Guild Wars 2

People have been asking for a handicap system based on population. So when you log in, and your opponent has a bigger presence in WvW, every thing you accomplish is worth more. Take a tower ? you get credited for 100 points. If the larger server takes a tower it’s only worth 30 points to them. etc etc

What we have now is a handicap system based on both server population, server WvW population and server WvW ability. So when SB is matched up vs Dragonbrand, Anet knows it’s a mismatch. So the handicap system goes into effect. If it was a football game, dragonbrand is supposed to win 100-0. So SB starts the game with a 100-0 lead. So if they score 10 points during the game, and Dragonbrand scores 80 points, the final score is SB 110 and DB 80 = SB wins. SB was supposed to lose by 100 but they played well, defied the odds and did better than expected. Challenge was accepted and beaten.

People need to change their mindset going into a week vs a powerful opponent. Figure out a plan and stick to it. Make it a point to never give up garrison…..or to own briar in enemy lands…..whatever. You are not expected to go toe to toe. It is still a blast to load up on siege in an enemy tower and defend/badge farm. You can still roam and find smaller fights etc etc. Don’t let the actual score for the week decide for you whether you have fun or not.

Keep score not by the weekly matchup, but by how your server ranking rises and falls. That is a more accurate number based on a handicap system.

Change your mindset. If you played Tiger Woods in a 1v1 and he gave you 25 strokes. He shot a 68 and you shot a 90. Would you cry because you got smoked or be happy because based on the talent difference you overcame it and won ?

Play the game….kill some people…have some laughs with friends and have fun. Don’t worry about playing a tougher server. You are rewarded for doing you best and it isn’t a fail if you don’t beat them with the actual score for the week.

The problem will be figuring out the wvw population from overall. Some servers have equal populations but disparate wvw participation. Factor in the wvw population boost and decline for winning/losing servers and there is just too many unknowns. I would think to balance it out properly you would almost have to remove wvw from server based to something faction or otherwise that can have its own distinct population measured and balanced.

See that’s the point. They are taking a servers performance and going from there. For one server that success could be based on 90% population and 10% WvW participation. Another server could have success based on 50% population…25% WvW participation and 25% tactics. End result is the same. How well does your server perform. So the only thing Anet has to figure out is how you actually perform …which is more accurate than any population number.

..and that’s exactly what they are doing now.

there’s actually a good idea hidden in there.

in any matchup, it is expected based on the ratings that one server will do better, and another will do worse. it might be helpful to ‘seed’ the scoreboard with handicap points at the beginning of the match, so that servers that are expected to do badly can start with an apparent head start. actual end-of-match ratings would still have to be calculated based on actual points scored, so the handicaps would have to be removed for that purpose. also, extra points for sentry kills, etc. can be ignored for the purposes of handicaps.

but there’s a problem with this — when you start with a large artificial lead, it’s hard to know whether you are playing well or not. at the end of 7 days, your lead is expected to diminish to zero, but if there are 5 days left in the match and you still have a lead of 50K points, are you ahead of schedule or behind?

so maybe rather than handicapping games, a better alternative would be to display a ‘par’ score for each server alongside their actual score. the ‘par’ score would be updated on every PPT to show the ‘expected’ score for each server at that point in the match, if each server played exactly as their match-start ratings would have predicted.

this would make it easier for an underdog server to tell whether they’re playing well, by giving them a rough estimate to compare their actual score to. because comparing their actual score to their opponents’ actual scores is often not a useful measure of whether they are playing ‘better than expected’ or ‘worse than expected’ (unless you’re willing to do the math to calculate Glicko-2 E, then evaluate x = y * (0.5 + arcsin(2*E-1)/pi) / (0.5 – arcsin(2*E-1)/pi) to calculate your expected score x based on your opponent’s actual score y, which I concede very few players are willing to do)

-ken

an even better idea would be to simply show starting ratings and anticipated rating changes on the scoreboard, so that it would be obvious at any point during a match whether your performance will cause your rating to go up, or down.

-ken

Good ideas. Bottom line is to add something so the average person does’nt feel demoralized and actually feels like they are accomplishing something.

I know it is completely psychological but it is similar to when you are selling something. You think $500 is fair. It is far better to advertise for $600, then let the buyer “get you down” to $500. He is happy since he thinks he got a deal and you are happy because you got the price you wanted. If you had started at $500 and staid firm at $500 you likely wouldn’t have got the sale.

Same thing applies here. Gotta change the mindset so people don’t freak when they are facing a tough server.

