Guild Wars 2

ANET you promised them at the end of the month and did not deliver. When?

Where did you see that?

They didn’t promise them at the end of the month. They said they hoped to be able to get them out by the end of August.

I too am waiting anxiously for the scoring changes. I think they will be the best thing to happen to WvW since the culling fix. I wish they would have prioritized them instead of getting DBL back. But let’s not say Anet said something that they didn’t.

They mentioned they are targeting for aug 29th so there is still a week. Here, take this pill… it’s made by Chill

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

how the scoring changes will impact performance

I wonder what this could mean.

• Client/Server technical performance? I can’t see that being affected by scores…
• Performance of a World, perhaps? We all expect certain Worlds to drop like the proverbial lead zeppelin when nightcapping is nerfed. I don’t think many will be upset by this – the nightcappers themselves will have even weaker enemies with even less resistance (which they seem to like).

In the same corner as the overhaul they’ve been working on for 1.5year on HoT release.

Hey, but you got this new, old map that people hate. Who needs scoring changes…

greyseer.1806:

Hey, but you got this new, old map that people hate. Who needs scoring changes…

They actually improved it a lot. It’s pretty much just as fast now to get to the keeps as the other borderland map.

They could still remove some stuff in the way but the map is pretty enjoyable now.
The only thing that needs looking at is the whole central area that serves no purpose at all. It should be a waypoint to capture in the middle of the map.

Xillllix.3485:

greyseer.1806:

Hey, but you got this new, old map that people hate. Who needs scoring changes…

They actually improved it a lot. It’s pretty much just as fast now to get to the keeps as the other borderland map.

They could still remove some stuff in the way but the map is pretty enjoyable now.
The only thing that needs looking at is the whole central area that serves no purpose at all. It should be a waypoint to capture in the middle of the map.

I Lol’d at this part of the patch notes for WvW:

“Desert – Added a new hay bale to the southeast side of the Desert borderlands.”

The hay bales are meant for people use the cliffs as shortcuts. It’s not a useless adition.

Rotteny.8743:

The hay bales are meant for people use the cliffs as shortcuts. It’s not a useless adition.

Huh…guess I never used those before…but still…just one was needed?

There are some scattered across the map. I think the cliff in question problably didn’t had one.

I think we need the scoring changes now with the new map. It would just make more sense.

Anyway looking forward to this, been waiting so long for these changes and if it’s anything like what you’ve said it is very similar to what I suggested except for the PPK.

For PPK I had suggested 1 points for the winning server, 2 points for the second one and 4 points for the losing server.

What scoring changes. U mean the racial fix, the population culling or the get the kitten off my lawn propositions? Oh wait.. Nvm.

Population balance, Scoring changes, WvW profession balance and Skill lag, that’s the remaining things I can think of right now, that would bring me back to play daily, not just log in and out. Still waiting it seems.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We didn’t want to release Desert and scoring at the same time because we wanted to reduce the risk of something going wrong.

That being said, we are still testing how the scoring changes will impact performance and it is still our top priority.

So… this impact testing should be done by now, right?

Sylvyn.4750:

Rotteny.8743:

The hay bales are meant for people use the cliffs as shortcuts. It’s not a useless adition.

Huh…guess I never used those before…but still…just one was needed?

You could just admit you said something incorrect instead of trying to play it off. There are far more than ‘one’. You should learn the map before commenting on it.

Xillllix.3485:

The only thing that needs looking at is the whole central area that serves no purpose at all. It should be a waypoint to capture in the middle of the map.

Look, you got to be careful what you wish for. When nobody suggests that center should have something, we don’t risk Anet putting some silly PvE fetch quest there that lags the whole map out. When a suggestion is made and it’s up to Anet to deliver, is what they deliver good for the game or not?

Soon…

That is the only message Anet gives us.

I do not know, meaby i join the dissapointed player guild.

The WvW of the expansion…meh. i will close the wallet until i see something change.

When is this due?

Better hope it’s September 20th, as that’s when episode 2 comes out: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/473/feature/11142/Guild-Wars-2-Episode-2-Drops-September-20th-Takes-Us-Back-to-the-Ring-of-Fire.html

Of course you read about it, there’s zero mention of WvW at all. It’s like WvW doesn’t even exist.

WvW is rarely mentioned. Anyone who been here for 4 years know that.

Amem to that bother. Let’s see how this will work out.

Well Anet you said the DBL would be around the 29th, and scoring updates a little after that … you delivered … I think most people still picking up there jaws from the floor.

