Guild Wars 2

1. It will discourage new players – they’ll be easy targets (no fun if you’re constantly stomped on) and gain little reward (unless you can hide in a zerg and tag things – that’s what EotM seems to rely on).

2. It will encourage spawn camping – after all that’s where the players come from so get them while they are fresh.

3. Eventually someone will point out to those who are still learning how to play (new players or new classes) that each time they die it is helping the other side – so they can best help their own server by staying away and never coming here again!

OK, I’m being cynical. So just how much would you bet that these things won’t happen if WvW becomes PPK based…?

The best place for PPK is for GvG ranking, not in general WvW. Give GvG the love it deserves: a proper set of arenas and a proper ranking system, it’s as valid as any other game mode.

4. It will discourage fights unless you have a large enough group that you are sure you’ll win. Smaller groups will be heavily discouraged from fighting as they may just feed points to the enemy team.

Yeah, PPK has problems. A lot of unintended consequences of implementing a more robust PPK system.

Commanders will get hung for running their zergs off cliffs! Oh the humanity!

Yuffi.2430:

1. It will discourage new players – they’ll be easy targets (no fun if you’re constantly stomped on) and gain little reward (unless you can hide in a zerg and tag things – that’s what EotM seems to rely on).

So PPK means more people will be killing ? This makes no sense, new players are going to get killed whether it’s in place or not, this is a poor excuse.

Yuffi.2430:

2. It will encourage spawn camping – after all that’s where the players come from so get them while they are fresh.

As pointed out in so so many other threads, you have 3 exits per map, if you are dumb enough to continually run out of the main exit into the angry mob, you deserve to be spawn camped.

Yuffi.2430:

3. Eventually someone will point out to those who are still learning how to play (new players or new classes) that each time they die it is helping the other side – so they can best help their own server by staying away and never coming here again!

Um how is this different from rally bots ? Just because their would be points behind the kill doesn’t mean people appreciate others being rally bots and handing the enemy a win.

Yuffi.2430:

OK, I’m being cynical. So just how much would you bet that these things won’t happen if WvW becomes PPK based…?

The best place for PPK is for GvG ranking, not in general WvW. Give GvG the love it deserves: a proper set of arenas and a proper ranking system, it’s as valid as any other game mode.

Everything you pointed out has no bearing on PPK, they are all just excuses and they all happen already so, if anything it will force people to become better players. You will probably see more unison as well because that pug zerg that always wipes will receive assistance so they don’t wipe over and over and over.

Maybe come up with a reason, you know … that makes sense and isn’t already in full swing.

It’s bad idea because bad guilds try to this open field 111 spam warrior guardian blob thingy without some super lamer specs on and just give free points to enemy.

Yuffi.2430:

1. It will discourage new players – they’ll be easy targets (no fun if you’re constantly stomped on) and gain little reward (unless you can hide in a zerg and tag things – that’s what EotM seems to rely on).

And how is that any different than how it is now? New players are prime targets reguardless of PPK or not.

Yuffi.2430:

2. It will encourage spawn camping – after all that’s where the players come from so get them while they are fresh.

That’s why there’s more than one spawn, more than one map, legendary guards that one shot any enemy that gets close, and Siege Razor. If you’re just running in and letting yourself get farmed then you have only yourself to blame.

Yuffi.2430:

3. Eventually someone will point out to those who are still learning how to play (new players or new classes) that each time they die it is helping the other side – so they can best help their own server by staying away and never coming here again!

OK, I’m being cynical. So just how much would you bet that these things won’t happen if WvW becomes PPK based…?

That’s no different than how it is now. You die then you can potentially rally people, you die then you give people stacks, you die then you give bags and badges for people to get better gear. There is always a downside to feeding and there is always bound to be people that are overly aggressive in a PvP environment.

If you really want to help new players, then assist them. Direct them to info on WvW, report/call out the people talking kitten, and help them get set up with the community coms. There is no reason to stifle WvW growth over wild fears and paranoia.

Yuffi.2430:

The best place for PPK is for GvG ranking, not in general WvW. Give GvG the love it deserves: a proper set of arenas and a proper ranking system, it’s as valid as any other game mode.

It’s valid in this game mode too. Smart PvP should be rewarded and guild raids should have another option of contributing to a server beyond mindlessly trying to PvD.

I disagree. When we start looking at the PPK in context of the recent Kill / Death information we start to see a completely different picture on a lot of match ups. For example in Tier 1 we’d be looking at only a 5k spread between BG and JQ instead of a 11k one. That’s a lot of points and shows that while BlackGate is doing very well in terms of kills and match up performance against other servers they simply lack the coverage to keep things going.

http://wvwintel.com/#1019
(Click the down arrow in the upper left)

BrickFurious.7169:

4. It will discourage fights unless you have a large enough group that you are sure you’ll win. Smaller groups will be heavily discouraged from fighting as they may just feed points to the enemy team.

Yeah, PPK has problems. A lot of unintended consequences of implementing a more robust PPK system.

That’s nonsense though. The thing about PPK, it’s points per kill. Small groups mean small points. If they die then that’s not really a big deal.

