Guild Wars 2

Chaba.5410:

Swamurabi.7890:

It has to be over a year old, maybe two. We were discussing scoring and the thought of score based upon players on a map was brought up. The dev didn’t like the idea that a massive blob could flip an entire map and then leave the map while intimidating any who entered the map.

If I was good at searching three years of posts I’d find it.

I remember too a dev saying about how they didn’t want the outnumbered buff to be buffed in such a way that would incentivize players to troll servermates from a map.

There is a big difference between a global buff (like a weighted tick) and a personal buff (like the outnumbered buff).

As it is right now even something like the existance of a map cap has a much stronger potential to cause trolling than a weighted tick.

Afton.1326:

All servers are open 24h and have equal opportunity to diversify their coverage – regardless of language and EU/US server location.

This statement is outright ridiculous, 95% of all German speakers live in Europe, even if you consider people who learned German as a foreign language still a vast majority lives in Europe. If you look at English on the other hand there are many more time zones with people who can communicate in English, so how can you consider this equal opportunity?

Macilien.3078:

Afton.1326:

All servers are open 24h and have equal opportunity to diversify their coverage – regardless of language and EU/US server location.

This statement is outright ridiculous, 95% of all German speakers live in Europe, even if you consider people who learned German as a foreign language still a vast majority lives in Europe. If you look at English on the other hand there are many more time zones with people who can communicate in English, so how can you consider this equal opportunity?

Well because it is indeed a fact that no matter where you are located, you have equal opportunity to access any server. Regardless of what language you speak. It would likely cause some communication issues. That doesn’t change the fact that everyone has equal opportunity to access to every server.

coglin.1867:

Well because it is indeed a fact that no matter where you are located, you have equal opportunity to access any server. Regardless of what language you speak. It would likely cause some communication issues. That doesn’t change the fact that everyone has equal opportunity to access to every server.

The implication that this fact has any practical relevance is still ridiculous. Most people simply won’t join a server if they can’t properly communicate with most of the server’s population, especially not if that server is traditionally weak during their playtime, but if it is all the same to you, why don’t you join a German server right now?

coglin.1867:

Macilien.3078:

Afton.1326:

All servers are open 24h and have equal opportunity to diversify their coverage – regardless of language and EU/US server location.

This statement is outright ridiculous, 95% of all German speakers live in Europe, even if you consider people who learned German as a foreign language still a vast majority lives in Europe. If you look at English on the other hand there are many more time zones with people who can communicate in English, so how can you consider this equal opportunity?

Well because it is indeed a fact that no matter where you are located, you have equal opportunity to access any server. Regardless of what language you speak. It would likely cause some communication issues. That doesn’t change the fact that everyone has equal opportunity to access to every server.

Exactly. As an international game, player groups and guilds whose language is not represnnted by one of the server’s can choose to play on any server: any player anywhere can play on any server (barring lock-outs). I can understand that it is frustrating to be on a server with poor 24h coverage – but this is one of the built in challenges of having worldwide WvW servers. The proposal of devaluing the value of my contributions and every other player who cannot play at a certain time is far more unfair. It would be fundamentally game-breaking for me anyway.

Macilien.3078:

coglin.1867:

Well because it is indeed a fact that no matter where you are located, you have equal opportunity to access any server. Regardless of what language you speak. It would likely cause some communication issues. That doesn’t change the fact that everyone has equal opportunity to access to every server.

The implication that this fact has any practical relevance is still ridiculous. Most people simply won’t join a server if they can’t properly communicate with most of the server’s population, especially not if that server is traditionally weak during their playtime, but if it is all the same to you, why don’t you join a German server right now?

The more important thing is that you do not have to stay on a German server if you do not like its 24h coverage. People choose their servers for all sorts of reasons. If you choose a German server because you prefer the language but also are of the opinion that the language is a factor in limiting 24h coverage – then you have to weigh the pros and cons. You could prefer the former or the latter and stay or go, respectively, – or, if you want to live with both, you could work towards recruiting oceanics. To want to, on the other hand, devalue every player’s contribution who plays at an ‘off’ time is not a good solution.

Afton.1326:

I would much prefer that my actions matter just as much no matter what the time of day I am able to play. If the servers are international, then playng my prime time (oceanic) should be just as valuable as when anyone else plays.

All servers are open 24h and have equal opportunity to diversify their coverage – regardless of language and EU/US server location.

This would be true if the population of OCX, SEA, and EU were larger, however with a very limited number of players in those timezones there just isn’t enough to go around.

As it stands the contribution of non-NA players on NA servers is far higher for some servers than others. This imbalance leads to a large amount of consternation among servers that do not have a population of the non-NA players.

Ideally there would be some shuffling amongst the non-NA playerbase to even out non-NA population amongst the servers. Lacking that there will continue to be complaints about the disparity.

Kaiser.9873:

Afton.1326:

I would much prefer that my actions matter just as much no matter what the time of day I am able to play. If the servers are international, then playng my prime time (oceanic) should be just as valuable as when anyone else plays.

All servers are open 24h and have equal opportunity to diversify their coverage – regardless of language and EU/US server location.

This would be true if the population of OCX, SEA, and EU were larger, however with a very limited number of players in those timezones there just isn’t enough to go around.