Josh Davis.6015:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/world-vs-world-skirmishes-arrive-on-september-9/

So do skirmishes happen every 2hrs?

Zero.4935:

Josh Davis.6015:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/world-vs-world-skirmishes-arrive-on-september-9/

So do skirmishes happen every 2hrs?

Here is the text of the piece:

World vs. World Skirmishes Arrive on September 9
by The Guild Wars 2 WvW Team on September 6, 2016

Hello, everyone,
In our very first World vs. World development poll, we asked the community if we should prioritize quality of life or scoring improvements. Scoring won that poll, and since then, the team has been hard at work bringing the first phase of improvements to fruition. We’re happy to announce that Phase 1 of Skirmishes will be activated on September 9!

What You Can Expect from Skirmishes
Matches are still a week long, but have been split into 2-hour time slices that we are calling Skirmishes. During a skirmish, players will earn War Score normally as they always have, but War Score is now being used to determine the winner of each skirmish. When each 2-hour skirmish ends, War Score is reset, but actual map state and objective status remains unchanged.

Skirmishes award Victory Points based on placement:
1st—3 Victory Points
2nd—2 Victory Points
3rd—1 Victory Point
Victory Points are used to determine the match victor.

Skirmishes will keep the winning and losing scores closer together, allowing the losing worlds a better fighting chance. Skirmishes should also help lessen the severity of runaway matches caused by off-hour coverage.

Skirmishes will be activated for both EU and NA when the EU reset happens on Friday, September 9, at 11:00 AM Pacific Time (UTC-7). We cannot turn on Skirmishes separately for EU and NA, so this will result in the last few hours of the NA matchup using the new scoring system.

What’s Next?
We’ll be releasing WvW scoring features in smaller pieces so we can ensure the systems are stable and working as intended before we add additional features. If everything goes smoothly once skirmishes are activated, the next update will give upgraded objectives more War Score based on their upgrade level (secured, reinforced, or fortified). Once that’s in, we’ll be monitoring skirmishes and your feedback to decide what to work on next.

Thank you for your continued feedback and support. We’ll see you in the Mists this Friday!

\o/ This looks good to me. I wonder about the point of the ladder system now that pairings are made to promote “good matches” (meaning that the victors gain nothing, since they will be paired with whoever has similar numbers to them every time), but this does look like it will be a huge improvement. Thanks Arenanet!

Wow, that’s incredible.

“Skirmishes will keep the winning and losing scores closer together”

- well mathematically it is the same as if one server would get an average of 126 points (3/6), one 84 (2/6) points and one 42 (1/6) points for 2 hours straight. So if matches do not have this discrepancy atm, then the scores will NOT be closer together other than both numbers are lower numbers. I would think that most matches currently are closer together than this and thus the new system will most likely lead to higher relative discrepancies in score between servers.
- Since the number of victory points is highly limited you can expect the winner of a matchup to be mathematically certain a lot earlier than in todays matches even if the server in front stops playing by wednesday. Servers that are in the back have a smaller chance to actually catch up by rallying the troops and heavy pvt at the end of the week in 1-2 days. But maybe that’s a good thing if people play for fights instead of points at the end of the week more often.
- since the victory points are the same for every 2 hour matchup regardless of prime time/off time and the number of players playing, this will give coverage of servers a very high importance and punish the servers that rely on prime time rallies (as prime time is maybe 6-8 hours of the day) just as much as servers that rely on night capping only.
- It will not solve the run-away matches, as those can only be solved by making matchups with servers with similar strenght, something the current matchmaking does not always achieve. The problem here is not the scoring system, but the matchmaking randomness.

Still it will be an interesting change and I am curious to see how it plays out. I am hoping that it will lead to higher activity and fights at the end of each skirmish, while people still don’t “give up” because they need upgraded things for the next skirmish.

If Anet is saying that the skirmishes will keep scores closer together, I would have to suppose they have run scoring simulations on historical data to prove it factual? I dunno, but they should be able to easily do that if they keep the per tick scores.

This score systems means, that blowing out a two hour period, having a massive point differential for two hours doesn’t mean as much as having lower point differentials spread across the whole day. So in theory:

Having +1 War Score differential (between 1st and 2nd) over 2 hours (maybe during your server’s prime time) will end with you having +1 Victory point (over 2nd place). If for another two hours (say your server’s off time) you have a war score differential of -150 between first and second (ignore 3rd place in this example they are doing poorly :p) You will have a victory point differential of -1 between 2nd and first. Combined you have a victory point difference of 0.