Kodiak.3281:

I disagree. When we start looking at the PPK in context of the recent Kill / Death information we start to see a completely different picture on a lot of match ups. For example in Tier 1 we’d be looking at only a 5k spread between BG and JQ instead of a 11k one. That’s a lot of points and shows that while BlackGate is doing very well in terms of kills and match up performance against other servers they simply lack the coverage to keep things going.

http://wvwintel.com/#1019
(Click the down arrow in the upper left)

PPK is a joke as it stands right now. While I hate to tell you all this, but as a non lvl 80, I typically see 5-10 people coming in for the kill. Does that show the type of skill that some “un-named” guilds require a pack to be able to beat low levels or even hunt for 1 player? They aren’t truly 1 on 1. Unless you can void the kill/death rate if more than 1 person hits you, it’s pointless. But if you manage to beat multiple people, then the points counts toward kill not death. Death must not be tagged by more than 1 person. Level 80 beating uplevels shouldn’t count too. Uplevels beating level 80 needs to count. Give handicap where it’s needed.

littlemunster.1059:

Kodiak.3281:

I disagree. When we start looking at the PPK in context of the recent Kill / Death information we start to see a completely different picture on a lot of match ups. For example in Tier 1 we’d be looking at only a 5k spread between BG and JQ instead of a 11k one. That’s a lot of points and shows that while BlackGate is doing very well in terms of kills and match up performance against other servers they simply lack the coverage to keep things going.

http://wvwintel.com/#1019
(Click the down arrow in the upper left)

PPK is a joke as it stands right now. While I hate to tell you all this, but as a non lvl 80, I typically see 5-10 people coming in for the kill. Does that show the type of skill that some “un-named” guilds require a pack to be able to beat low levels or even hunt for 1 player? They aren’t truly 1 on 1. Unless you can void the kill/death rate if more than 1 person hits you, it’s pointless. But if you manage to beat multiple people, then the points counts toward kill not death. Death must not be tagged by more than 1 person. Level 80 beating uplevels shouldn’t count too. Uplevels beating level 80 needs to count. Give handicap where it’s needed.

I can assure you, this happens regardless of level, and your server is also doing it, so it all evens out in the wash.

Kodiak.3281:

I disagree. When we start looking at the PPK in context of the recent Kill / Death information we start to see a completely different picture on a lot of match ups. For example in Tier 1 we’d be looking at only a 5k spread between BG and JQ instead of a 11k one. That’s a lot of points and shows that while BlackGate is doing very well in terms of kills and match up performance against other servers they simply lack the coverage to keep things going.

http://wvwintel.com/#1019
(Click the down arrow in the upper left)

The exact flawed statement I was looking for. BG is a server full of guilds that only ganks uplevels and solos. JQ is a server that is full of uplevels and k-trainers. YB is a server that is full of siege humpies. Death/Kill ratios go home. Horrible way to measure any server skills.

ppk would definitely favor the server with the larger population. if all your fights have have more ppl you are more likely to win. Im not against it because it would put more emphasis on being good and give a legit reason for calling out baddies.

if anet rly wanted to change fight dynamics, they would decrease wxp for tower caps and increase wxp for player kills by like 1,000 but divide the reward by everyone who hit the target

Ultimaistanza.4793:

BrickFurious.7169:

4. It will discourage fights unless you have a large enough group that you are sure you’ll win. Smaller groups will be heavily discouraged from fighting as they may just feed points to the enemy team.

Yeah, PPK has problems. A lot of unintended consequences of implementing a more robust PPK system.

That’s nonsense though. The thing about PPK, it’s points per kill. Small groups mean small points. If they die then that’s not really a big deal.

Tell that to the small groups that are feeding points to the bigger groups. If they do that over and over, it adds up, especially if PPK becomes a large part of the score (or even, as some people have suggested, the only part of the score).

Not to mention how exploitable this is. Enemy spies with free accounts on your server could organize en masse to feed points to their real team. How would you go about preventing that?

BrickFurious.7169:

Not to mention how exploitable this is. Enemy spies with free accounts on your server could organize en masse to feed points to their real team. How would you go about preventing that?

lol, I hope you’re not serious here. There are ~250k points that a server that is anywhere close to winning will collect over the week. You think people would bother rolling up fake accounts to give points to their servers by constantly dying?! Right, good luck making a difference! I’ll make sure I call those guys if sea level drops at some point, I’m sure they will come rushing in with a bucket and start spilling water back into the sea to level it all up again… If you know what I mean. There are 100 other things that people with secondary accounts could exploit. But they don’t. Because it’s pointless.

For everyone – there was a test period of 1 month when PPK was active, about exactly 1 year ago. My feeling was, that it was actually very positively accepted, at least on top tier EU servers. None of your concerns actually came true back then, but PPK points were a good thing for fighting servers to make up for some difference that they loose by not being willing to cap PvD paper towers and keeps in rotation….

So if PPT servers can have their PPT, small groups that run/port away at the sight of an enemy, it’s only fair that fighting servers get their PPK.

Synosius.9876:

ppk would definitely favor the server with the larger population. if all your fights have have more ppl you are more likely to win.

While I understand where you are going with this in relation to zergs, your logic is a bit flawed. 20 wiping 40 is going to get twice as many points than 40 wiping 20 would. This will shift more points towards the servers that win more fights (and rightfully so) rather than the servers with more off peak population.

cillard.3986:

Synosius.9876:

ppk would definitely favor the server with the larger population. if all your fights have have more ppl you are more likely to win.

While I understand where you are going with this in relation to zergs, your logic is a bit flawed. 20 wiping 40 is going to get twice as many points than 40 wiping 20 would. This will shift more points towards the servers that win more fights (and rightfully so) rather than the servers with more off peak population.

All things being equal, the 40 will much more often than not crush the 20. I mean I know everyone like to think he is incredible and all but… Therefore, numbers not skill, will more often than not dictate the score. Not much will have changed if the pop imbalance and coverage persist.

It might also discourage players to even enter the field of battle if the outnumber buff show itself. It would be stupid for your team to do so…

PPK punishes delaying actions. Like a small group breaks off to delay reinforcements to a keep under siege. Suddenly instead of helping you’re feeding points.

