Guild Wars 2

The issue is, most of these suggestions will literally reward players for not playing WvW. If I am going to be forced into player PvE in WvW where the rewards are worse, it is only reasonable that players will leave that for PvE then.

There are some impressively bad ideas here as far as artificially changing the rules for specific times of the day or week.

It is almost as if there are several posters here who are making a conscious effort to avoid creating a real solution and trying to discuss how many dirty band aids we can stack on it.

If the solution does not specifically cover getting what players that are on, at specific times, into situations in which they are playing against the other players on at that time, it is no solution.

Xenesis.6389:

All they need to do is break up the scoring into zones, that way no zone can go overboard and run away with the total score, you will no longer have to worry about servers that have a too much of ocx or sea or eu that stack 10k in score every day run away with the matchup.

Zone 1 – 9 pm est(when reset starts) to 3 am est.
Zone 2 – 3 am – 9 am est.
Zone 3 – 9 am – 3pm est.
Zone 4 – 3pm – 9pm est.

You run the same PPT scoring system and add PPK as well, reset the points at the end of the zone time.
You won’t have to run any type of weakening effect (penalties), on populations or scores or gameplay.
The server that wins a zone gets 1 overall point.
At the end of the week the server with the most overall points wins.
The actual overall score will be tighter and easier to catch throughout the week.

And for those who don’t know much about the time zones, here’s a list of what’s covered in the Zones.

OCX Prime time(8pm) for New Zealand is around 4am est.
OCX Prime time(8pm) for East Australia is around 6am est.
SEA Prime time(8pm) for places like West Australia to like Hong Kong areas is around 8am est.
SEA to Russia will run to about 1pm est.
EU takes over from 1pm est.
EU Prime time(8pm) for England is around 3pm est, as an example.
Early NA is basically 6-8pm est.
East NA Prime is 8-11am est.
PST NA Prime is 12-3am est.

P.S This scoring system basically amounts to running a sports league like soccer or hockey, where you play games, doesn’t matter up what the score ends being for the game you still only get 2 or 3 points for winning. Same with the zones you will only get 1 point for winning.

It can be expanded to 3, 2, 1 overall points awarded system as well, but would result in more points given out and bigger margin in score as the week progresses.

We’ve gone through a million ideas with real life timezones and it doesnt work, period. You will only end up overcomplicating matters if you try to tie it to a 24h clock (who uses 12h anyway, that’s like 1 country in the entire world).

WvW need its own “timezone” based on its current population. Ie “nighttime” (when PPT tick less) is whenever WvW is at low activity.

@ Rei Hino.5961

For the love of kitten! Paragraphs! Remember the golden rule, 5 lines, break.

Dawdler.8521:

WvW need its own “timezone” based on its current population. Ie “nighttime” (when PPT tick less) is whenever WvW is at low activity.

So when exactly is it considered wvw low activity? when NA logs off? You’re still tying wvw timezones to real timezones with that method. So what happens when a server like say FA has their NA log off, SoS ocx now get penalized because NA went to sleep?

Populations are unbalanced in a game like this, it doesn’t matter if they had only opened servers to NA people only, it would still would have had an imbalanced present, which is why you don’t tie your scoring directly to populations. You don’t penalize people for not being able to play in the prime time zone of a server. Activity is always going to vary, and calculation that for every server is going to be a mess, so you put hard lines to the scoring times.

You break the scoring up to the zones to let people battle out the score in just their zone. SoS ocx might be the strongest and they would win that point, but the rest of the times? they may lose EU to FA or TC , or lose NA to TC or FA, Sea could be a toss up. Players can still pull overtime if they wanted but they certainly won’t be running up a score of 100K+ by the end of the week.

Also I’m in favor of winner goes up, 2nd stays in tier, loser moves down. No more of this broken glicko system, and new matchups every week.

P.S talking about penalizing play will never sit well with players, start thinking about giving bonuses to those server that are outmanned, like adding multiplier bonuses to the outmanned buff. Maybe a server that has outmanned popped on all 4 maps at the same time gets 2x points scoring for that period.

