Guild Wars 2

forumbugisnevergoingtobefixed

Xenesis.6389:

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.

Well, I don’t know how it will all play out in actuality, but even in the worst case scenario, if both 1st place and 2nd place go after 3rd place for easier points, it’s going to also force conflict between 1st and 2nd, which will maybe help mitigate the problem somewhat. Maybe they could also award more points for taking objectives from 1st place, although then of course there would be outcry about the possibility of 2nd and 3rd too often teaming up against 1st. We’ll see. No matter what they do, it will never ever be perfect, and there will always be people complaining about it, but we’ll just have to hope they can come up with something that at least makes a majority of people mostly happy.

Ghanto.9784:

Maybe they could also award more points for taking objectives from 1st place, although then of course there would be outcry about the possibility of 2nd and 3rd too often teaming up against 1st. We’ll see.

No matter what they do, it will never ever be perfect, and there will always be people complaining about it, but we’ll just have to hope they can come up with something that at least makes a majority of people mostly happy.

It looks like they will also be trying out giving more points for upgraded structures at some point in the future, which a 1st place team would most likely mostly be holding more often than the other two.

Meh let them cry about being 2v1, truth is they will be getting much more activity/fights out of it from the opposing teams, only people who will be crying are the ktrainers who want an easy ride with a blob around them.

Xenesis.6389:

Snip 8<
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.
Snip 8<

Can I offer you a cucumber?

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

Manipulating Score Mechanics shouldn’t be the Primary fix to Population In-balance.

World Ranking becomes meaningless when you have to rely on Manipulating the Score for this purpose.

The #1 Rank should be reached using Score Mechanics that promotes fair & square rules.

If this mechanic reigns in run-away scores, but still allows the win to go properly to the side that deserves to win…then I’ll have to agree with it’s purpose & application.

Just hope this doesn’t punish players, or deal a serious disadvantage for playing during a time period that is Off Peak from Prime Time.

Gut feeling is that…Off Peak Players will get the shaft.

I agree with you btw…you can never ever balance population.

Use Over-Stacked Server Populations as a part of the solution.

Instead…let the Population of WvW Pick for themselves who they want to fight against.

Use a Pure King of the Hill model to let All Players Drive the Match-Ups, but have ANet Control Which & How many Servers Players can attack.

The Game Mechanic for this already exists…it’s called Server Guesting.

You’ll make the King of both EU & NA work for their #1 Rank while letting everybody find their place in the pecking order.

Work hard & fight hard to increase your Rank…then when you reach the top…everybody is trying to pull you down.

There can only be One!!!
Highlander

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

Diku.2546:

Xenesis.6389:

Snip 8<
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.
Snip 8<

Can I offer you a cucumber?

Manipulating Score Mechanics shouldn’t be the Primary fix to Population In-balance.

World Ranking becomes meaningless when you have to rely on Manipulating the Score for this purpose.

They’re already manipulating ranks by having to stick inflated glicko to help a server get out of a tier, and they have full control over who gets links with whom, so they have the power to either sink or raise a server every two months, like the 4 headed monster they had created. The ranks are already meaningless, they have been from day one, the number 1 server is the one that has the most population, the most coverage, and blobs the most. Ranks are only there to match you with servers at your ppt level that’s it.

Keep your cucumber.

Xenesis.6389:

Snip 8<
Keep your cucumber.
Snip 8<

Woops…sorry forgot to ask if you play for a Host or Guest World Server.

Sorry, but given current circumstances. I’m authorized to only give out the following:

Host Server get a rock & grape.
Guest Server get a rock & cucumber.
Off Peak Players get a rock only.

Cool signature btw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqyG3CcoLM

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

I do not see how these skirmishes will help with run-away score due to off hours coverage.

Any server dominating a tier / match score due to coverage, will dominate it just the same for the same timeperiods regardless if its sliced into 2 hour slices or not. They will just get multiple 2 hour victories now instead of a single weekly victory. Nothing changes in the total.

Nothing will change whatsoever unless there are dynamic score adjustments based on each sides total players present in WVW. Unless there is some form of such an adjustment going in to work along with the 2 hour timeperiods.

Otherwise what am I missing here ? How exactly and precisely is this supposed to bring the scores closer together ?

Tongku.5326:

I do not see how these skirmishes will help with run-away score due to off hours coverage.

Any server dominating a tier / match score due to coverage, will dominate it just the same for the same timeperiods regardless if its sliced into 2 hour slices or not. They will just get multiple 2 hour victories now instead of a single weekly victory. Nothing changes in the total.

Nothing will change whatsoever unless there are dynamic score adjustments based on each sides total players present in WVW. Unless there is some form of such an adjustment going in to work along with the 2 hour timeperiods.

Otherwise what am I missing here ? How exactly and precisely is this supposed to bring the scores closer together ?

It is directed to servers with a realy high off-prime time coverage. Those servers (like BB did in the past) ticking very high in a small time window while you can’t catch up during prime time because they will always have people to backcap quickly.

Xenesis.6389:

Ghanto.9784:

Maybe they could also award more points for taking objectives from 1st place, although then of course there would be outcry about the possibility of 2nd and 3rd too often teaming up against 1st. We’ll see.

No matter what they do, it will never ever be perfect, and there will always be people complaining about it, but we’ll just have to hope they can come up with something that at least makes a majority of people mostly happy.

It looks like they will also be trying out giving more points for upgraded structures at some point in the future, which a 1st place team would most likely mostly be holding more often than the other two.

Meh let them cry about being 2v1, truth is they will be getting much more activity/fights out of it from the opposing teams, only people who will be crying are the ktrainers who want an easy ride with a blob around them.

That makes sense then, and is in line with my suggestion. If two teams have to go after another, it makes sense for it to most often be 2nd and 3rd going after 1st. That would also definitely be bringing 2nd and 3rd into conflict all the time too, so in practice I don’t think you’d have too many cases of 1st being faced with an overwhelming and unfair number of opponents. As you say, they’d just be fighting a lot more, which is where the fun is to be had, right?