As it stands the contribution of non-NA players on NA servers is far higher for some servers than others. This imbalance leads to a large amount of consternation among servers that do not have a population of the non-NA players.

Ideally there would be some shuffling amongst the non-NA playerbase to even out non-NA population amongst the servers. Lacking that there will continue to be complaints about the disparity.

I’m not sure what’s not true about what I wrote. The opportunity is still equal even though there is not an even distribution. I also wish there was more balance with this for the health of the game but I file it under wanting fairer distribution across servers regardless of time (and wouldn’t wan’t any solution to involve biasing against players whose prime time is not that of the majority).

This thread is humorous to me. Literally the first week that WvW went to a 7 day schedule the whole nightcapping issue was brought up in tons of threads. A lot of possible solutions were proposed, nothing was done. Maybe year or so after it was brought up again in a big thread and tons of things were proposed, nothing happened. Then again it came up in a CDI and just like 99% of the things talked about in all the CDIs, nothing happened.

Night capping has been a major issue for 3 years and it’s already taken it’s toll. The time in which a nightcapping solution would have been majorly beneficial has passed. What we need now is a new WvW server solution to increase population and keep all 3 sides filled.

Afton.1326:

The more important thing is that you do not have to stay on a German server if you do not like its 24h coverage. People choose their servers for all sorts of reasons. If you choose a German server because you prefer the language but also are of the opinion that the language is a factor in limiting 24h coverage – then you have to weigh the pros and cons. You could prefer the former or the latter and stay or go, respectively,

So you’re pretty much declaring all national servers pointless and we should leave them if we want to be competetive? I don’t care much where our server is ranked as long as it ensures that we get fair and fun matchups.

- or, if you want to live with both, you could work towards recruiting oceanics.

I don’t want our server to be the top nightcap server, I want fair and fun matchups which the current system does not provide.

To want to, on the other hand, devalue every player’s contribution who plays at an ‘off’ time is not a good solution.

The point of a weighted tick is that groups of equal size can have an equal impact no matter when they can play.

The problem isn’t that some people are awake at times when most others are asleep though people saying that you should put the effort in to stay up on these time periods are being moronic. You wouldn’t put your normal working/family life behind what is a game so please don’t start with that nonsense.

The problem to me is just how much of a lead a server can get by “night capping” that it carries an otherwise terribly performing server much further than it really should. Having time blocks where ppt/ppk score is generated then giving out points based on 1st, 2nd or 3rd would solve this especially if the ppt/ppk score was reset at the start of each block.

If a server can get “much further than it really should” due to having players during the “night” that would suggest that the opposing servers simply aren’t good enough.

I have been in plenty of match-ups where the enemy have gained a rather good lead during the night, and yet at the end of the day the other servers had caught up and often also bypassed it.

lordkrall.7241:

I have been in plenty of match-ups where the enemy have gained a rather good lead during the night, and yet at the end of the day the other servers had caught up and often also bypassed it.

Piken Square? Then I’ll assume you’ve never played on an NA server with this statement and especially never against Dragonbrand.

apharma.3741:

The problem to me is just how much of a lead a server can get by “night capping” that it carries an otherwise terribly performing server much further than it really should. Having time blocks where ppt/ppk score is generated then giving out points based on 1st, 2nd or 3rd would solve this especially if the ppt/ppk score was reset at the start of each block.

But how would that change the coverage/nightcap issues? One server dominating the other 2 during low pop times would still win all those “ppt/ppk blocks”, no matter how many you made per day.

The only way that would change the issue is if the amount of points each block gets is linked to activity. Which really goes back to an even simpler idea – reduce ppt based on activity.

Macilien.3078:

Afton.1326:

The more important thing is that you do not have to stay on a German server if you do not like its 24h coverage. People choose their servers for all sorts of reasons. If you choose a German server because you prefer the language but also are of the opinion that the language is a factor in limiting 24h coverage – then you have to weigh the pros and cons. You could prefer the former or the latter and stay or go, respectively,

So you’re pretty much declaring all national servers pointless and we should leave them if we want to be competetive? I don’t care much where our server is ranked as long as it ensures that we get fair and fun matchups.

- or, if you want to live with both, you could work towards recruiting oceanics.

I don’t want our server to be the top nightcap server, I want fair and fun matchups which the current system does not provide.

To want to, on the other hand, devalue every player’s contribution who plays at an ‘off’ time is not a good solution.

The point of a weighted tick is that groups of equal size can have an equal impact no matter when they can play.

All servers are international. If you are fortunate enough to have a server in the language you prefer and in a nearby location, then that is great, but by virtue of this you may also have a greater challenge with coverage. Leave it, work to improve coverage, or just accept that night coverage is not your strength.

It sounds like you are getting fair matchups when you play during your prime time hours. If you don’t care about rank, then the unbalanced off hour matchups that you complain about should be less of an issue for you.

As far as ticks goes, I would just like similar capturing to have similar benefits regardless of time of day. If you leave your maps unattended, and lose many ‘daytime’ gains, this is working as designed (at the moment). If a dozen players or whatever are taking over half your assets because you can’t muster enough appeal to get half that many players of your own on defense – then that is on you. If you mean that smaller groups’ actions are less valued, it would still mean that those who play when fewer play (i.e., often ‘off’ hours) are still not being rewarded on equal terms for their playtime.