Where as the old scoring system if you have +1 over 2 hours gives you +8 overall and then -150 over 2 hours gives you -12000 or -11991 difference between the two servers. The new point system means you are +0 overall. So being blown out for 2 hours doesn’t doom the match.

Blowouts occur because the teams are imbalanced. With the old system Blowouts are also the most influential in determining point spread and victory. So the most influential times where the most imbalanced times. This new system stops that.

The new system favor forces spread over all timezones. Servers that relly purely on a single timezone are likely to lose matches because they won’t be able to compete in the majority of the skirmishes along the day. However, just having a “decent” all-round coverage won’t guarantee you will win because you need a superior force during prime time to counter oposing servers primetime force.

If I remember right, they also said there would be some kind of “last stand event” on fridays so the servers behind would have one last chance to win the match. It’s not listed on what they are adding now, so they either gave up on that idea or it will be implemented on the future.

Well it is mathematically simple. The new system avoids score imbalances that are bigger than:
1 server average of 126 points (3/6),
one average 84 (2/6) points and
one average 42 (1/6) points

But all the times the actual imbalance is smaller it sets it to that imbalance. In NA all the matchups have smaller average differences in scores than this, thus the new system actually increases the gaps in score.

I just did the calculation to verify in the current matchup YB, SBI and SOS because imho this is the matchup that is the most imbalanced atm in NA and the imbalance grows, in current counting system YB has 42% of the points, SBI has 30% and SoS has 28%
in new system YB has 48% of the points (137), SBI has 27% (79) and SoS 25% (72).

Furthermore in the new system it would be impossible for either SBI or SoS alone to beat YB since yesterday (tuesday). They both can only beat YB if the other server consistently also beats YB. In probably 14 hours it will be mathematically impossible for either SBI or SoS to beat YB in the new system, making the remaining more than two days in the matchup useless. But of course it would also have been inprobable for either of those servers to get the 100’000 points necessary to beat YB, still mathematically it would have been possible in less than 24 hours and without the “support” of the other server in the matchup (one day gives 120’000 points to the servers, – this does not include kills).

I will check the new calculation for other matchups.

Vonmanstein.3645:

Wow, that’s incredible.

[Wow] That’s Incredible

Rink.6108:

I just did the calculation to verify in the current matchup YB, SBI and SOS because imho this is the matchup that is the most imbalanced atm in NA and the imbalance grows, in current counting system YB has 42% of the points, SBI has 30% and SoS has 28%
in new system YB has 48% of the points, SBI has 27% and SoS 25%.

That’s not going to be entirerly accurate since you’d have to break current WvW down in 2h slices and see who scored highest – which isnt necessarily who has the highest PPT at any given time. Your calculation assumes exact ratio all the time.

For servers that score past each other all the time (ie narrow spikey score chart) then they will trade that 3 and 2 pointer.

I did just that, I broke down current data of points into two hour slices. Data is from
http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/40/
All my calculations for exactly 4 days in the matchup.

I did the same thing for the current matchup tier 1.
Current calculation: Blackgate 42% of the points, Tarnished Coast 32%, Dragonbrand 26%
New calculation: Blackgate 47% of the victory points (136), TC 32% (92), Dragonbrand 21% (60).

In the new counting system, it would be impossible for DB to win the matchup already and TC also can only win if DB beats BG in 8 or more 2 hour slices while still scoring less than TC.

Could always change the points to 2, 1, 1 from 3, 2, 1.
In a way that could also force the 2nd and 3rd place teams to focus on the 1st place team, rather than the usual 1st and 2nd focusing on 3rd so they don’t give away “free points” to either.

As an OSX player my greatest concern about this is that it might encourage everyone to siege-hump as much as possible to retain tiers on keeps/towers. The timing of the skirmishes essentially reduces OSX to being a caretaker community where a greater focus is placed upon keeping hold of keeps and towers.

I’d wager a guess that the quality of fights be will impacted as a result, so it will be interesting to see if the OSX population dips after the changes after implemented. You end up in a situation where the quality of fights are diminished while the ppt’ers don’t get to see the reward for their effort. Basically this happens for both sections of the OSX community.

The advantage of going 2;1;1 would be that you don’t have to hope another server beats your oponent as well as you. But unfortunately it wouldn’t help with keeping winning and losing scores closer together.

I did the calculation for 4 days for the other NA tiers as well, have data and calculation in excel, so can do it for other matches as well, if needed.

tier 2: current scoring system Maguuma 36% of the points, Jade Quarry 33%, Fort Aspenwood 31%.
New scoring system: Maguuma 37% (106), Fort Aspenwood new in second 32% (93), Jade Quarry 31 % (89). Aspenwood with better coverage especially during US prime time.