This is a post I made yesterday that is relivant to this discussion.

titanlectro.5029:

The point of WvW is not PPT or score, it is rating.

• If you fight a stronger opponent and hold your own (while losing PPT), you will gain rating.
• If you fight a weaker opponent and win by only a little (while winning the PPT), you will lose rating.

If you randomly get assigned an opponent that is too strong for you, you are not doomed. Instead, this is a great chance to steal some of their rating points. If you randomly get assigned to a weaker tier, be careful not to let your guard down, or you might lose rating.

Every battle has meaning now.

There is always the opportunity for success, even against impossible odds. This will become the new meta, it is just a matter of time before everyone realizes it.

Why would you call this a bad thing?

Because it is not tracked in game in a visable way. Again lower tier (if they are like mine) servers have more marginal players which turn out for WvW when there it seems their participation will make a difference. If it does not there is always PvE.

Rating is not an explicit in game stat. like the score is. Explaining it is kinda pointless because it is often counter intuitive, and it is mostly the WvW involved players that will check mos.millenium.org and understand the rating system.

With matchups where you are getting beat into the ground, yet gaining rating, there is all these marginal players see is the score, so they are less motivated to turn out, which means we will be consistantly outnumbered (often by quite a bit) and have a problem drawing more people into liking WvW in general. You can not sustain ratings on that.

The following was a good response to that post.

titanlectro.5029:

That is a very good point. Perhaps Anet could build this into the GUI. If the ranks, ratings and rating changes were all easily visible, that would probably change peoples’ perspectives. They could even take it a step further, and show the average PPT needed to maintain your current rating, thus setting a reasonable goal in players minds.

Instead of thinking:
“We suck and this is hopeless.”
or “We are dominating this is pointlessly easy.”

They might instead think:
“We are fighting a server three ranks ahead of us and gaining rating, GJ guys!”
or “We might be winning, but we are losing rating to these guys three ranks below us.”

Lol Tenebrous, I was thinking of copying those posts over also, and you beat me too it.

Just a simple follow up: I think managing expectations through the GUI is enough. There is no need for an actual handicap.

“managing expectations” fits perfectly for this. That is what Anet has to promote and explain….over and over.

Its already handicapped. The rating system anyway. Servers need to start playing to improve their rating, not win the weekly matchup in overall points. If you do that even when you are horribly outmatched you can still win.

Anet needs to represent a servers rating and potential rating change in the actual WvW game interface.

I really like this idea. Having some sort of indicator, even if just the color of your score, that letsbyou know whether you are aheadish/behindish/ or on targetish eould bea great addition and help morale all around.

Yes I’d cry if I shot a 90

Maladon.5760:

Yes I’d cry if I shot a 90

Of happiness ? Keep practicing. You’ll get there !

Forzani.2584:

Maladon.5760:

Yes I’d cry if I shot a 90

Of happiness ? Keep practicing. You’ll get there !

Well played sir, well played…

This is a great point, and I would very much support an in-game way of showing how well your server is doing compared to how you’d be expected to do.

By any in-game measure Gunnars are getting destroyed this matchup, but we’re actually doing well above ‘par’ and our rating is shooting up as a result. If this was reflected in game it would be great for morale, and be a really good way of measuring who was truly doing badly/well even in more fair matchups.

+1

I don’t care what they do as long as it does not promote “playing for second”. That was one of the main drawbacks (the worst imho) of the old system. It promoted playing for second to avoid falling down a tier.

I fear displaying the rating would make some interpret it as the need to play for rating. And that is not what should be happening.

In a matchup you should play to win, have good fights and have fun. Especially if there is no hope of winning. What I mean is if you are greatly outmatched by a server, you still need to attack that server and not wimp out and attack the weaker server.

I think the desire to “play to win” is one of the things that keeps people away from the game during a badly lopsided matchup. If you always play to win, but it’s obvious that there is no possible way to win, why should you play at all?

People need to be able to choose their own adventure. Some people will take “our rating goes up” as an acceptable substitute for “we win the match”.

And for some people, just winning the match won’t be enough — they won’t consider it a win unless they both win the match and increase their rating.

-ken

Snowreap.5174:

I think the desire to “play to win” is one of the things that keeps people away from the game during a badly lopsided matchup. If you always play to win, but it’s obvious that there is no possible way to win, why should you play at all?

People need to be able to choose their own adventure. Some people will take “our rating goes up” as an acceptable substitute for “we win the match”.

And for some people, just winning the match won’t be enough — they won’t consider it a win unless they both win the match and increase their rating.