The trouble with group PvP games is always finding a reason for people to leave safety to risk their k/d ratio. I don’t think PPK does that. I think the only thing PPK does is feed egos (because we’re always better than the guys we’re fighting and I’m sure if PPK was in place we’d win).

littlemunster.1059:

PPK is a joke as it stands right now. While I hate to tell you all this, but as a non lvl 80, I typically see 5-10 people coming in for the kill. Does that show the type of skill that some “un-named” guilds require a pack to be able to beat low levels or even hunt for 1 player? They aren’t truly 1 on 1. Unless you can void the kill/death rate if more than 1 person hits you, it’s pointless. But if you manage to beat multiple people, then the points counts toward kill not death. Death must not be tagged by more than 1 person. Level 80 beating uplevels shouldn’t count too. Uplevels beating level 80 needs to count. Give handicap where it’s needed.

First off, WvW isn’t fair. If you don’t want 1v5 then don’t run around as 1. If you don’t want Uplevels to count then they shouldn’t be in WvW at all. It’s really that simple.

Second off your theory is off because it’s not supported by the numbers. If every server had a positive KDR (IE: 5 people killing 1 person counted kitten kills) then it’d match up but it doesn’t. You can actually see one server has more kills than deaths and the other servers have more deaths than kills. All that’s measured is one person died and the side who got that kill got one kill credit.

dragon.8071:

The exact flawed statement I was looking for. BG is a server full of guilds that only ganks uplevels and solos. JQ is a server that is full of uplevels and k-trainers. YB is a server that is full of siege humpies. Death/Kill ratios go home. Horrible way to measure any server skills.

You were looking for a post to reply with a bunch of assumptions, conjecture and overly broad to the point of being inaccurate generalizations? KDR actually represents what really happens. JQ has a lot of round the clock coverage so they win simply because numbers but they lose fights. YB has less coverage and gets wiped all the time in off hours but during prime time has good coverage and teams capable of fighting. BG wins most of it’s fights but lacks the full time coverage of JQ. PPK in this scenario would benefit BG because while it wins most of the time, it simply loses when JQ is able to keep map presence throughout the week which would lower the gap between the two.

styx.7294:

I don’t think PPK does that. I think the only thing PPK does is feed egos (because we’re always better than the guys we’re fighting and I’m sure if PPK was in place we’d win).

But, egos aside, what if that was the factual scenario happening? Are you saying you shouldn’t let the server that was better and won more of their fights let that be a contributing factor (not the only factor) towards winning?

Kodiak.3281:

styx.7294:

I don’t think PPK does that. I think the only thing PPK does is feed egos (because we’re always better than the guys we’re fighting and I’m sure if PPK was in place we’d win).

But, egos aside, what if that was the factual scenario happening? Are you saying you shouldn’t let the server that was better and won more of their fights let that be a contributing factor (not the only factor) towards winning?

If numbers and the coverage were equal over all? Sure. The problem is they are not by a long shot 95% of the time and ‘better’ score would still not mean ‘better players’ but better numbers and coverage granting you more often than not favorably unfair fights, therefore better score and kill ratio.

In that kind of system, if you play competitively you would be a total kitten to get out of spawn if the outnumber buff appear. At the very least you would not be helping your team unless you are a perma stealth cancer that can pick all his fights and bail if things get too ugly.

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

All things being equal, the 40 will much more often than not crush the 20. I mean I know everyone like to think he is incredible and all but… Therefore, numbers not skill, will more often than not dictate the score.

Sure, when it comes to randoms playing against randoms. However, 20 do and regularly wipe double their numbers when they outplay or out command their opponents.

From my stand point, I would start with 1pt per kill, 1pt per stomp, and half the PPT from holding objectives…. then adjust from there.

Synosius.9876:

ppk would definitely favor the server with the larger population. if all your fights have have more ppl you are more likely to win. Im not against it because it would put more emphasis on being good and give a legit reason for calling out baddies.

if anet rly wanted to change fight dynamics, they would decrease wxp for tower caps and increase wxp for player kills by like 1,000 but divide the reward by everyone who hit the target

Not really true have you looked at server like NSP, SoS and Maguma?

Relinking other post.
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/206954/Estimated_Population_Using_KD_Stats.png

cillard.3986:

Sirbeaumerdier.3740:

All things being equal, the 40 will much more often than not crush the 20. I mean I know everyone like to think he is incredible and all but… Therefore, numbers not skill, will more often than not dictate the score.

Sure, when it comes to randoms playing against randoms. However, 20 do and regularly wipe double their numbers when they outplay or out command their opponents.

From my stand point, I would start with 1pt per kill, 1pt per stomp, and half the PPT from holding objectives…. then adjust from there.

Yes, yes, it does happen and don’t we like it when it does. However, if we remain focused on the statistical probabilities all thing being equals (that mean of equal skills too) and look at the big picture and not only at the cute anecdotes we are so fond of, superior numbers will yield a superior score.

This change in paradigm will have easily foreseeable consequences (some less easily seen too). I’m not against kill making points but fights results are rarely mirroring the initial odds. If you have 1 v 2 odds at start the result is very often not the winning side loosing half it’s forces. It is almost all dead on the loosing side with maybe one dead and some downs that couldn’t be doubled on the winning side. It’s often an all or nothing result in the end and so would the score…

A PPT only system rewards avoiding fights and/or PPTing empty objectives way more than actually engaging with other players. Players should be rewarded more for fighting and less for avoiding them because it encourages more active game play. What you don’t want to do is remove the objectives completely from the picture by making them obsolete in regards to scoring.

Since release, the winning server hasn’t been determined by who performs the best while playing ….it has been determined who has the most players playing at the times their opponents do not. This is beyond flawed and horrible game design, but at the same time you can’t ‘punish’ players and their contribution because of the times they play.

So how to resolve this?