Otherwise, I would certainly welcome some bigger shakeup and redesign to WvW that, among other things, addresses distribution disparities across the board by Anet

Dawdler.8521:

apharma.3741:

The problem to me is just how much of a lead a server can get by “night capping” that it carries an otherwise terribly performing server much further than it really should. Having time blocks where ppt/ppk score is generated then giving out points based on 1st, 2nd or 3rd would solve this especially if the ppt/ppk score was reset at the start of each block.

But how would that change the coverage/nightcap issues? One server dominating the other 2 during low pop times would still win all those “ppt/ppk blocks”, no matter how many you made per day.

The only way that would change the issue is if the amount of points each block gets is linked to activity. Which really goes back to an even simpler idea – reduce ppt based on activity.

It depends on the difference in points. Currently a server that can night cap the most can get a 10k points boost vs other servers. I know because I have done this before and I’ve seen others do it on GH to push for a win.

If points are awarded for position in those time blocks you can have a server be extremely strong in night capping for up to 8 hours but they can’t win the match up by keeping a 100-200 tick like now, they’d have to get a 2nd and maybe some 1st places in other time periods to win. It is a lot harder to dominate in prime time and even a few hours either way because there are more people across all servers so it’s not so easy to make up the score difference currently unless that night capping server is asleep. Which effectively turns the table.

Additionally a server that has night capped well can usually have waypoints all across the maps which make it a lot harder to close the gap.

Essentially it just evens out the score so one time period of being insanely strong doesn’t disproportionately boost your score. It also works to limit the damage in times when a server might be very weak. A server that is good will still stay good and it will still be about coverage just the efforts of “a few” during times when people sleep won’t massively off set the efforts done by the many in times when people aren’t asleep like what happens now.

I totally agree. I play in OCX time and every time I wake up I find my PPT efforts thwarted by NA night forces. They definitely need to reduce the proportion of PPT ticks during NA time.
Wait wha-?

Afton.1326:

All servers are international. If you are fortunate enough to have a server in the language you prefer and in a nearby location, then that is great, but by virtue of this you may also have a greater challenge with coverage. Leave it, work to improve coverage, or just accept that night coverage is not your strength.

It’s not like that the community decided to make some servers into unofficial German servers, this is an official distinction, which results in structural differences (e.g. available coverage). A weighted tick would address that, it would still give the side with the greater coverage an advantage as they can raze t3s and upgrade their own structures uncontested, but it wouldn’t be as bad as it is now.

It sounds like you are getting fair matchups when you play during your prime time hours. If you don’t care about rank, then the unbalanced off hour matchups that you complain about should be less of an issue for you.

We are currently getting one of two tiers, in the upper tier are the fun and challenging matchups, were we get to actually get to fight something, but we still lose ranking points due to our night coverage. The lower tier is extremely boring as we hardly get any fights and if we do they learn very fast and avoid us, but we still loose ranking points because we can’t keep that dominance up during the night. Unfortunately we now keep getting the lower tier matchup most of the time which is neither fun for us nor most of our opponents.

As far as ticks goes, I would just like similar capturing to have similar benefits regardless of time of day. If you leave your maps unattended, and lose many ‘daytime’ gains, this is working as designed (at the moment). If a dozen players or whatever are taking over half your assets because you can’t muster enough appeal to get half that many players of your own on defense – then that is on you. If you mean that smaller groups’ actions are less valued, it would still mean that those who play when fewer play (i.e., often ‘off’ hours) are still not being rewarded on equal terms for their playtime.

As I said a weighted tick means that each players contribution is valued equally. Imagine a 30 men guild zerg, first when all maps are full, they can make certainly a contribution but none that will decide the matchup, now image that same guild zerg when only 10 people are on the other servers, they can conquer everything with little to no opposition, so if you want equal rewards as you say you have to scale it down for the later group.

kiwituatara.6053:

I totally agree. I play in OCX time and every time I wake up I find my PPT efforts thwarted by NA night forces. They definitely need to reduce the proportion of PPT ticks during NA time.
Wait wha-?

That’s especially true if your own server’s NA is the weakest in the match. Which is why the discussion for weighted PPT scoring centers around times when the populations between all three servers are not of roughly equal size, not the specific timezone you play in. If the NA on your server is competitively balanced with the NA on the other servers (or your OCX population has good competition against the other servers OCX), then it isn’t “night-capping”.

There will never be a fix ..and im not sure it needs a fix…

BUT—right now we are ticking 450…and fow nightcrew came in and they will clear all maps in 1 hour or so ..and they will tick 600 for like the next 10 hours …lol….happends every night.

Macilien.3078:

Afton.1326:

All servers are international. If you are fortunate enough to have a server in the language you prefer and in a nearby location, then that is great, but by virtue of this you may also have a greater challenge with coverage. Leave it, work to improve coverage, or just accept that night coverage is not your strength.

It’s not like that the community decided to make some servers into unofficial German servers, this is an official distinction, which results in structural differences (e.g. available coverage). A weighted tick would address that, it would still give the side with the greater coverage an advantage as they can raze t3s and upgrade their own structures uncontested, but it wouldn’t be as bad as it is now.

It sounds like you are getting fair matchups when you play during your prime time hours. If you don’t care about rank, then the unbalanced off hour matchups that you complain about should be less of an issue for you.