After reading most of these idea’s it keep coming back to really only having pve elements to bring balance, as in the problem of tying to divide by 0 it can’t be done. But why I am happy with pve elements in wvw some arn’t. But most of the time when I refer to pve it’s mostly yea meant as a band aid. A keep or tower has upgrades IE cannons and such it be interesting if no one was there to take them from the npc the npc’s could use them. at least a shot was fired before the keep/tower was taken?

But yea penalizing anyone is not good. So yea just making it a even fair fight In real war yea man power issues is a thing but this is a game I wana login and have a army to fight with pushing across a battlefield. All of my characters are support based so it might come to no surprised that I need to be in a group or anyone is going to kill me off.

But with that said back before the mega server there been day’s so bad if we could loose our citadel we could, or heck after they take the citadel push out into our lion’s arch and start attacking people there..although that would make for a interesting incursion idea but as the mega server as it is now won’t work. But the mega server as I mentioned before hurt server identity as you can’t call out in lion’s arch for more.

example: me: we need more help (insert my server here as have to id who you need help from now) person from opposing server: Yelp we’ll be right in there to help beat you up faster.

And there you have it pve effecting wvw gameplay to the point of how wvw started it might just need to be reworked completely. But your fighting for your server you can generalize the idea little more lately on a individual player level? Combine alot of servers together maybe add a tag for your server and you personally get credit for your sever in the bigger mass of the muli kinda like how edge of the mist is muli server although it is based off regular wvw individual colors so take edge of the mist make it main wvw and each server have there own asura gate entrance spawn or something. there allot of issues wrong with this idea..but it something you will always have people anyway.

But hm like blue in edge of the mist I feel the need to bring up even when you combine 8 servers ( 24 / 3 ) in edge of the mist and still come up with 5 people..that make edge of the mist unplayable that makes me think and arena net devs realize that the man power issue is a thing even after putting 8 servers together there is sometimes no one.

Xenesis.6389:

Dawdler.8521:

WvW need its own “timezone” based on its current population. Ie “nighttime” (when PPT tick less) is whenever WvW is at low activity.

So when exactly is it considered wvw low activity? when NA logs off? You’re still tying wvw timezones to real timezones with that method. So what happens when a server like say FA has their NA log off, SoS ocx now get penalized because NA went to sleep?

FA? SoS? NA? OCX? An ingame “time” wouldnt care about anything but comparing current population to max population.

What you are really asking is, what would happen if players log off and there are fewer players?

The answer to that is when a certain player count is reached, WvW goes into “nighttime mode” with lower ppt. This mode would be updated every hour (dont want it to swing back and forth).

No arguments about NA different timezones is needed.

Dawdler.8521:

The answer to that is when a certain player count is reached, WvW goes into “nighttime mode” with lower ppt. This mode would be updated every hour (dont want it to swing back and forth).

That is a very bad suggestion. It is unreasonable to change the rules at various times. You have to keep the same scoring system at all times. This game mode is a 24/7/365 game mode, not one designed or intended to work around your, or anyone else’s schedule.

Any suggestion that offers a bias segregation is terrible.

coglin.1867:

Dawdler.8521:

The answer to that is when a certain player count is reached, WvW goes into “nighttime mode” with lower ppt. This mode would be updated every hour (dont want it to swing back and forth).

That is a very bad suggestion. It is unreasonable to change the rules at various times. You have to keep the same scoring system at all times. This game mode is a 24/7/365 game mode, not one designed or intended to work around your, or anyone else’s schedule.

Any suggestion that offers a bias segregation is terrible.

This. Not only is it unreasonable to change the rules at various times, it’s also highly gameable/exploitable. What would stop servers who are behind on PPT from simply ceasing to play en masse in order to force the match into “nighttime” mode? All of these suggestions about changing PPT based on WvW population or implementing a handicap are subject to this kind of exploitation. Most importantly, they’re systems that in certain situations would reward players for NOT playing. Anet is never going to implement something that has the potential to engender that kind of player behavior.

Seriously, we’ve been back and forth about this with the devs since the game released. The most fair and non-exploitable fix to the scoring issues that we’ve come up with is to slice the match into scoring periods, so that the total amount of potential points a server can accrue during one time block is no more than any other time block (i.e., scores from 5pm to 9pm PST are worth the same amount to the match as scores from 1am to 5am PST).