1. Rather than directly awarding points per tick and points per kill, you create a ‘point pool’ and your score is your servers total percentage of the pool. For example a score could look like JQ – 40%, BG – 35%, YB – 25%

2. 50% of the total point pool is objective based and 50% is combat based, each determined separately, but contributing equally.

3. Combat based points contributing to the pool are determined as such: 2pt each kill and 4pt for each stomp with the orb buff. Killing players who have outmanned buffs would result in half points.

4. Objective based points would be weighted similarly what they are now (but remember this only contributes to 50% of the total score).

This would encourage fighting players, capturing + holding objectives, and roaming… while at the same time reducing the impact of night capping and increasing the impact of winning fights.

/shrug

In addition, if metrics support it …..PPT from objectives could be reduced 50% during off peak hours (determined case by case by the servers involved in the current matchup). For example, half PPT may be applied (all times eastern) from 2am to 6am in the current T1 matchup, not applied at all in the current T2 matchup, and applied from 4am to 2pm in the current T3 matchup.

cillard.3986:

In addition, if metrics support it …..PPT from objectives could be reduced 50% during off peak hours (determined case by case by the servers involved in the current matchup). For example, half PPT may be applied (all times eastern) from 2am to 6am in the current T1 matchup, not applied at all in the current T2 matchup, and applied from 4am to 2pm in the current T3 matchup.

I like the idea of getting more score out of kills. However, I’m also aware of the dangers of such a metric in a very unbalanced environment. In the end I seriously doubt it would measure what many would like to measure or change any problem we currently have regarding score/pop.

Kodiak.3281:

styx.7294:

I don’t think PPK does that. I think the only thing PPK does is feed egos (because we’re always better than the guys we’re fighting and I’m sure if PPK was in place we’d win).

But, egos aside, what if that was the factual scenario happening? Are you saying you shouldn’t let the server that was better and won more of their fights let that be a contributing factor (not the only factor) towards winning?

My point is that I think PvP games that are objective based rather than kill based are more fun. I don’t think that it is necessary to bring kill count into it. Most of the time people who can kill more can use that to take more objectives already if they’re smart about it.

Edit: Really hope the expansion fixes this and the transfer limits recently imposed keep from getting back to this nonsense.

styx.7294:

Kodiak.3281:

styx.7294:

I don’t think PPK does that. I think the only thing PPK does is feed egos (because we’re always better than the guys we’re fighting and I’m sure if PPK was in place we’d win).

But, egos aside, what if that was the factual scenario happening? Are you saying you shouldn’t let the server that was better and won more of their fights let that be a contributing factor (not the only factor) towards winning?

My point is that I think PvP games that are objective based rather than kill based are more fun. I don’t think that it is necessary to bring kill count into it. Most of the time people who can kill more can use that to take more objectives already if they’re smart about it.

This is true, Player killing and fights are fun but if that was all there was to do it would only be a matter of time until everyone involved would be kittening about the lack of incentives. Imagine if they took out all the camps, towers, keeps, and castles from WvW ? It would get pretty stale pretty fast. I prefer the fights but the objectives need to be there. DAoC, Warhammer, Conan, ESO, and many many more games that are WvW (or RvR/AvA/whatever) have/had objectives for this very reason.

However, I don’t see why PPK can’t or shouldn’t be part of the equation, after all it is the other half of the pie that needs to be there besides objectives.

Wow.

PPK does not eaqual points per kill. It equals points per stomp.

If a server is over populated and has a zerg of 60 run over a group of 20, they almost never get stomps. They usually just run them over, and if they do try to get a stomp, this almost never succeeds due to the huge amount of dps form other players.

PPK encourages fighting. If you didn’t have the incentive to get points from fights, then the incentive is shifted to only k-training and structures. A fight would slow that down. Sure, theres a group or two that might run away to avoid a fight so they’re not fed points, but that is the beauty of the current system. Take away an enemy bloodlust, and they have no PPK. It’s a very sad day for me, imo when HoT comes out that the bloodlust system will go away.

Unless I missed something in the news, and I usually keep pretty close tabs on this stuff, the whole argument is moot. HoT is doing away with PPK, so why is this being brought up? It’s just one more example of how HoT is dumbing down WvW.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Wow.

PPK does not eaqual points per kill. It equals points per stomp.

If a server is over populated and has a zerg of 60 run over a group of 20, they almost never get stomps. They usually just run them over, and if they do try to get a stomp, this almost never succeeds due to the huge amount of dps form other players.

PPK encourages fighting. If you didn’t have the incentive to get points from fights, then the incentive is shifted to only k-training and structures. A fight would slow that down. Sure, theres a group or two that might run away to avoid a fight so they’re not fed points, but that is the beauty of the current system. Take away an enemy bloodlust, and they have no PPK. It’s a very sad day for me, imo when HoT comes out that the bloodlust system will go away.

Unless I missed something in the news, and I usually keep pretty close tabs on this stuff, the whole argument is moot. HoT is doing away with PPK, so why is this being brought up? It’s just one more example of how HoT is dumbing down WvW.

No, you’re thinking of the Bloodlust mechanic. We’re talking about the Points Per Kill, such as the one tested in WvW Sneak Attack. “Every player kill in WvW awarded a point towards their home world’s war score, and every kill using a finisher would earn another extra point.”

PPK from the test seemed to have been viewed mostly positively and people have since been asking for it to be implemented in normal play.

Ultimaistanza.4793:

Spurnshadow.3678:

Wow.

PPK does not eaqual points per kill. It equals points per stomp.

If a server is over populated and has a zerg of 60 run over a group of 20, they almost never get stomps. They usually just run them over, and if they do try to get a stomp, this almost never succeeds due to the huge amount of dps form other players.