We are currently getting one of two tiers, in the upper tier are the fun and challenging matchups, were we get to actually get to fight something, but we still lose ranking points due to our night coverage. The lower tier is extremely boring as we hardly get any fights and if we do they learn very fast and avoid us, but we still loose ranking points because we can’t keep that dominance up during the night. Unfortunately we now keep getting the lower tier matchup most of the time which is neither fun for us nor most of our opponents.

As far as ticks goes, I would just like similar capturing to have similar benefits regardless of time of day. If you leave your maps unattended, and lose many ‘daytime’ gains, this is working as designed (at the moment). If a dozen players or whatever are taking over half your assets because you can’t muster enough appeal to get half that many players of your own on defense – then that is on you. If you mean that smaller groups’ actions are less valued, it would still mean that those who play when fewer play (i.e., often ‘off’ hours) are still not being rewarded on equal terms for their playtime.

As I said a weighted tick means that each players contribution is valued equally. Imagine a 30 men guild zerg, first when all maps are full, they can make certainly a contribution but none that will decide the matchup, now image that same guild zerg when only 10 people are on the other servers, they can conquer everything with little to no opposition, so if you want equal rewards as you say you have to scale it down for the later group.

Yes, there are German servers, but this is referring to the main language of the sever and not the nationalilty of the server. Anyone, anywhere, whether they come from one of the German speaking countries or not, can join such servers – and even form guilds where German is not their main language of communication. This is the same for whatever language is the main one for a server and certainly not particular to the German servers.

Sure, most players are from Germany I would imagine, but this is all beside the point in this regard because WvW is part of a world-wide system where all servers are scored on equal terms.

Any alternative to this that builds on notions of area restrictions or national or regional biases – or that uses a scoring system that essentially means that equivalent contributions will not be of equal value for those who play off-peak hours – will unhinge the cornerstone of playing on equal terms, when and where you want in this game.

Although I may not agree with everything you propose, I think discussion of the options is constructive (although I am not holding my breath for changes). As people have been saying, the expansion should shake things up at least.

meltdown.5870:

There will never be a fix ..and im not sure it needs a fix…

BUT—right now we are ticking 450…and fow nightcrew came in and they will clear all maps in 1 hour or so ..and they will tick 600 for like the next 10 hours …lol….happends every night.

Wouldn’t you have a better game experience if you played someone better then FoW during your 450 tick time and FoW played someone better then you when they tick 600?

Unless you both really like PvD WvW.

Swamurabi.7890:

meltdown.5870:

There will never be a fix ..and im not sure it needs a fix…

BUT—right now we are ticking 450…and fow nightcrew came in and they will clear all maps in 1 hour or so ..and they will tick 600 for like the next 10 hours …lol….happends every night.

Wouldn’t you have a better game experience if you played someone better then FoW during your 450 tick time and FoW played someone better then you when they tick 600?

Unless you both really like PvD WvW.

Well he’s either on Blacktide or Underworld, the only people they can get matched up against would absolutely destroy them too. Check out their server positions, they’re bottom of bottom, dead last tier. They’re the servers time forgot, sadly.

Afton.1326:

Yes, there are German servers, but this is referring to the main language of the sever and not the nationalilty of the server. Anyone, anywhere, whether they come from one of the German speaking countries or not, can join such servers – and even form guilds where German is not their main language of communication. This is the same for whatever language is the main one for a server and certainly not particular to the German servers.

Of course everyone can join a German server, but what is the point of doing so if you don’t speak the language and there are other servers where you actually understand people. There are a variety of reasons for people to pick one server over another, but to balance WvW should not be one of them, ANet should provide a system that results in balanced matchups, so players don’t have to worry about their server choice.

I like to use German servers as example because most German speakers concentrate in one time zone, while French and Spanish is also common outside of Europe (e.g Canada and Latin America).

Sure, most players are from Germany I would imagine, but this is all beside the point in this regard because WvW is part of a world-wide system where all servers are scored on equal terms.

A weighted tick would still treat all servers equally just different than they are treated now.

Any alternative to this that builds on notions of area restrictions or national or regional biases – or that uses a scoring system that essentially means that equivalent contributions will not be of equal value for those who play off-peak hours – will unhinge the cornerstone of playing on equal terms, when and where you want in this game.

But as it is now your contribution is already worth less if you play during peak hours. The main problem I see is that the greatest volatility happens when the least players are around so it seem quite natural to me to damp this down.

Of course you can use other methodes like taking the median score instead of the average (our current score is the average score times the number of ticks, which is a constant and since the scale is completely arbitrary any constant factor is irrelevant) or a combination of the two (i.e. ignore the top and bottom x% of all ticks), but even then I’d still prefer a population weight in it.

Although I may not agree with everything you propose, I think discussion of the options is constructive (although I am not holding my breath for changes). As people have been saying, the expansion should shake things up at least.

Well I read somewhere that they’re working on the issue, so I’m curious how that turns out.

Macilien.3078:

A weighted tick would still treat all servers equally just different than they are treated now.

It absolutely would not treat all servers equally. The weighted changes would have to scale with each servers individual population throughout the day. Some servers will have much higher populations for much longer times, and others will have much lower then average populations for longer periods, in various match ups. This so called “weighted” tick by design is the opposite of “equally”. You cannot reasonably call a system that artificially gives different score values, at different times, for different reasons, to different groups, and label it as “equally”. Because it is very factually the definition of unequal.