-ken

That is 100% correct. The win or go home syndrome is what is hurting WvW. The problem is, no matter how Anet decides the matchups, there are going to be mismatches. There are not enough servers to guarantee balanced matches.

That is why ranking has to really be promoted so people see they are accomplishing something…..and at times, accomplishing something against the odds….which always feels good.

Then a new matchup every week to keep things fresh.

Forzani.2584:

Snowreap.5174:

I think the desire to “play to win” is one of the things that keeps people away from the game during a badly lopsided matchup. If you always play to win, but it’s obvious that there is no possible way to win, why should you play at all?

People need to be able to choose their own adventure. Some people will take “our rating goes up” as an acceptable substitute for “we win the match”.

And for some people, just winning the match won’t be enough — they won’t consider it a win unless they both win the match and increase their rating.

-ken

That is 100% correct. The win or go home syndrome is what is hurting WvW. The problem is, no matter how Anet decides the matchups, there are going to be mismatches. There are not enough servers to guarantee balanced matches.

That is why ranking has to really be promoted so people see they are accomplishing something…..and at times, accomplishing something against the odds….which always feels good.

Then a new matchup every week to keep things fresh.

My only fear with playing to make the rating go up is that it will result in attacking the weaker server. The same way playing the overall score does now. It would be essentially playing for second.

In my previous post perhaps I shouldn’t have stated it as playing to win. I didn’t mean win the match, or score the highest. What I really mean is to attack the stronger server – the one in the lead.

Emory Bay, has been winning the match for weeks I know. And I know its not the most fun situation to be dominating all the time. I’d be interested to know the dynamic that occurs as far as which server attacks which server and how a target is decided. Because this is the central point of my concern about scoring in WvW. Do BP and AR start fighting each other just letting you roll even easier unopposed? Or are they attempting to band together and fight the powerhouse?

For example, I’m on SBI. We have been in both the postion of dominating and being dominated. Neither is fun.

I have discovered that playing for points decreases the fun in the match – for all servers – for the dominant and for those being dominated.

In instances where we were the dominat server, it is boring as all get out. But in one case, the two lower servers ganged up on us. And that was the most fun day in the entire match – for all three of our servers. They weren’t playing for points, they were playing to kick our behinds.

In the case of being the weaker server. It stinks to be highly outmatched yes. But in matches where this was happening to us, we have a few times been able to get a 2v1 on the dominant server and it is amazing fun – and it is amazing how much it increases the morale of our troops. It is far more fun than attacking the other weaker server and fighting for second because when you do that, it gives the naturally dominant server even more of an advantage to roll over both.

Playing for second already happens, I’m not sure how displaying ratings will make it worse.

In fact, it might make it better. You will gain more rating by stealing a few points from green team, than by red and blue destroying each other. Red and Blue teaming up to steal points from Green will be the best tactic.

Will playing for rating encourage strong servers to crush weak servers even more? It might, but it will also improve the moral of the weak server. If all sides are invested in the battle, then it is a better match-up in my book.

Johje Holan.4607:

Emory Bay, has been winning the match for weeks I know. And I know its not the most fun situation to be dominating all the time. I’d be interested to know the dynamic that occurs as far as which server attacks which server and how a target is decided. Because this is the central point of my concern about scoring in WvW. Do BP and AR start fighting each other just letting you roll even easier unopposed? Or are they attempting to band together and fight the powerhouse?

to answer your question, the ‘leaders’ on Ehmry Bay are generally aware of our rating, and how it is affected when we focus on one opponent or another. It’s likely that the general ‘pug’ population doesn’t know about ratings, or care (and I suspect this is true on most servers).

But for us, rating is somewhat a secondary concern. Mostly on EB we focus on whichever opponent has been annoying us more, or on the one that would be more fun to attack.

BP and AR do not, in general, work together against us — they fight each other as readily as they each fight us. There was one relatively recent match where they had a somewhat informal agreement to work together, but EB rallied and neither BP nor AR were able to turn that agreement into a significant score increase. I think it was a mostly fun change for all involved, but it doesn’t seem like BP or AR are much incilned to repeat the experiment.

I don’t know if EB/BP/AR is a good example. We’ve been matched against each other for so long that ratings (and even scores) aren’t particularly important any more. What everyone is looking for now is “newness”, and one of the things that has resulted from this is a big uptick in interest in “guild vs guild” matches (usually held in an out-of-the-way location on one of the borderland maps).

-ken

Yep. Just look at the “Evolution” column on the millenium site. This could easily be added to the WvWvW UI to let you know if you are doing well.