PPK encourages fighting. If you didn’t have the incentive to get points from fights, then the incentive is shifted to only k-training and structures. A fight would slow that down. Sure, theres a group or two that might run away to avoid a fight so they’re not fed points, but that is the beauty of the current system. Take away an enemy bloodlust, and they have no PPK. It’s a very sad day for me, imo when HoT comes out that the bloodlust system will go away.

Unless I missed something in the news, and I usually keep pretty close tabs on this stuff, the whole argument is moot. HoT is doing away with PPK, so why is this being brought up? It’s just one more example of how HoT is dumbing down WvW.

No, you’re thinking of the Bloodlust mechanic. We’re talking about the Points Per Kill, such as the one tested in WvW Sneak Attack. “Every player kill in WvW awarded a point towards their home world’s war score, and every kill using a finisher would earn another extra point.”

PPK from the test seemed to have been viewed mostly positively and people have since been asking for it to be implemented in normal play.

In that case, I’m in favor of PPS, not PPK.

Kodiak.3281:

You were looking for a post to reply with a bunch of assumptions, conjecture and overly broad to the point of being inaccurate generalizations? KDR actually represents what really happens. JQ has a lot of round the clock coverage so they win simply because numbers but they lose fights. YB has less coverage and gets wiped all the time in off hours but during prime time has good coverage and teams capable of fighting. BG wins most of it’s fights but lacks the full time coverage of JQ. PPK in this scenario would benefit BG because while it wins most of the time, it simply loses when JQ is able to keep map presence throughout the week which would lower the gap between the two.

Flawed logic, I’ll try to make it simple. The most crowded timezone, I think we can all agree on, is NA. JQ is notoriously lacking in NA coverage, where as BG has the most NA coverage of all T1 servers. The KDR simply means you have the most coverage during the busiest timezone, because you can outblob the other servers when you decide to not blackout (like you have been for the past 2 weeks).

Where as JQ for an example, as you stated, have more coverage all around. While that’s true, but who’s there to kill during OCX & EU when JQ has more coverage? KDR doesn’t go up because during the other timezones there’s a serious lack of opponents to fight and kill. And by seriously lacking, I mean there’s not even a map blob anywhere.

KDR only means you have good presence during the busiest timezone. For NA servers, that’s really the 4 hours during NA where all 3 servers have a lot of players but BG can field 2 or even 3 map blobs if they want to. Where as JQ can field 1 map blob at best, sometimes not even that. YB can field 2 map blobs during early NA.

The reason T2 have a more balanced looking KDR is because T2 is all about NA coverage, and pretty much nothing else. So they’re all exchanging kills and deaths during the 4 hours that is NA, and all T2 servers can field respectable numbers during NA. While rest of the time all 3 T2 servers don’t have enough people to matter.

What I’m saying is it has nothing to do with winning fights or losing fights. One would have to be naive in thinking one server really wins that many more fights than the others. When in reality, KDR is all about which server gets to outblob the others during the busiest NA timezone. And if all 3 servers field similar numbers during NA, then KDR would look fairly similar, like they do in T2. In T1 currently, that’s not the case, and it’s not because of winning or losing fights, it’s because some servers can outblob the others.

I’m not against PPK by the way. I do think PPK is a good thing, it’d definitely trigger more fights initially. But if PPK was made permanent, I think you’ll see more running away and less suicide defense when the score gets tight. People would end up taking less chances if they see an unfavorable match during a given siege or open field combat.

gavyne.6847:

Kodiak.3281:

You were looking for a post to reply with a bunch of assumptions, conjecture and overly broad to the point of being inaccurate generalizations? KDR actually represents what really happens. JQ has a lot of round the clock coverage so they win simply because numbers but they lose fights. YB has less coverage and gets wiped all the time in off hours but during prime time has good coverage and teams capable of fighting. BG wins most of it’s fights but lacks the full time coverage of JQ. PPK in this scenario would benefit BG because while it wins most of the time, it simply loses when JQ is able to keep map presence throughout the week which would lower the gap between the two.

Flawed logic, I’ll try to make it simple. The most crowded timezone, I think we can all agree on, is NA. JQ is notoriously lacking in NA coverage, where as BG has the most NA coverage of all T1 servers. The KDR simply means you have the most coverage during the busiest timezone, because you can outblob the other servers when you decide to not blackout (like you have been for the past 2 weeks).

Where as JQ for an example, as you stated, have more coverage all around. While that’s true, but who’s there to kill during OCX & EU when JQ has more coverage? KDR doesn’t go up because during the other timezones there’s a serious lack of opponents to fight and kill. And by seriously lacking, I mean there’s not even a map blob anywhere.

KDR only means you have good presence during the busiest timezone. For NA servers, that’s really the 4 hours during NA where all 3 servers have a lot of players but BG can field 2 or even 3 map blobs if they want to. Where as JQ can field 1 map blob at best, sometimes not even that. YB can field 2 map blobs during early NA.

The reason T2 have a more balanced looking KDR is because T2 is all about NA coverage, and pretty much nothing else. So they’re all exchanging kills and deaths during the 4 hours that is NA, and all T2 servers can field respectable numbers during NA. While rest of the time all 3 T2 servers don’t have enough people to matter.

What I’m saying is it has nothing to do with winning fights or losing fights. One would have to be naive in thinking one server really wins that many more fights than the others. When in reality, KDR is all about which server gets to outblob the others during the busiest NA timezone. And if all 3 servers field similar numbers during NA, then KDR would look fairly similar, like they do in T2. In T1 currently, that’s not the case, and it’s not because of winning or losing fights, it’s because some servers can outblob the others.

