Guild Wars 2

I was wondering why Anet keeps switching between odd score numbers like 3-2-2 or whatever it is right now.
Why not a simple 1-0-0. This way you could just look at the score ingame and see “aha, server B has 43 points while A has 21”, now you know exactly which server won how many skirmishes. Its the same scoring system, just another number.

Not too sure, but it might be to do with how they want glicko to work.

3-2-1 and 5-4-3 are the same thing for players, but they chose 5-4-3 to keep scores proportionally closer.

I think people voted for 5-4-3 over 2-1-1 as well.(2-1-1 is essentially the same as 3-2-2 and 1-0-0). Link to post.

A skirmish count would be nice though, you could mouse over your score and it would say all your skirmish placements. Mos lets you see skirmish history but I don’t think it’s accurate.

first the current scoring system is 5-4-3 (might as well be 1-2-3 imo but what ever) and second because with the current state of wvw it would be, server a has all the points while server b and c have kittened off because having no points would be demoralizing as kitten

I will point out yet again the score doesn’t fix any of the problems in WvW. Changing the score doesn’t fix population or coverage issues. Score changes don’t make the game more fun.

Changing the scoring in WvW is akin to performing a nose job while the patient is bleeding out from a gunshot wound.

Realistic scoring system aren’t allowed to be discussed on the forums. Topic closed.

Straegen.2938:

I will point out yet again the score doesn’t fix any of the problems in WvW. Changing the score doesn’t fix population or coverage issues. Score changes don’t make the game more fun.

Changing the scoring in WvW is akin to performing a nose job while the patient is bleeding out from a gunshot wound.

Exactly.

5-4-3 is used because someone suggested it earlier saying it is closer in score but they do not understand the consequences of close scoring. This isn’t democracy where equally matters, this is zero sum game, there is a need to have clear winners and losers.

Also for as long as I remembered which is really long, people have always shown more concerns over scoring than actual populations. People are always contented about anet doing “something” even if it is not so important things.

Majority is not always right.

I believe they cannot use 0 as a score. 1-0-0 is 2-1-1 or 3-2-2 anyways. 5-4-3 is the same as 3-2-1.
The two more popular numbers requested were 2-1-1 and 5-4-3, they are trying both. Has 543 been out as long as 211 yet? might be time for a change.

I realize not everyone cares about the score, but for those who don’t care presumably any scoring system is the same as any other. As someone who does care about the score I can tell you that getting zero for two hours when we have come second would be enough to make me quit WvW altogether.

It was bad enough when we got the same for second as for third. That was extremely demoralizing. To get nothing at all would be the last straw.

What needs to happen and soon is for meaningful results (doesn’t have to be material rewards) to be attached to position in each skirmish and to position in the match at the end of the week. Make it matter more whether your side comes second or third, not less, and make it so that everyone is aware that it has some significance, even if they don’t personally care what order the teams finish.

Tiny Doom.4380:

It was bad enough when we got the same for second as for third. That was extremely demoralizing. To get nothing at all would be the last straw.

What needs to happen and soon is for meaningful results (doesn’t have to be material rewards) to be attached to position in each skirmish and to position in the match at the end of the week. Make it matter more whether your side comes second or third, not less, and make it so that everyone is aware that it has some significance, even if they don’t personally care what order the teams finish.

5/4/3 or 3/2/1 is demoralizing to whoever the winning server decides to demoralize.

2/1/1 or 1/0/0 is demoralizing to the second place server.

Rewards for skirmish victories leads to night capping.
Rewards for weekly victories leads to overstacking to win and tanking to win.

2-1-1 can work if players adjust to the system, but most players these days are lazy and just want to go after whatever is weaker which is piledriver the third place server. The only way it’s demoralizing to second is if second was only playing for second and didn’t care to actually win first, but in that system they’re playing for the same point as third.

The game was built for 2v1, you’re suppose to play to win, not play for lazy man second and call that a win for your server. Only it was suppose to be 2v1 on the winning server, not the losing one. Then again they had systems like the orbs/bloodlust which again favored bigger servers with numbers and coverage to hold it, so even in the beginning wvw was built to favored bigger servers to snowball the smaller servers.

The 2v1 was never built properly from the start, there were no incentives to actually fight the proper 2v1. Scoring changes are useless anyways, players say they want changes, but complain hard to go back to old systems whenever there’s a significant change.

Xenesis.6389:

2-1-1 can work if players adjust to the system, but most players these days are lazy and just want to go after whatever is weaker which is piledriver the third place server. The only way it’s demoralizing to second is if second was only playing for second and didn’t care to actually win first, but in that system they’re playing for the same point as third.

The game was built for 2v1, you’re suppose to play to win, not play for lazy man second and call that a win for your server. Only it was suppose to be 2v1 on the winning server, not the losing one. Then again they had systems like the orbs/bloodlust which again favored bigger servers with numbers and coverage to hold it, so even in the beginning wvw was built to favored bigger servers to snowball the smaller servers.

The 2v1 was never built properly from the start, there were no incentives to actually fight the proper 2v1. Scoring changes are useless anyways, players say they want changes, but complain hard to go back to old systems whenever there’s a significant change.

This is all simultaneously true and yet still misleading.

Yes, WvW was envisioned by its designers as a three-way battle in which worlds would co-operate and compete by forming shifting alliances. ANet have openly confirmed that.

For whatever reason, however, that is not how it was received by the overwhelming majority of players. Far from a shifting series of alliances of convenience becoming the norm, the entire concept of co-operating with any other server became seen as something tantamount to cheating or exploiting.

I vividly remember the famous occasion in Season One when Yaks Bend formed an alliance with Ehmry Bay for the express purpose of denying SBI, which had stacked and tanked get into the second tier pool and was looking likely to win. That alliance lasted maybe 36 hours at most and required constant maintenance. People had to explain over and over and over again in map and team chat what was going on and even then many YB players refused to go along with what they saw as cheating.