Macilien.3078:

ANet should provide a system that results in balanced matchups, so players don’t have to worry about their server choice

Such as? If they balance population themselves, folks complain that they cannot move where they want, and when they want, to play with friends or guilds or what not. If they allow players to move at will, post like this demand Anet forces balance.

coglin.1867:

You cannot reasonably call a system that artificially gives different score values, at different times, for different reasons, to different groups, and label it as “equally”. Because it is very factually the definition of unequal.

If he was proposing such a system, yea it would not be equal, but he’s not proposing such a system. The weighted PPT he’s talking about would not be “different score values” applied “for different reasons” to “different groups”. That’s not even good game design (games with constantly changing rules do exist!). The system he’s proposing would be “same exact score values as every other low population times” applied “for one exact reason: population differences greater than x” to “one exact group: the population that vastly outnumbers the others” and this would be the same rule applied to all servers.

Like, there’s other GOOD reasons for why weighted PPT might not be a good solution. Attacking the idea as “unequal” is not one of them. How weighted PPT might be used to game the system, how it would affect the gaming experience when populations are at the border of triggering the weighted PPT scoring system, on the other hand is.

coglin.1867:

It absolutely would not treat all servers equally. The weighted changes would have to scale with each servers individual population throughout the day.

No it wouldnt. Scaled back PPT would be based on total population. Even if we make “50% PTT” below 20% max population, thats still around 200 players across all borders and servers.

Chaba.5410:

Like, there’s other GOOD reasons for why weighted PPT might not be a good solution. Attacking the idea as “unequal” is not one of them. How weighted PPT might be used to game the system, how it would affect the gaming experience when populations are at the border of triggering the weighted PPT scoring system, on the other hand is.

No, it actually is a very good reason to attack it.

When you have a section of the community that believes giving different scoring values based on bias reasons, as equal, then it is important to educate them.

Dawdler.8521:

No it wouldnt. Scaled back PPT would be based on total population. Even if we make “50% PTT” below 20% max population, thats still around 200 players across all borders and servers.

What does that have to do with the argument that it is not equal? Unless you literally have those numbers spread out equally, it is an unequal scoring system.

Besides, what difference does it make if the total population outside of prime time is say 20% of peak times? As long as all 3 servers have around 20% of their peak, then the population is equal.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Chaba.5410:

Like, there’s other GOOD reasons for why weighted PPT might not be a good solution. Attacking the idea as “unequal” is not one of them. How weighted PPT might be used to game the system, how it would affect the gaming experience when populations are at the border of triggering the weighted PPT scoring system, on the other hand is.

No, it actually is a very good reason to attack it.

When you have a section of the community that believes giving different scoring values based on bias reasons, as equal, then it is important to educate them.

Prove it then. Educate people.

You say that weighted PPT would give different scoring values yet you continue to ignore how the system currently gives different scoring values because you continue to look only at it as “SMC is worth 35 points” instead of “SMC is worth 35 points every 15 minutes”. Until you acknowledge that WvW uses a score-over-time system which is best used for teams of equal size, you are not educating anyone of anything. You are only showing us how you are trying to cherry-pick certain features of the scoring system to fit your arguments.

“Yes, it is simple math. SMC is worth 35 points every 15 minutes. If your server is able to keep SMC for 3 hours for the simple reason that the opposing servers have only 5 players on trying to flip it and prevent upgrades compared to your 30, that’s worth 420 points. How is that in any way equal to SMC constantly flipping for 3 hours (12 ticks) between all three servers during a timezone where all three servers are of relatively equal strength where it would be next to impossible for one side to gain all 420 points?”

dancingmonkey.4902:

What does that have to do with the argument that it is not equal? Unless you literally have those numbers spread out equally, it is an unequal scoring system.

Besides, what difference does it make if the total population outside of prime time is say 20% of peak times? As long as all 3 servers have around 20% of their peak, then the population is equal.

Yes, it literally means those numbers are spread out equally. That’s what 50% of max PPT mean.

Also, the point of scaling back/reducing PPT isnt about the populations relative to each other or them being perfectly equal at lower numbers – its not even about the “nightcapping” in a 50vs10vs10 scenario. Its the simple fact that current population is low and thus PPT should be low in order to avoid wild swings in points when a low amount of players are playing.

Chaba.5410:

coglin.1867:

You cannot reasonably call a system that artificially gives different score values, at different times, for different reasons, to different groups, and label it as “equally”. Because it is very factually the definition of unequal.

If he was proposing such a system, yea it would not be equal, but he’s not proposing such a system. The weighted PPT he’s talking about would not be “different score values” applied “for different reasons” to “different groups”. That’s not even good game design (games with constantly changing rules do exist!). The system he’s proposing would be “same exact score values as every other low population times” applied “for one exact reason: population differences greater than x” to “one exact group: the population that vastly outnumbers the others” and this would be the same rule applied to all servers.

Dawdler.8521:

coglin.1867:

It absolutely would not treat all servers equally. The weighted changes would have to scale with each servers individual population throughout the day.

No it wouldnt. Scaled back PPT would be based on total population. Even if we make “50% PTT” below 20% max population, thats still around 200 players across all borders and servers.