I’m not against PPK by the way. I do think PPK is a good thing, it’d definitely trigger more fights initially. But if PPK was made permanent, I think you’ll see more running away and less suicide defense when the score gets tight. People would end up taking less chances if they see an unfavorable match during a given siege or open field combat.

This is the most sensible assessment of K/D ratio.

Yeah… They should only award points on a stomp. Thus making the 40 v 20 make the 40 a bunch of fools because they end up killing too many and only get a few stomps at best.

However…I still firmly believe they should reward the most points for successfully defending a structure. You bring your raid, I defend against it and succeed, I should net a huge noticeable chunk of points on top of the points just for continuing to hold it. That alone would get people to stop PvDooring and get them to defend their stuff when a scout calls out a raid moving into position. This alone would bring in a bunch of PvP play.

they alrdy have points per stomp, its called blood lust.

why should you get rewarded for hiding a map que in a tower cause one thief hit the gate while getting guard stacks?

Synosius.9876:

they alrdy have points per stomp, its called blood lust.

why should you get rewarded for hiding a map que in a tower cause one thief hit the gate while getting guard stacks?

Bloodlust/points per stomp is on the Alpine map which is being removed in HoT.

As to why PPK should be around, PvP should be incentivized and encouraged. Not this boring kitten run around PvD, backcap, and avoid fights so “we can get it back for the tick” BS that goes on now. Even if situations do happen like you’re talking about, that will only amount to 1 insignificant point.

yanoch.7051:

Synosius.9876:

ppk would definitely favor the server with the larger population. if all your fights have have more ppl you are more likely to win. Im not against it because it would put more emphasis on being good and give a legit reason for calling out baddies.

if anet rly wanted to change fight dynamics, they would decrease wxp for tower caps and increase wxp for player kills by like 1,000 but divide the reward by everyone who hit the target

Not really true have you looked at server like NSP, SoS and Maguma?

Relinking other post.
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/206954/Estimated_Population_Using_KD_Stats.png

the kills and deaths totals are not equal, there are errors in the data. assuming its close to accurate like +-10% thats enough to see a trend. I checked the 3 MUs you mentioned and only NSP and Mag have +1.00 ratios

so to play this out, ppk would only help 2 servers out of 24. statistically ppk will not benefit the majority. further more, mid week variations dont mean anything, just the final score is counted. it will play to the statistical average again.

Ultimaistanza.4793:

Synosius.9876:

they alrdy have points per stomp, its called blood lust.

why should you get rewarded for hiding a map que in a tower cause one thief hit the gate while getting guard stacks?

Bloodlust/points per stomp is on the Alpine map which is being removed in HoT.

As to why PPK should be around, PvP should be incentivized and encouraged. Not this boring kitten run around PvD, backcap, and avoid fights so “we can get it back for the tick” BS that goes on now. Even if situations do happen like you’re talking about, that will only amount to 1 insignificant point.

Im not against ppk cause Im betting I will be part of the minority who can benefit from it. believing its good for the majority or even the game in general is shakey.

BrickFurious.7169:

4. It will discourage fights unless you have a large enough group that you are sure you’ll win. Smaller groups will be heavily discouraged from fighting as they may just feed points to the enemy team.

Yeah, PPK has problems. A lot of unintended consequences of implementing a more robust PPK system.

This, a thousand times this. We saw the first time they tried PPK that servers/guilds would only engage if they were sure they would win the engagement.

It was absolutely maddening seeing two, relatively, equal zergs/guild groups sitting around waiting for reinforcements instead of engaging. That was also around the time assjamming gained more traction as a term of derision.

PPK needs to be a thing, but it needs to be a good thing that encourages fighting, and not some kind of leash holding us back.

Kodiak.3281:

PPK in this scenario would benefit BG because while it wins most of the time

another fail attempt to defend the server you are in. bg is almost always in hibernation mode. they all will come out to play during seasons. either that or they’ll buy enough mercenaries to cover the gap. buying is no more due to lock/full status. but hibergating still exists. bg pro at ganking with bigger roaming groups. eom.

dragon.8071:

Kodiak.3281:

PPK in this scenario would benefit BG because while it wins most of the time

another fail attempt to defend the server you are in. bg is almost always in hibernation mode. they all will come out to play during seasons. either that or they’ll buy enough mercenaries to cover the gap. buying is no more due to lock/full status. but hibergating still exists. bg pro at ganking with bigger roaming groups. eom.

dont you know posting in forums instantly makes you good?

Kaiser.9873:

BrickFurious.7169:

4. It will discourage fights unless you have a large enough group that you are sure you’ll win. Smaller groups will be heavily discouraged from fighting as they may just feed points to the enemy team.

Yeah, PPK has problems. A lot of unintended consequences of implementing a more robust PPK system.

This, a thousand times this. We saw the first time they tried PPK that servers/guilds would only engage if they were sure they would win the engagement.

It was absolutely maddening seeing two, relatively, equal zergs/guild groups sitting around waiting for reinforcements instead of engaging. That was also around the time assjamming gained more traction as a term of derision.

PPK needs to be a thing, but it needs to be a good thing that encourages fighting, and not some kind of leash holding us back.

So basically it will be no different from the current meta ?

Organized guilds will still attack larger forces, it’s half the fun, as for the pug zergs … most of the time their just karma training and only fight when backed into a corner so now they might be encouraged to fight or they will continue doing what they already do.

PPK would defo help since some servers live off their prime time. and are often much better players than the PPT players that can’t fight proper group fights.. it gives others a chance, although i do think some players will be discouraged and will dodge fights if they know it’s going to hurt their servers score if they play in fights.