Although at the time that was seen as a famous victory, it was very much a one-off because of the peculiar circumstances we found ourselves in. Since then I have heard players complain about being “double teamed” a thousand times (almost always entirely without foundation) but any suggestion that we as a server should make any kind of arrangement with any other server is treated like overt treachery akin to supply trolling. Allying with another server is something most players simply don’t want anything to do with, at least in my experience.

I would welcome a system whose mechanics encouraged and supported alliances. I like the politics of it and the strategy. I think you really need more than three servers though. Five would be ideal. For that to work, and more importantly for it to be accepted, however, you need to do a lot more than just put three (or five) cats in a sack.

Tiny Doom.4380:

Yes, WvW was envisioned by its designers as a three-way battle in which worlds would co-operate and compete by forming shifting alliances. ANet have openly confirmed that.

A 2v1 doesn’t have to happen under agreements or alliances, just need smart commanders to hit the appropriate targets, not lazy ones to just hit whatever has been k-trained 10mins ago. Runaway scoring promoted that lazy behavior, the 321 skirmish scoring promotes that behavior.

Nor do I think they designed the system for cooperation or actual alliances between servers. In fact there’s no official in game features to support this, The only way for you to communicate with someone on the other server in game about this, is by the roundabout way of blocking them to add them to friends to even send a whisper, which I’m sure was not intended.

The third team in a battle is there to help keep one side from rolling over the others which would happen in a two way battle, they could either help one side or just wait till they’ve nearly destroyed each other and then pounce in to clean up the rest. This of course only works if they are all wanting to win and come in first in the match, the two losing teams would have to set their focus on the one that was winning. But there is also no real rewards for winning, 3 green bags? moving up the ranks to face servers with even more population than you? Yeah second sounds just fine, just k-train red cause no point trying to waste 3-6 hours taking a fully upgraded keep from green.

Yes a problem with players is they somehow think a double team doesn’t happen with 3 teams… there is always a double happening. Unless of course one side has been k-trained off the maps for the week which has happened regularly in wvw for the past 4 years to the last place team. It sucks being the focus of that double team (more so when you’re the weakest server in the match), but it’s warranted if you’re winning the matchup.

The most famous alliance 2v1 was JQ and TC ganging up on BG for the entirety of season 2. That I’m sure took a lot of out of game discussions with major guilds and commanders, to even make that happen and work for that long of a period under the one goal, do not let BG win the tournament.

Five teams would be terrible unless there’s some restrictions to keep alliances in check, and scoring is not the same as now, otherwise expect 4v1 to happen.

For the same reason they dont bring back the wvw season. The only money they make in this game is from server transfers. Leaving WvW like it is, is killing the game but as long as they make money from transfers, they will not change anything, while the game mode slowly dies.

New expansion on the horizon though… so maybe down the line .. say at least a year from now.. they will actually do something about the wvw state.

Swamurabi.7890:

Tiny Doom.4380:

It was bad enough when we got the same for second as for third. That was extremely demoralizing. To get nothing at all would be the last straw.

What needs to happen and soon is for meaningful results (doesn’t have to be material rewards) to be attached to position in each skirmish and to position in the match at the end of the week. Make it matter more whether your side comes second or third, not less, and make it so that everyone is aware that it has some significance, even if they don’t personally care what order the teams finish.

5/4/3 or 3/2/1 is demoralizing to whoever the winning server decides to demoralize.

2/1/1 or 1/0/0 is demoralizing to the second place server.

I thought we can be less kids and be more realistic, you loose, zero points. But meh, seems like this wont work.

Changing score system to an absolute perfect one doesn’t fix the real issues that’s plaguing wvw.

Offair.2563:

Changing score system to an absolute perfect one doesn’t fix the real issues that’s plaguing wvw.

Yes sure. But since we get more useless stuff than usefull, maybe we can get more useless QoL stuff.

trueanimus.4085:

For the same reason they dont bring back the wvw season.

Doing a lot more harm than good?

Why is a basket worth 2 or 3 points? Or a foul shot worth only 1? Why is a touchdown worth 6 and a field goal worth 3? 2 point conversion or extra point?

You have to assign some kind of score and ANeT is trying to find a happy medium. The winning and losing servers haven’t switched places due to this scoring system. A big sever can still create an insurmountable lead and relax the rest of the week. Let’s let them find the best scoring method. At least they recognize there is a problem.

Think we could go with 1-1-1 for scoring and have a “pat on the back” animation happen at the end of each skirmish?

I think the most demoralizing thing about wvw is to win most of the fights yet lose most of the ppt. imo objectives should be considered secondary.

redwing.9580:

first the current scoring system is 5-4-3 (might as well be 1-2-3 imo but what ever) and second because with the current state of wvw it would be, server a has all the points while server b and c have kittened off because having no points would be demoralizing as kitten

How so? 5-4-3 makes it difficult to see any contribution. It’s pseudo numbers with no meaning, just like the rest of the game. With 1-0-0 even the worst server could easily see that against all odds they have won a skirmish once.

Due to the 5-4-3 system the matchmaking algorithm obviously allows matchups in which sufficiently high rating differences guarantee that the strongest server cannot gain points and the weakest server cannot lose points.

This matchup: Piken vs Drakkar vs Augury. Piken wins 33/38 gold medals and loses 16,6 points. Even if they won every 38 skirmishes, they’d still lose points.

It’s clearly absurd and unfair, and far away from the pre-skirmish system (without server linking) which alone truly reflected reality, but I think I figured out that it yet makes perfect sense in Anet logic. As long as things just look more balanced, it’s fine?