I think we’re getting into a semantics argument here about the definition of “equally”. If by “equally” you mean population-based equality — treating each player’s contribution to the score relative to the total number of players online the same — then yes, weighting the score by total population would make things equal. But coglin and others have been arguing for time-based equality, whereby all time periods are treated the same with respect to the score regardless of the amount of population currently online. A population-weighting system would violate time-based equality because time periods that are more populated would be more valuable to the match per unit of time than lesser-populated time periods.

Frankly, as I’ve made clear in my earlier posts, I’m in the time-based equality camp. WvW was designed to be a 24/7 game mode, and the designers were surely well aware that populations would fluctuate during the week. It doesn’t make sense to me to implement a weighted scoring system advocating for population-based equality in a game mode that was never designed to have balanced populations in the first place.

BrickFurious.7169:

It doesn’t make sense to me to implement a weighted scoring system advocating for population-based equality in a game mode that was never designed to have balanced populations in the first place.

And it doesn’t make sense to have a scoring system designed for teams of equal size in a game mode that doesn’t have teams of equal size. PPT is always weighted in favor of the team with the larger size, which has had the result of rendering it meaningless with veteran WvW players. Points-per-cap makes much more sense and also avoids the complexity that a population-weighted scoring system would have.

Chaba.5410:

BrickFurious.7169:

It doesn’t make sense to me to implement a weighted scoring system advocating for population-based equality in a game mode that was never designed to have balanced populations in the first place.

And it doesn’t make sense to have a scoring system designed for teams of equal size in a game mode that doesn’t have teams of equal size. PPT is always weighted in favor of the team with the larger size, which has had the result of rendering it meaningless with veteran WvW players. Points-per-cap makes much more sense and also avoids the complexity that a population-weighted scoring system would have.

Honestly, if this were sPvP I’d agree with you. There are no barriers blocking the capture points in sPvP and increasing the time to cap. Players often try to create artificial barriers using bunker builds, but even those have their limitations — other players can simply rotate around the bunkers.

But in WvW the maps and objectives themselves are designed (at least in theory) to act as a buffer, allowing some parity between teams of unequal sizes. The increased time to cap from walls/gates, choke points at objectives, the use of siege, all allow a smaller defensive team to hold off a larger offensive team.

So yes, PPT as a scoring system is usually used for teams of equal size, and WvW is not designed for teams of equal size. But WvW already compensates for this by using map mechanics to try even out the effect of population imbalances. If those mechanics are working properly, there shouldn’t be a need to also modify the score to even out population imbalances.

Many would argue (and I would agree) that the WvW mechanics implemented thus far over the past three years have not been enough of a buffer against enemy teams that outnumber yours. Anet seems to believe this too, since they are buffing defending with HoT (T3 gates, guild upgrades that boost defense, larger borderlands map that takes longer to traverse). I’m frankly a bigger fan of this solution — buffing map mechanics to compensate for population imbalances — rather than modifying the scoring system to deal with it.

As far as PPC (points per capture), I get where it could help, but I also fear that it would just end up making everything an EotM-style k-train, since defending objectives would no longer net teams any points (it would simply deny points to enemy teams).

Chaba.5410:

Points-per-cap makes much more sense and also avoids the complexity that a population-weighted scoring system would have.

Actually it would quickly become complicated. At a glance it might seem like a good idea, but it open up a sinkhole of potential issues with scoring. You need to throw in PPK, points per upgrade and negative points when a keep is lost in order to make it more than just +1 score swapping. Just imagine how easy it would be for 2 servers to completely steamroll another server – let them cap all the keeps, it doesnt matter. Then the 2 servers pick a couple of keeps… and start capping them back and forth to roll in the points. In fact, the dominating server will want to loose keeps in order to recap them. As long as they “spread out” to whom they loose (ie let both other servers cap, not just one) they will win when they recap. WvW style gameplay should never be about loosing a keep to get more points by recapping it.

Dancingmonkey and coglin, this is how to have a good conversation that advances forward about a subject.

BrickFurious.7169:

Chaba.5410:

BrickFurious.7169:

It doesn’t make sense to me to implement a weighted scoring system advocating for population-based equality in a game mode that was never designed to have balanced populations in the first place.

And it doesn’t make sense to have a scoring system designed for teams of equal size in a game mode that doesn’t have teams of equal size. PPT is always weighted in favor of the team with the larger size, which has had the result of rendering it meaningless with veteran WvW players. Points-per-cap makes much more sense and also avoids the complexity that a population-weighted scoring system would have.

Honestly, if this were sPvP I’d agree with you. There are no barriers blocking the capture points in sPvP and increasing the time to cap. Players often try to create artificial barriers using bunker builds, but even those have their limitations — other players can simply rotate around the bunkers.

But in WvW the maps and objectives themselves are designed (at least in theory) to act as a buffer, allowing some parity between teams of unequal sizes. The increased time to cap from walls/gates, choke points at objectives, the use of siege, all allow a smaller defensive team to hold off a larger offensive team.

So yes, PPT as a scoring system is usually used for teams of equal size, and WvW is not designed for teams of equal size. But WvW already compensates for this by using map mechanics to try even out the effect of population imbalances. If those mechanics are working properly, there shouldn’t be a need to also modify the score to even out population imbalances.

