean start anyway due to the changes in scoring and linking etc.

2. Server score = total WXP gained across all the players on that server. Show score for each server. This allows us and ANET to see the active contribution each server makes; helping players see more active servers and ANET to make better links.

3. For multi server links, the linking group score is the sum of all the servers in that group.

Using WXP would keep an element of PPK, and PPT would change to points per cap/defend (which is why it should be the same score for defending as capping). However, other useful activities such as destroying enemy siege would now help towards score too.

Feedback (with reasoning) is welcome!

Values would have to be changed. Not rly big on the idea but not really against it either.

WxP boosters would have to be changed/removed as well for this to work, alot of work.
Leveling might need a small rework….not that anyone would/should care.

I don’t know how much work the changes would take. It shouldn’t be too much as WXP is already calculated.

I agree boosters should be disabled.

I don’t think levelling would need any work though – just play as normal and level as normal.

Also – finally – outnumbered buff might have some real meaning (25% extra WXP would mean more score when outnumbered).

There would be no incentive to hold objectives (PPT and unescorted dolyak deliveries do not yield WXP). Therefore nobody would defend anything.

You may suggest multiplying WXP for defending to encourage defending. In which case nobody would attack in fear of giving defenders lots of warscore.

It is very hard to give a fair (WXP) reward for defensive activities like: scouting, timely use of siege, disablers, opening emergency waypoint, rallying breakout force and so on. Except for the PTT gained by being able to hold on to the defended objective little while longer.

Also any WXP gained in EotM should never count towards warscore.

This wont work for the sole reason WXP is given to everyone at an objective. This would mean forcing everyone to be in the circle for every cap, and the server that can que the map gets exponentially more wxp simply due to more players.

Sounds like to me the more populated servers (who would probably have the most active players to gain wxp) would have the greatest chance to win anyways, so don’t really see a reason to change from the current system to that.

Yuffi.2430:

Also – finally – outnumbered buff might have some real meaning (25% extra WXP would mean more score when outnumbered).

Score bias due low coverage is unfair. It can be meta-played: “only guild X is allowed to enter this map to get the outnumbered buff”. Score bias is also demeaning for the low population server: you get carried by the bias and not by your own skill. And score bias is unfair for the high population server: despite all the effort put in, the other servers get same amount of score by just playing less.

Just say no to score bias.

Gwaihir.1745:

This wont work for the sole reason WXP is given to everyone at an objective. This would mean forcing everyone to be in the circle for every cap, and the server that can que the map gets exponentially more wxp simply due to more players.

Hear hear. This is the most compelling reason not to use WXP as warscore. It scales by the amount of players present.

KKKKKKKTRAIN MODE. Nice idea but no thanks.

I agree that scouting would be difficult to reward with WXP but, in my experience as a scout, the players who do it don’t scout for the rewards.

I understand that servers with more active population would gain more score. Why shouldn’t they?

As for WXP being gained by every player present at a capture – that’s a good point to raise. Is it really a problem however? Skirmishes last for 2 hours so it only affects a 2 hour slot. It’s also the same for every server so it’s fair enough from that point of view. The only time it’s a problem is if one side can queue the map and the other sides can’t. Even then it would be possible to gain WXP for other activities – so perhaps the only capture that really matters here would be if the whole team cap Stonemist. I can think of two different solutions for this, but feel free to suggest ideas.

Ktrain mode? Why? What about the WXP for kills, repairs, defence, mercenaries, siege destruction, dolyaks… At least WXP requires players to do something, whereas PPT can be gained from an empty map.

As for gaming the outnumbered buff – do you really think Guild X will be able to keep other players out of a map if they want to play there? I don’t know of a mechanic that would do that, unless you mean being abusive to the incoming players, in which case report the abuse. Is +25% for outnumbered really demeaning? I understand that skill should count but you don’t get WXP for doing nothing, so you have to use skill to earn score, and even more so if your team is outnumbered on a map.
I wouldn’t object if the WXP bonus was removed from outnumbered – it wouldn’t be any more useless than it is now. I also don’t mind if it stays as a reward for players who continue to play when facing overwhelming odds. My server has in the past faced several months of almost continuous outmanned, and being continuously stomped with no respite or hope of winning was very disheartening. Perhaps more players would stay in map and play if they thought it would get them more reward and their server more score.

Yuffi.2430:

As for WXP being gained by every player present at a capture – that’s a good point to raise. Is it really a problem however?

Yes it is. I would advice my team to have 80 players together to kill a sentry near spawn. That’s as much WXP as killing 80 sentries solo.

Same extends to capturing objectives and killing enemy players. 80v1 would be optimal way to play.

Highest keg drop wins!

“Roamers stop killing dat sentry and dollly, let our blob get that wxp or we loooooooose”

oh my………………………..

Yuffi.2430:

This is something I’ve mentioned in another post. Given the recent discussions about scoring I think it’s worth asking for feedback on this alone. The idea is that the WXP gained by the players would be used for scoring. Using WXP gain means the score reflects player involvement in WvW now.