I wrote up a detailed example of one implementation of this kind of system last time this topic came up in the WvW Scoring CDI discussion, you can look at it here:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Scoring-Discussion/page/4#post4474765

coglin.1867:

You have to keep the same scoring system at all times.

The entire scoring system has to be replaced. The scoring system DOES NOT work fine.

Many of you seem to think that “fixing” the population problems is going to solve the problem. It doesn’t because WvW was never meant to be played by teams of equal size.

FACT: The PPT scoring system is used in Conquest mode sPvP where matches are played by two teams of equal size.
INFERENCE: Teams of equal size are the intended use of the scoring system.

FACT: “Night-capping” can be seen in an sPvP match when a team loses one player to a disconnect.
INFERENCE: The other team is allowed to run away with the score.

Just look at the sPvP forum sometime of players qq-ing about matches with disconnects or players who afk at spawn. And it is thought that somehow population in WvW is going to be “fixed” so that the flaws of the scoring system don’t show?

OPINION: The most practical solution is to change the scoring system!

I like the ideas of PPK (points per kill) , PPC (points per cap), PPD (points per defense) added to the total score.

I would further augment these, specifically the Points per Cap and Points per Defense. Just use the currently available ingame event mechanics and code and scale the events up appropriately per number of people present and award bronze, silver, gold event completion of off that. If you go for a cap and the defense event scales only up to bronze, then your own offense event only scales up to bronze as well, silver up to silver, gold up to gold, etc.

Then just award PPT points based on that on top of either existing or reduced PPT system.

The values can be adjusted later on as data becomes available until you end up with a roughly balanced approach.

Make it that after daily reset for 8 howers only ebg is accessible and all players get force teleport to ebg for snowstorm at borderlands or something xd

BrickFurious.7169:

What would stop servers who are behind on PPT from simply ceasing to play en masse in order to force the match into “nighttime” mode?

So to get more points, they will all stop playing, which btw would still keep the server at “daytime” since we assume that 2 out of 3 servers are still active, making the other servers completely roflstomp all their keeps and making them tick 0.

Tell me how not getting any points is going to make a server that’s behind in PPT gain anything?

Even if they manage to do that alone, the tick ratio will still be the same – if servers get say 250/250/150 points in the “daytime”, they get 125/125/75 in the “nighttime”. Ie you change nothing by “forcing” either mode, just what an hour of low activity vs an hour of high activity is worth.

Chaba.5410:

The entire scoring system has to be replaced. The scoring system DOES NOT work fine.

That is a subjective opinion.. In my opinion, the scoring system works. It could be better, but it actually works fine. The issue is with population fluctuations through out the match durations.

Chaba.5410:

Many of you seem to think that “fixing” the population problems is going to solve the problem. It doesn’t because WvW was never meant to be played by teams of equal size.

Interesting “claim”. You have proof of that? Seems to me that your surmising this with no facts. I have never seem any official statement that said this.

In the games beginning, I saw 4 maps queued 24/7. Seems to me that it is more likely that they expected it to be played by very equal player counts. The game stayed the same, but the population wavered. Non of which justifies making a claim of what Anet intended, with no facts to support the claim of what they intended

Chaba.5410:

FACT: The PPT scoring system is used in Conquest mode sPvP where matches are played by two teams of equal size.
INFERENCE: Teams of equal size are the intended use of the scoring system.

No, that is not a fact. It may be how it is intended, but it is very common for players to quit or DC and have 4v5s or 3v5s occur. I can prove that fact, which disproved what your calling a fact. You say as much in your next statement.

Chaba.5410:

FACT: “Night-capping” can be seen in an sPvP match when a team loses one player to a disconnect.
INFERENCE: The other team is allowed to run away with the score.

I do not believe fact means what you think it means, as you just posted this fact, which fundamentally disproves your previous “fact”.

Chaba.5410:

Just look at the sPvP forum sometime of players qq-ing about matches with disconnects or players who afk at spawn. And it is thought that somehow population in WvW is going to be “fixed” so that the flaws of the scoring system don’t show?