Many would argue (and I would agree) that the WvW mechanics implemented thus far over the past three years have not been enough of a buffer against enemy teams that outnumber yours. Anet seems to believe this too, since they are buffing defending with HoT (T3 gates, guild upgrades that boost defense, larger borderlands map that takes longer to traverse). I’m frankly a bigger fan of this solution — buffing map mechanics to compensate for population imbalances — rather than modifying the scoring system to deal with it.

As far as PPC (points per capture), I get where it could help, but I also fear that it would just end up making everything an EotM-style k-train, since defending objectives would no longer net teams any points (it would simply deny points to enemy teams).

Agreed. All the mechanics that go into defense allow for some parity between teams of unequal size. The downside of trying to balance offense/defense for unequal teams occurs during peak times where population is relatively equal between teams. Currently it requires an attacking force to bring roughly twice the number of defenders and I hope that really doesn’t change because I’d hate to see an attacking force require three times the number of defenders. Players are already greatly turned off by long sieges if they don’t have adequate numbers to attack. You’re already familiar with my post in the WvW Beta map subforum about the Long Siege and Player Interest. We have yet to hear about reward changes for WvW. Better rewards could help. Greater points given for having to put more effort into a cap like performing a long siege could also help.

Regarding PPC, the idea also uses PPD (Points Per Defence) to work. Don’t know how the numbers would be, but basically you would gain points for defending and holding an objective as well. There are problems with this, like people not wanting to attack a defended tower, and rather go take the OTHER tower etc. It could also remove the long siege problem (for some), just not worth taking it if you can’t take it fast enough. Link this up to the defence event.

Just reusing another idea here, guessing it might have to unpopular consequences.

If WvW used a Map-Adjuster to add/remove maps depending on the population online. This would automatically adjust the total number of potential PPT available based on both the population and the number of maps that they can realistically fill. How would people like that system as a PPT balancer ?

The usual stuff: Remove home-BL so you can add/remove BL’s without taking away someones Home map. Add the services from Home-BL to all spawn areas. Have a base set number of maps (ebg+1bl) that is persistent so upgrades matters, the rest will reset upgrades as maps is collapsed.

*puts on the sun glasses, and puts on the sun-block, awaiting the massive burn being sent his way*

joneirikb.7506:

Regarding PPC, the idea also uses PPD (Points Per Defence) to work. Don’t know how the numbers would be, but basically you would gain points for defending and holding an objective as well. There are problems with this, like people not wanting to attack a defended tower, and rather go take the OTHER tower etc. It could also remove the long siege problem (for some), just not worth taking it if you can’t take it fast enough. Link this up to the defence event.

Points per defense wouldnt work either, because its impossible do define what defense really is. Defense events are often just someone that killed a guard and moved on. If a server can easily have f2p/troll accounts feeding another server with points, its not going to be a viable system.

WvW has always been a server community game mode with its point system. It isn’t about an individual. It isn’t about a guild. It isn’t about a time zone. It’s about the entire server. If your server is lacking presence in one of the time zones, your position is going to suffer.

ANet shouldn’t do anything about this, because anything they do would be unfair to the off-hours players. Instead of waiting for ANet to make a change, do something yourself:

1. Actively recruit in other timezones. Create forum posts that your server is looking for guilds in whatever zones you’re lacking in. Work to patch the hole in your presence if you care about your server’s rank that much.

2. Leave your server and join one at the tier you want to be in. You have control over your personal enjoyment. Take control, or take responsibility that the choice you are making is going to be frustrating at times. That isn’t ANet’s fault. The system has been the same for 3 years, so you know what you’re getting into.

3. Enjoy the fights you find in your prime time and stop worrying about overall rank. Servers are constantly in flux, with guilds leaving, joining, leaving again. And if rank really matters that much to you, join a high rank server so you can feel like you’re of high rank. Whatever you need to do to enjoy yourself.

Population and coverage have always been two key factors in server placement. Why is only coverage the frustrating one that needs to be “fixed”? It’s like saying your lower population is better than another server’s in prime time, so based on how many players you have logged into WvW, your PPT should be multiplied by a factor of the difference from the other servers.

WvW doesn’t mollycoddle an individual’s sense of worth. It’s an open and fair system to the entire server community, and I don’t think there’s any reason to change it.

Chaba.5410:

The downside of trying to balance offense/defense for unequal teams occurs during peak times where population is relatively equal between teams. Currently it requires an attacking force to bring roughly twice the number of defenders and I hope that really doesn’t change because I’d hate to see an attacking force require three times the number of defenders.

I’m worried about this too. I think part of the problem is that blitz/surprise sieging is in a weird place right now, and I don’t think eliminating white swords is the right answer. All it takes is one dude in a tower with a gate treb to hold off an entire 30 man gate blitz indefinitely, and that isn’t fair, especially with T3 gates, no-more-pvdoor, and nigh unkillable cannons/oil/mortars on the way. We had some discussion about this in your long siege thread, but with the buff to gate defenses it’s no longer appropriate for treb/cata/player damage to travel through gates. This is already starting to be a problem in stronghold in spvp too, where players are just standing behind gates and taking out attacking npcs. If Anet doesn’t fix this, I don’t see anyone attacking gates ever once the expansion hits, unless they are paper and/or they are sure there are no enemies inside.