The wiki gives a table of current values for WXP: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_Experience#WXP_Acquisition

I would change the WXP gained from killing players to add +10 WXP for each player rank (invader +0, bronze invader +10, silver invader +20 etc). Experienced players should be worth more WXP. Spawn camping would get you zero (players not alive long enough) plus the players rank (for basic invaders +0, for Platinum invader +50 because they should know there’s another exit!).

I would increase the WXP gained from defending an objective to be the same as that for capturing an objective so that defending is as worthwhile as capping stuff.

To get started:
1. Remove Glicko, and set all server scores to zero. It’s time for a fair and clean start anyway due to the changes in scoring and linking etc.

2. Server score = total WXP gained across all the players on that server. Show score for each server. This allows us and ANET to see the active contribution each server makes; helping players see more active servers and ANET to make better links.

3. For multi server links, the linking group score is the sum of all the servers in that group.

Using WXP would keep an element of PPK, and PPT would change to points per cap/defend (which is why it should be the same score for defending as capping). However, other useful activities such as destroying enemy siege would now help towards score too.

Feedback (with reasoning) is welcome!

It is a good idea which I have brought up in the past as well, or similar. Particularly because as you stated it is self balancing across playstyles PPT, group fighting, roaming, whatever else you throw into it.

However, no matter what, the other huge score disrcepancy, being outnumbered would still remain.

If you were to combine this, with some sort of outnumbered system, regardless if its a tiered local outnumbered buff, area local, or even map wide, a buff or just an indicator somewhere on the screen of the current score adjustment or something else entirely, it would really solve or drastically reduce a lot of the negative issues in this game mode.

So as long as there are score adjustments based on player numbers in it, I am all for it, but otherwise no. I can not support any changes which favor the bigger numbers as those will do nothing except make the current biggest issue worse.

Hmm… in theory 80 players killing one sentry and one player killing 80 sentries… the math adds up ok but even I can see that the 80 players can go on and kill another sentry in less time.

Ok, so how do we make the system work? There are enough people who post good ideas here for us to come up with a workable solution.

How about awarding the Server a score of the average WXP per player involved?

Yuffi.2430:

Ok, so how do we make the system work? There are enough people who post good ideas here for us to come up with a workable solution.

Let’s start with the problem. You say the problem is that teams do not get warscore for:

• Destroying siege
• Destroying gates/walls
• Repairing gates/walls
• Acquiring/eliminating mercenaries
• Killing the spirit or the grub

I’d say those activities already get rewarded by capturing (PPC) or holding (PPT) nearby objectives. Except for the spirit and the grub, which I don’t feel should be reward warscore anyway.

You may argue that PPC and PPT are not direct enough. That there should be more immediate link between those activities and the warscore. Maybe so.

Wouldn’t the simplest solution be rewarding some warscore for the listed activities?

I’m not saying that the Spirit or Grub should earn warscore – I merely linked to the Wiki page for the list of things that currently gain WXP.

One of the problems that I see with the current scoring system is that you can earn warscore by doing nothing because PPT ticks carry on until someone else takes your stuff.

I would like to see a more continuous scoring system so that player actions are valued at all times, not just in time for the tick. I think this happens with PPK, so why not other activities too?

Finally there are some actions that do not gain credit which should do. Destroying siege and repairing objectives are part of this.

The idea behind using WXP is more about bringing WvW scoring together under one simple system that rewards player actions and activity.

Changes to scoring does not fix any significant problems in WvW. How many times do we need to keep saying it?

Scoring isn’t the problem and it never was. They completely overhauled it and we have the exact same issues. They need to address coverage, population and class balance. Scoring will work itself out from there.

Maybe remove WXP and rewards all together and make it all about fights.

Yuffi.2430:

One of the problems that I see with the current scoring system is that you can earn warscore by doing nothing because PPT ticks carry on until someone else takes your stuff.

I would like to see a more continuous scoring system so that player actions are valued at all times, not just in time for the tick. I think this happens with PPK, so why not other activities too?

Finally there are some actions that do not gain credit which should do. Destroying siege and repairing objectives are part of this.

The idea behind using WXP is more about bringing WvW scoring together under one simple system that rewards player actions and activity.

PPT is reward for something your team, and not necessarily what you, did in the past. It is essential incentive to defend your team’s objectives.

I agree the whole WXP, warscore, victory points, Glicko rating -system is complex. I find it impossible to know whether my team is winning or losing in the leaderboards unless I leave the game and visit an external website. Due the world linking and especially my server being a guest server, I haven’t even bothered anymore.

If anything I would ditch WXP and WvW ranks. Instead I would credit every player/guild their share of the warscore that they could use for bragging. Leaderboards for players/guild split between types of warscore sources, unique cosmetic rewards for holding/reaching top places and so on. PPT is of course bit of a problem again due its nature to reward the whole team instead of players/guilds.