Wait, but you said it is a “Fact” that “The PPT scoring system is used in Conquest mode sPvP where matches are played by two teams of equal size.”

This is your second statement disproving your declaration of what is supposed to be a fact.

Chaba.5410:

OPINION: The most practical solution is to change the scoring system!

Possibly. Yet solving the population spread issues would solve this and several other aspects at once.

coglin.1867:

You have proof of that? Seems to me that your surmising this with no facts. I have never seem any official statement that said this.

Yes. Here’s the proof:

“At no point did I, or would I have, said “Fair competition” WvW is not intended to be “fair”. There are servers with more people, there are servers with better organizations and that will always be the case. This competition will be about showing how your world can do over a defined period of time, against a variety of opponents. SPvP is the part of our game that aims for a completely level playing field. WvW would never be able to match that goal.”

Written by former WvW dev Devon Carver at archived thread https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Final-solution-for-league-and-transfers/first#post2747282

If you have never seen this, it shows how you are still relatively new to the conversation surrounding a topic that has been tossed around for over 3 years now.

And with that, there’s really no reason to pick apart anything else you wrote since that quote nicely counters everything.

Hopefully, your fine reasoning abilities will be able to lead you towards a conclusion that the WvW scoring system has to align with its design goal, not the design needing to align with the scoring system.

Interesting how they very specifically stated that WvW isn’t intended to be FAIR, and you use that as your argument to incorrectly claim the scoring system needs to be changed, because you do not think it is “fair”

This just proved your reasoning for your own argument to be pointless, because you stated, and provided an official statement proving it is working as intended.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Interesting how they very specifically stated that WvW isn’t intended to be FAIR, and you use that as your argument to incorrectly claim the scoring system needs to be changed, because you do not think it is “fair”

This just proved your reasoning for your own argument to be pointless, because you stated, and provided an official statement proving it is working as intended.

What fine reasoning skills you have! Can you please explain this post to me? https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Invitational-Statement-from-John-Corpening-game-director-for-World-vs-World/first#post5350913

I don’t get it where he says, “Hand in hand with population imbalance is scoring. The current scoring structure allows scores to run away…” Maybe you can help explain? The scoring system is completely fine and doesn’t need to be changed, as you and coglin have so eloquently argued. Like, what is ArenaNet thinking? Why would they think the scoring system needs to be improved? They said very specifically that WvW isn’t intended to be fair and that proves that the scoring system doesn’t need to be changed!

dancingmonkey.4902:

Interesting how they very specifically stated that WvW isn’t intended to be FAIR, and you use that as your argument to incorrectly claim the scoring system needs to be changed, because you do not think it is “fair”

This just proved your reasoning for your own argument to be pointless, because you stated, and provided an official statement proving it is working as intended.

He never said anything about whether the scoring system in WvW is “fair” or not. All he said is that competition in WvW isn’t fair, and linked to a dev blog post explaining that it was never designed to be (I think most of us in this thread understand and even like this aspect of WvW). He then stated that pure PPT scoring, what we have now, is a good fit for completely fair competition design like sPvP, and a not-so-good fit for “unfair” WvW (that was the only claim he made).

Chaba’s analogy of how “nightcapping” in WvW is like losing a player due to a disconnect in sPvP works perfectly at highlighting a flaw of pure PPT when applied to WvW scoring. Of course it isn’t a perfect analogy because there are buffers in WvW — gates and walls, siege, larger maps — that allow an outmanned team to survive and generate points from objectives they own longer than they would in sPvP. But in the kind of nightcapping people complain about (such as being outnumbered 30 to 2 on a map), those buffers don’t tend to last very long.

Dawdler.8521:

Tell me how not getting any points is going to make a server that’s behind in PPT gain anything?

The problem is that your idea involves the handicap for scoring to change dynamically. So if two servers X and Y are facing a server Z that has a strong night presence, rather than playing (in which they risk total WvW population being high enough for server Z’s nighttime dominance to translate into a lot of PPT), they are better off not playing, meaning total WvW population is low enough that server Z’s PPT accrued gets reduced by a ton because of the handicap. Then they can play more when they know they won’t be outnumbered and have a better shot of getting more PPT.