I’m somewhat optimistic that the longer travel times in the new borderlands might make blitz sieging a little more viable, but it still only takes that one dude with a gate treb, or with an unreachable AC along a cata wall, to stop a huge blitz. Little things like that seriously upset the balance of power between teams of unbalanced sizes, and it only gets worse when populations are even. Blitz sieges done by small, coordinated groups have to be viable, or all these defensive buffs are going to get real boring real quick.

As far as long sieges go…I think if there’s one change I would make, it would be to diminish the power of counter-trebs. If you build a bunch of trebs to take out walls from range, it’s dumb and boring that the enemy can just build a counter treb in a high place and safely kill your trebs. They already cost a ton of supply and don’t really do that much damage, and with T3 walls it takes a lot of them and a lot of time to really do anything. As a defender there has to be something that forces you outside to go take the attacking trebs out. I think this would make long sieges a lot more fun. In the new borderlands map it seemed like there were a lot less good counter-treb spots, so it’s possible this may become less of an issue once the expansion hits.

Cogbyrn.7283:

WvW has always been a server community game mode with its point system. It isn’t about an individual. It isn’t about a guild. It isn’t about a time zone. It’s about the entire server. If your server is lacking presence in one of the time zones, your position is going to suffer.

ANet shouldn’t do anything about this, because anything they do would be unfair to the off-hours players. Instead of waiting for ANet to make a change, do something yourself:

1. Actively recruit in other timezones. Create forum posts that your server is looking for guilds in whatever zones you’re lacking in. Work to patch the hole in your presence if you care about your server’s rank that much.

2. Leave your server and join one at the tier you want to be in. You have control over your personal enjoyment. Take control, or take responsibility that the choice you are making is going to be frustrating at times. That isn’t ANet’s fault. The system has been the same for 3 years, so you know what you’re getting into.

3. Enjoy the fights you find in your prime time and stop worrying about overall rank. Servers are constantly in flux, with guilds leaving, joining, leaving again. And if rank really matters that much to you, join a high rank server so you can feel like you’re of high rank. Whatever you need to do to enjoy yourself.

Population and coverage have always been two key factors in server placement. Why is only coverage the frustrating one that needs to be “fixed”? It’s like saying your lower population is better than another server’s in prime time, so based on how many players you have logged into WvW, your PPT should be multiplied by a factor of the difference from the other servers.

WvW doesn’t mollycoddle an individual’s sense of worth. It’s an open and fair system to the entire server community, and I don’t think there’s any reason to change it.

This already happens, but it isn’t ideal because there is almost no transparency. Most people make their decisions based on hearsay.

And yes Anet can do something about this by providing server communities with better tools. Adding mega-server to Lion’s Arch took away one of those tools.

Chaba.5410:

BrickFurious.7169:

It doesn’t make sense to me to implement a weighted scoring system advocating for population-based equality in a game mode that was never designed to have balanced populations in the first place.

And it doesn’t make sense to have a scoring system designed for teams of equal size in a game mode that doesn’t have teams of equal size. PPT is always weighted in favor of the team with the larger size, which has had the result of rendering it meaningless with veteran WvW players. Points-per-cap makes much more sense and also avoids the complexity that a population-weighted scoring system would have.

I would throw Points per Defense in there as well. Otherwise why not let them take so you can backcap?

Personally I like the idea of a time-sliced scoring system, but as with anything they implement we would have to see how it worked before saying it was great or terrible. I just do not see the fun in heavily outnumbering, or being heavily outnumbered. The time to heavily outnumber your opponents should be when making a push to change tiers, not for month after month.

T2 became terrible due to huge swings in population. It was also, for a time, heavily affected by some zones being utterly dominated by one or the other servers. This led to many moves that ended with T2 being decimated.

This disharmony happens throughout the tiers, but seems more concentrated in the upper tiers(at least for NA). The full servers are stuck with what we have, but there is time before HoT launches to make the less populated servers have some better QoL.

I’ll just say that is what you have T1 for, you can always find people in those servers
T2 is organised and random
T3-4 have loyal players and random + guilds that come and go
any server T5 onwards is random as fek

Night capping sucks but the only fix is for your server to recruit people/guilds from those other time zones to come play on your server. Pointing a big middle finger at everyone who doesn’t play when you do is not the answer.

Lobo Dela Noche.5127:

Night capping sucks but the only fix is for your server to recruit people/guilds from those other time zones to come play on your server. Pointing a big middle finger at everyone who doesn’t play when you do is not the answer.

If those players were more available for recruitment I would agree with you. Or in the case of full servers, able to be recruited.

Lobo Dela Noche.5127:

Night capping sucks but the only fix is for your server to recruit people/guilds from those other time zones to come play on your server. Pointing a big middle finger at everyone who doesn’t play when you do is not the answer.

There just isn’t the population in those time zones to make it work. All it does create is a server tier system where you have in order from “stronger” to weaker :
- night presence
- day presence
- dead server

The problem this creates is frustration on the prime time users which are the majority and stale matchups for them. Nothing says the servers from the top two tiers aren’t competitive wich each other in prime time, but the score system keeps them appart.

The most extreme case possible would be that the current system is perfectly fine matching three servers that are full in their own time zone and empty when the others are active to create the most balanced and boring WvW experience ever.