Tier 4:
current calculation: Northern Shiverpeaks and Henge of Denravi both with 34 % of the points, Crystal Desert with 32%.
new calculation: Northern Shiverpeaks 37% (106), Henge of Denravi 35% (100), Crystal Desert 28% (82)

Sometimes only a few points more or less in ppt decide over if you get double the victory points (1 or 2). The races are definately not getting closer with the new calculation. But maybe I misunderstood and they meant “the winning and losing numbers are getting smaller (while the relative numbers are getting further apart)”.

Josh Davis.6015:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/world-vs-world-skirmishes-arrive-on-september-9/

you forgot to drop the mic

Josh Davis.6015:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/world-vs-world-skirmishes-arrive-on-september-9/

How and when will the API reflect that, i.e. will pages like http://mos.millenium.org/eu be able to show the new skirmisch scoring?

Excellent. Look forward to seeing how this works out.

Xenesis.6389:

Could always change the points to 2, 1, 1 from 3, 2, 1.
In a way that could also force the 2nd and 3rd place teams to focus on the 1st place team, rather than the usual 1st and 2nd focusing on 3rd so they don’t give away “free points” to either.

This is one thing that I see could ruin the skirmishes for me. When I log in and see my server attacking the weaker server I just go to another map or log right back out. Even though I think its a great change, if it causes people to play for second and attack the weak then I will consider it a failure.

If it does turn into that Anet please be open to changing it to 2, 1, 1.

Johje Holan.4607:

Xenesis.6389:

Could always change the points to 2, 1, 1 from 3, 2, 1.
In a way that could also force the 2nd and 3rd place teams to focus on the 1st place team, rather than the usual 1st and 2nd focusing on 3rd so they don’t give away “free points” to either.

This is one thing that I see could ruin the skirmishes for me. When I log in and see my server attacking the weaker server I just go to another map or log right back out. Even though I think its a great change, if it causes people to play for second and attack the weak then I will consider it a failure.

If it does turn into that Anet please be open to changing it to 2, 1, 1.

Well, isn’t that basically what was already happening with off-hour coverage? So next time you’re thinking about the unfairness of it all, ask yourself if the opposition ever showed mercy because they knew that you had to sleep sometimes.

Tyrx.2471:

Snip 8<
OSX population dips after the changes after implemented.
Snip 8<

Whatever advantage given to the NA (Day time) Players should also be applied to the NA (Night time) aka OSX (Day time) Players.

Players should never be dealt with a dis-advantage due to when they play…that’s making up unfair rules…imho

Keep being told that in WvW:

1. Community no longer matters.
2. Fun Epic Fights are more important than Balanced Match-Ups.

I won’t be surprised when the OSX Community ends up throwing the rocks they’re given back at somebody…as you pointed out in your posted link:

https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg?t=1m18s

(Who would’ve thought that grapes have more value than cucumbers!)

This is on par with the complicated behavioral patterns that can be compared to Player patterns that often repeatedly & consistently cause them to Stack on a Server. Who knows why…right?

I guess WvW is not meant to be Community based. Many of the Long Term things that promoted Community have since burned to the ground with the release of HoT.

We lost:

1. Small to Medium sized Guilds when they changed (took away) Guild Upgrades.
2. Guest Server Communities with (forced recruitment) World Linking.

So this New Game “Feature” shouldn’t be too surprising. Because, “Community” is not in the Long Term Vision of WvW.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Ghanto.9784:

Johje Holan.4607:

Xenesis.6389:

Could always change the points to 2, 1, 1 from 3, 2, 1.
In a way that could also force the 2nd and 3rd place teams to focus on the 1st place team, rather than the usual 1st and 2nd focusing on 3rd so they don’t give away “free points” to either.

This is one thing that I see could ruin the skirmishes for me. When I log in and see my server attacking the weaker server I just go to another map or log right back out. Even though I think its a great change, if it causes people to play for second and attack the weak then I will consider it a failure.

If it does turn into that Anet please be open to changing it to 2, 1, 1.

Well, isn’t that basically what was already happening with off-hour coverage? So next time you’re thinking about the unfairness of it all, ask yourself if the opposition ever showed mercy because they knew that you had to sleep sometimes.

Yeah but what mostly happens in off hours is someone takes a zerg and runs around and takes everything they can, not really playing for second. The skirmish scoring will help cap the points gained during those times to two hours at a time. But the problem will still remain for any time throughout the match, the 2nd place team will attack the weaker 3rd place team because it’s easier points to get and they’re “ok” with being in second than third.