Another problem could be trolls, every server has some.. they could just run into gankers non stop etc to ruin the scores.

gavyne.6847:

Flawed logic, I’ll try to make it simple. The most crowded timezone, I think we can all agree on, is NA. JQ is notoriously lacking in NA coverage, where as BG has the most NA coverage of all T1 servers. The KDR simply means you have the most coverage during the busiest timezone, because you can outblob the other servers when you decide to not blackout (like you have been for the past 2 weeks).

Where as JQ for an example, as you stated, have more coverage all around. While that’s true, but who’s there to kill during OCX & EU when JQ has more coverage? KDR doesn’t go up because during the other timezones there’s a serious lack of opponents to fight and kill. And by seriously lacking, I mean there’s not even a map blob anywhere.

KDR only means you have good presence during the busiest timezone. For NA servers, that’s really the 4 hours during NA where all 3 servers have a lot of players but BG can field 2 or even 3 map blobs if they want to. Where as JQ can field 1 map blob at best, sometimes not even that. YB can field 2 map blobs during early NA.

The reason T2 have a more balanced looking KDR is because T2 is all about NA coverage, and pretty much nothing else. So they’re all exchanging kills and deaths during the 4 hours that is NA, and all T2 servers can field respectable numbers during NA. While rest of the time all 3 T2 servers don’t have enough people to matter.

What I’m saying is it has nothing to do with winning fights or losing fights. One would have to be naive in thinking one server really wins that many more fights than the others. When in reality, KDR is all about which server gets to outblob the others during the busiest NA timezone. And if all 3 servers field similar numbers during NA, then KDR would look fairly similar, like they do in T2. In T1 currently, that’s not the case, and it’s not because of winning or losing fights, it’s because some servers can outblob the others.

I’m not against PPK by the way. I do think PPK is a good thing, it’d definitely trigger more fights initially. But if PPK was made permanent, I think you’ll see more running away and less suicide defense when the score gets tight. People would end up taking less chances if they see an unfavorable match during a given siege or open field combat.

Your argument is largely flawed because you seem to think BG is outblobbing other servers. In fact most NA Prime time nights when they going all servers have around the same coverage throughout the week. For example, if you watch on Friday you’ll see when all the maps are queued for all 3 servers BG will not only pull ahead in PPT but also in KDR.

Again the KDR numbers accurately reflect what’s going on. BG (1.44) is outperforming the other servers in engagements, but lacks round the clock coverage. JQ (0.64) is under performing other servers in engagements, but has round the clock coverage to compensate with PPT. YB (0.93) does well in engagements, but super lacks coverage compared to both other servers.

The part you are right is that PPK would impact the way players play. I could possibly see a lot more kitten jamming style game play where two sides are fighting and a third server (all servers do this) tries to take advantage of farming easy points. Running away happens a lot as is so I don’t see that really changing all that much. Probably the worst part of things would be inter-faction fighting as when one guild/group goes out and just dies constantly and feeds the enemy they’ll come under a lot more peer pressure to perform better creating discord internally on each server. To be honest those are the real factors that’d hold this kinda system up (or should) as from a purely mechanical/objective view point they’re great but from a social one they have great potential for harm.

Kodiak.3281:

Your argument is largely flawed because you seem to think BG is outblobbing other servers. In fact most NA Prime time nights when they going all servers have around the same coverage throughout the week. For example, if you watch on Friday you’ll see when all the maps are queued for all 3 servers BG will not only pull ahead in PPT but also in KDR.

Again the KDR numbers accurately reflect what’s going on. BG (1.44) is outperforming the other servers in engagements, but lacks round the clock coverage. JQ (0.64) is under performing other servers in engagements, but has round the clock coverage to compensate with PPT. YB (0.93) does well in engagements, but super lacks coverage compared to both other servers.

You agreed with me without realizing it. Yes! BG does queue all 4 maps on reset nights, and your ppt & KDR pulls ahead when that happens. You’re able to keep all maps queued for at least 3 hours on reset nights. Do you realize JQ only queues 1 maybe 2 maps on reset nights? And often 1 hour after reset, they’re down to just 1 small queue? I can’t remember the last time JQ queued all 4 maps on reset nights. YB also does not queue all maps on reset nights either.

Larger population during NA is the reason for higher KDR, it has nothing to do with engagement performance. It’s common knowledge that JQ does indeed have better all around coverage when talking about timezones, but they also have the worst NA coverage of all T1 servers. This was even the case back when TC was in T1. Just as it’s common knowledge that BG has been on a blackout for the past 2 weeks because they want to break Full status to transfer more guilds in.

Bottom line is BG has the best NA coverage when they’re playing, as seen on reset nights. YB has the best early NA coverage as they field 2 map blobs to our none. These NA coverage is the reason for KDR results, just as T2’s KDR are similar because T2 is all about NA coverage and little of anything else. Currently some T2 servers have better NA coverage than JQ does, and that’s no lie.

I don’t think you realize how populated BG’s WvW population is. The mere fact that BG is able to lose that many guilds to YB a few months back, yet still able to queue all 4 maps on reset night, shows you just how many players you have during NA.

Except isn’t it you who has agreed with me? Insert witty eyebrow raise.

One of your first arguments is that JQ’s superior time zone coverage gives them superior numbers during off hours so their score can’t skyrocket. Except isn’t that also the same basic argument as saying BG outblobs it’s competition? That they’re so big they just run over their competition with fat numbers? Wouldn’t the same logic follow in both scenarios that it’d equal out with JQ picking up it’s kill numbers during off hours? I mean you can look at the score throughout the day and see clearly there’s someone out there taking things back and keeping up PPT so it’s not wholly out of balance?

Also if BlackGate was on a “blackout” to break full status wouldn’t that logic state that for the last two weeks that they wouldn’t be blobbing the servers each time? If overblobbing population was the cause for the improper KDR wouldn’t a blackout prevent said blobbing and provide a more balanced KDR for this week and last week? Yet clearly we see a disproportionate KDR happening. In this context your theory makes no sense and thus falls through.