TL;DR: A handicap like what you’re suggesting means that anyone playing on a currently-outnumbered team means they are secretly helping the most currently-populated team by increasing total WvW match population (and thus the weight assigned to the most currently-populated team’s PPT).

BrickFurious.7169:

The problem is that your idea involves the handicap for scoring to change dynamically. So if two servers X and Y are facing a server Z that has a strong night presence, rather than playing, they are better off not playing…

Sadly, that already happens under the current system. The quicker a server with the stronger presence can be allowed to PPT and gain Glicko rating by players on the other two servers not playing, the faster that server will be out of the weaker servers’ hair.

Chaba.5410:

BrickFurious.7169:

The problem is that your idea involves the handicap for scoring to change dynamically. So if two servers X and Y are facing a server Z that has a strong night presence, rather than playing, they are better off not playing…

Sadly, that already happens under the current system. The quicker a server with the stronger presence can be allowed to PPT and gain Glicko rating by players on the other two servers not playing, the faster that server will be out of the weaker servers’ hair.

True, though that is in the rarer case where one server is utterly dominating a match due to population differences and should probably be fighting in a higher tier. My critique of Dawdler’s method is that it would also encourage a team to not play at those times during the week when they are significantly outnumbered, even if they are in an even match according to weekly total PPT. And these temporary times during the week of being significantly outnumbered are a very common occurrence in all matchups.

I don’t care what they do, but something needs to be done. There’s a whole server in T1 not playing this week, so it has been extremely boring even in T1. We’re less than 1 month until expansion launch, people should be coming back, testing out builds and getting used to the game again. But instead due to a combination of Anet locking certain servers and their messed up glicko system, even T1 is a boring place for many days out of a week.

For most MMO’s there’s usually excitement ramping up to expansion launch. Here in WvW it’s just quite dead except for reset night and a couple nights over the weekend. I look in T2, same thing, boring and a server that was once in T1 now losing guilds and slowly dying (and the server is still marked as Full gg).

If Anet’s plan was to let once vibrant, healthy, fun, action all the time servers bleed a slow death, then they’re doing a great job. All the while they aren’t exactly boosting other servers, as I haven’t see any new servers moving up to high or very high. These days I just see T1 getting worse, T2 not getting better, and low pop servers remain low pop servers. Wonderful job Anet. Do something, I don’t care what. T1 shouldn’t be this boring, neither should T2.

BrickFurious.7169:

He never said anything about whether the scoring system in WvW is “fair” or not. All he said is that competition in WvW isn’t fair, and linked to a dev blog post explaining that it was never designed to be (I think most of us in this thread understand and even like this aspect of WvW). He then stated that pure PPT scoring, what we have now, is a good fit for completely fair competition design like sPvP, and a not-so-good fit for “unfair” WvW (that was the only claim he made).

Chaba’s analogy of how “nightcapping” in WvW is like losing a player due to a disconnect in sPvP works perfectly at highlighting a flaw of pure PPT when applied to WvW scoring. Of course it isn’t a perfect analogy because there are buffers in WvW — gates and walls, siege, larger maps — that allow an outmanned team to survive and generate points from objectives they own longer than they would in sPvP. But in the kind of nightcapping people complain about (such as being outnumbered 30 to 2 on a map), those buffers don’t tend to last very long.

That’s all fine and dandy but that doesn’t mean we should replace the current system with a worse one, that is bias and segregating bt having different score systems for different hours of the day.

The problrm, as I see it, is that you two are repeatedly arguing against those who disagree with you, instead of offering good suggestion to find something to either solve your perceived issue, that does not treat various players differently based on their life and when it allows them playtime.

Hm well any other idea’s though last few posts has kinda been poking holes witch is good. but hm. back to the eotm idea. or rather mega server idea applied to wvw have individual rewards you do to help your server get the bonuses for pve ect it try to keep you together as much as it can with your server while mixing with others and just like the pve maps it be focused around making shure you have a full map all the time as I said earlier it kinda mix well with the idea well I think how server Identity is already partially dead from the mega server wvw seems to just kinda detached from how it was originally ran. I guess I think of servers more or less as a way to balance people on more then one server then jamming everyone onto one at this point. Like Tera or any other game with more then one server maybe server warfare just need to be removed?