Rest of this is a general reply.
One of the intentions of a three way battle is to keep moving the lines of pressure, if team 1 is hitting team 2, team 3 may go hit team 1 stuff or even intervene in the battle between 1 and 3, this is so that one team isn’t totally dominating and runs off an entire side (it still happens in eotm but barely anyone cares about scoring in there they just don’t want to put up with a blob).

The above happens right now, but when it comes down to points the second place team mostly thinks about taking 3rd’s points to keep it from 1st because it’s easier, because hey while they’re busy, we’ll sneak a tower from 1st, oops they responding now lets go after 3rd, meanwhile 3rd hunkers down, 1st follows 2nd into 3rds area cause orange swords, they will either get a fight from 2nd or take another paper tower from 3rd. 2nd gets wiped, 3rd loses another tower, 2nd thinks about what to do next… take something from 1st… or.. yeah lets go take the other tower from 3rd instead cause free points for 2nd….

3rd is already in a bad position, they usually have the least population, or least coverage, or least commanders, or gets double teamed, or their players get demoralized for the week and leave, or all of the above, they don’t need two teams fighting over splitting their points too. Their only hope for the week sometimes is trying for second if the score remains close enough.

Well what if playing for second was as good as getting third’s points? If they really wanted to win they would be forced to try and hamper 1st in that skirmish period. In this way you can also get around some of the population differences with the double team going in the proper direction, after the 1st place team not the 3rd place team.

Fighting over 3rd’s points probably isn’t going to cut it in getting you to the highest points for the skirmish, sure it’s free points, but 1st will probably have been taking points from 2nd as well. If 2nd was hitting 1st constantly it would take pressure off and make 1st go more defensive which opens up for 3rd to also come in and help put pressure on them as well.

That t4 monster that was around for the last link period, think they would have had an easy time if the SF and DH links had went after them instead of SF hitting on DH?

Xenesis.6389:

Snip 8<
One of the intentions of a three way battle is to keep moving the lines of pressure
Snip 8<

Since when has the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model consistently promoted Fights that are supposed to lead to “Balanced” Match-Ups?

Why do the Match-Ups end up the way it does now?

Population In-Balance.

More times that naught…it’s ended up like the proverbial 800 Pound Gorilla in the room with the 2 Smaller Chimps fighting over the scraps…imho

You’re above post is spot on…describing the 800 Pound Gorilla.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Dayra.7405:

Josh Davis.6015:

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/world-vs-world-skirmishes-arrive-on-september-9/

How and when will the API reflect that, i.e. will pages like http://mos.millenium.org/eu be able to show the new skirmisch scoring?

It should only require re-coding of ticks and such by my reckoning -nothing new needed from Anet, but I could be wrong.

Diku.2546:

Xenesis.6389:

Snip 8<
One of the intentions of a three way battle is to keep moving the lines of pressure
Snip 8<

Since when has the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model consistently promoted Fights that are supposed to lead to “Balanced” Match-Ups?

Why do the Match-Ups end up the way it does now?

Population In-Balance.

More times that naught…it’s ended up like the proverbial 800 Pound Gorilla in the room with the 2 Smaller Chimps fighting over the scraps…imho

You’re above post is spot on…describing the 800 Pound Gorilla.

---

Because other games that use the 3 sided model don’t use points as the goal, it’s mostly I’ll take this side of stuff and lock it from the enemy for a period of time, so it promotes moving fights to other areas. This game also does not promote 2v1 in the right direction, it just hammers the last place team even more, and throws in the outnumbered buff as an extra joke. Why do you think every competitive point scoring sport requires even teams.

A points system does not work in a massive environment like wvw where you cannot control the population, it works for arena type models because it’s smaller and controlled and comes down to skills and teamwork of 5 players rather than 50 players rampaging through a borderland and the other two sides scrambling to try and fight that.

If you cannot control the population and coverage, control the points and how you distribute it, and try not to make the situation so kitten terrible for the players who started the match at a disadvantage.

Everyone keeps focusing on population balance, it’s something that will never be achieved, never, ever, ever. But you can do other things in order make population numbers matter less, aka the skirmish scoring changes.

Xenesis.6389:

Could always change the points to 2, 1, 1 from 3, 2, 1.
In a way that could also force the 2nd and 3rd place teams to focus on the 1st place team, rather than the usual 1st and 2nd focusing on 3rd so they don’t give away “free points” to either.

Prima facie this seems to be a great idea. It should lessen the 2nd place server from trying to protect their position.