Also those guilds that left were ones that left a long time ago. Actually they moved to JQ at first to stop it from falling out of T1 because it was starting to free fall and a few others moved to TC. After some drama, as gon happen, they swore they’d push BG out of T1 and when that didn’t happen cause no one in T2 could push up they decided to go to YB to push a server up and disrupt things which only caused TC, predictably, to fall. Over time those guilds/players who left were largely replaced with other groups who filled the gap while they were on JQ and TC long before YB even became a thing.

Well I guess these can be legitimate concerns; some possible solutions.

• Place a cooldown on how many points someone can give out, say they can only give out a max of 5 points per 30 minutes. This would help against spawn camping, or “feeding” abuse. This would also prevent people from being discouraged from doing suicide runs if they know the penalty for dying is nil.

• Killing uplevels yields 0 points or can give less points per hour than a level 80 can to not discourage new players, I’d even suggest limiting or even removing the ability to rally off an uplevel but that’s another issue.

• Killing a player with the outnumbered buff yields diminished points or none at all. May not be a viable solution as some people might try to game this and get mad over people idling in wvw; I am doubtful.

• Place some arbitrary cap on total PPK per 15 minute tick to prevent more abuse and to discourage losing sides less as well as preventing it from excessively skewing the matchup.

• Nobody cares about PvF here; there’s another place for debating and sharing anecdotes about who blobs harder, but it’s not here; stop.

• Diminished points for using siege to kill players.

@Kodiak, Nevermind you don’t really get what I’m saying so I’ll just exit this thread. I support ppk, I disagree KDR is a measurement of engagement success/failures. KDR is a measurement of NA coverage for NA servers more than anything else.

ArchonWing.9480:

Well I guess these can be legitimate concerns; some possible solutions.

• Place a cooldown on how many points someone can give out, say they can only give out a max of 5 points per 30 minutes. This would help against spawn camping, or “feeding” abuse. This would also prevent people from being discouraged from doing suicide runs if they know the penalty for dying is nil.

I can agree with this, though 30 mins seems a little steep. Maybe something along the lines with how bags and WvW xp works. Like no points for 5/10 mins after respawning.

ArchonWing.9480:

• Killing uplevels yields 0 points or can give less points per hour than a level 80 can to not discourage new players, I’d even suggest limiting or even removing the ability to rally off an uplevel but that’s another issue.

I don’t like the idea that you get no points off of uplvls. I mean, their dmg, ccs, and so on do factor into what can kill you. Maybe reduced points, if we’re talking about more than 1 point per kill, or their cooldown on giving out points is longer than lvl 80s.

ArchonWing.9480:

• Killing a player with the outnumbered buff yields diminished points or none at all.

Diminished is cool, however, what about making it so if you have out-maned you get more points per kill? That way the underdog might get more benefits from winning against larger groups.

ArchonWing.9480:

• Place some arbitrary cap on total PPK per 15 minute tick to prevent more abuse and to discourage losing sides less as well as preventing it from excessively skewing the matchup.

Maybe, but if it’s low enough, like 1 point per kill, I don’t really see it being too much of an issue. Plus if some of your or my other suggestions are put in place then a cap might be a little overkill.

Ultimaistanza.4793:

ArchonWing.9480:

Well I guess these can be legitimate concerns; some possible solutions.

• Place a cooldown on how many points someone can give out, say they can only give out a max of 5 points per 30 minutes. This would help against spawn camping, or “feeding” abuse. This would also prevent people from being discouraged from doing suicide runs if they know the penalty for dying is nil.

I can agree with this, though 30 mins seems a little steep. Maybe something along the lines with how bags and WvW xp works. Like no points for 5/10 mins after respawning.

ArchonWing.9480:

• Killing uplevels yields 0 points or can give less points per hour than a level 80 can to not discourage new players, I’d even suggest limiting or even removing the ability to rally off an uplevel but that’s another issue.

I don’t like the idea that you get no points off of uplvls. I mean, their dmg, ccs, and so on do factor into what can kill you. Maybe reduced points, if we’re talking about more than 1 point per kill, or their cooldown on giving out points is longer than lvl 80s.

ArchonWing.9480:

• Killing a player with the outnumbered buff yields diminished points or none at all.

Diminished is cool, however, what about making it so if you have out-maned you get more points per kill? That way the underdog might get more benefits from winning against larger groups.

ArchonWing.9480:

• Place some arbitrary cap on total PPK per 15 minute tick to prevent more abuse and to discourage losing sides less as well as preventing it from excessively skewing the matchup.

Maybe, but if it’s low enough, like 1 point per kill, I don’t really see it being too much of an issue. Plus if some of your or my other suggestions are put in place then a cap might be a little overkill.

My numbers are completely made up, and I prefer to be on the conservative side because I sincerely do believe people can and will abuse anything. You’re probably right that 0 points from uplevels is a bit too harsh but they should probably get a longer “break” period than 80s. Though honestly, no matter what we do, WvW is going to be harsh on new players because the blame game will be tossed when things go south.

1 point per kill doesn’t seem like much, but if you have like a 30 v 30 when people are constantly running back after dying with random people seeing the swords and coming in, it could add up pretty fast. I mean 10 people dying is pretty frequent and is the equivalent of holding a tower for 15 minutes. Anyhow, I think PPK will add some flavor with the game, but I do also understand a lot of people would like this objective centered style of play even if I think that it’s a bit skewed in that direction and it makes things a bit boring. But at the same time, I definitely am aware of the snowball effect that easily happens when people are outblobbed.