But yea even that idea has holes..IE could be troublesome to get your friends in if a map is hard caped. but then have options maybe like the pvp browser have a wvw browser and select the fight you wana be in? although yea this would do away with PPT completely it new some new way to track each individual person maybe a new line of achievements sever based?

But yea that another idea Ima toss at the wall what does anyone think? this system it does not matter were you are you be having fun mixing it up changing as you want, but yea as for the friday server reset thing were you win come in second or third such change that for some kinda achievement based reward? Ima leave it up to anyone else who wana refine this idea but it is sounding good in my head as im making up literately as I type stopping to think what else..

coglin.1867:

BrickFurious.7169:

He never said anything about whether the scoring system in WvW is “fair” or not. All he said is that competition in WvW isn’t fair, and linked to a dev blog post explaining that it was never designed to be (I think most of us in this thread understand and even like this aspect of WvW). He then stated that pure PPT scoring, what we have now, is a good fit for completely fair competition design like sPvP, and a not-so-good fit for “unfair” WvW (that was the only claim he made).

Chaba’s analogy of how “nightcapping” in WvW is like losing a player due to a disconnect in sPvP works perfectly at highlighting a flaw of pure PPT when applied to WvW scoring. Of course it isn’t a perfect analogy because there are buffers in WvW — gates and walls, siege, larger maps — that allow an outmanned team to survive and generate points from objectives they own longer than they would in sPvP. But in the kind of nightcapping people complain about (such as being outnumbered 30 to 2 on a map), those buffers don’t tend to last very long.

That’s all fine and dandy but that doesn’t mean we should replace the current system with a worse one, that is bias and segregating bt having different score systems for different hours of the day.

The problrm, as I see it, is that you two are repeatedly arguing against those who disagree with you, instead of offering good suggestion to find something to either solve your perceived issue, that does not treat various players differently based on their life and when it allows them playtime.

Uh, I’ve already agreed with you previously in the thread that a proper solution shouldn’t treat players differently based on when they play. And I offered an example of a proper solution too. Did you miss my post? Here it is:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WVW-Man-Power-Balance/page/2#post5548935

BrickFurious.7169:

coglin.1867:

BrickFurious.7169:

He never said anything about whether the scoring system in WvW is “fair” or not. All he said is that competition in WvW isn’t fair, and linked to a dev blog post explaining that it was never designed to be (I think most of us in this thread understand and even like this aspect of WvW). He then stated that pure PPT scoring, what we have now, is a good fit for completely fair competition design like sPvP, and a not-so-good fit for “unfair” WvW (that was the only claim he made).

Chaba’s analogy of how “nightcapping” in WvW is like losing a player due to a disconnect in sPvP works perfectly at highlighting a flaw of pure PPT when applied to WvW scoring. Of course it isn’t a perfect analogy because there are buffers in WvW — gates and walls, siege, larger maps — that allow an outmanned team to survive and generate points from objectives they own longer than they would in sPvP. But in the kind of nightcapping people complain about (such as being outnumbered 30 to 2 on a map), those buffers don’t tend to last very long.

That’s all fine and dandy but that doesn’t mean we should replace the current system with a worse one, that is bias and segregating bt having different score systems for different hours of the day.

The problrm, as I see it, is that you two are repeatedly arguing against those who disagree with you, instead of offering good suggestion to find something to either solve your perceived issue, that does not treat various players differently based on their life and when it allows them playtime.

Uh, I’ve already agreed with you previously in the thread that a proper solution shouldn’t treat players differently based on when they play. And I offered an example of a proper solution too. Did you miss my post? Here it is:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WVW-Man-Power-Balance/page/2#post5548935

Of course he didn’t see any suggestions because he was too busy arguing about terminology.

coglin.1867:

find something to either solve your perceived issue, that does not treat various players differently based on their life and when it allows them playtime.

How does the current system treat various players equally based on their normal playtime? You have never answered that question.