Guild Wars 2

How do you define winning in WvW? Is it PPT, kill/death ratio, achievements, something else?

For me personally, it is when I get guild groups to try and run down our small group of guild members on site. You know you are doing something right when a sea of red diverts from their objectives to chase you across a map.

Straegen.2938:

How do you define winning in WvW? Is it PPT, kill/death ratio, achievements, something else?

For me personally, it is when I get guild groups to try and run down our small group of guild members on site. You know you are doing something right when a sea of red diverts from their objectives to chase you across a map.

dear ladies and gents, it depends on what your definition of “is” is …

would you like a beret hat?

If you are having fun – you are winning…….

Fun fights (with skill) is winning.

PPT blobbing is my idea of a snooze fest

Finding good fights – win or lose.

CrimsonNeonite.1048:

Finding good fights – win or lose.

Or draw? Dances with Lamas for the win

Officially, the victor in WvW is whoever has the highest score by the end of the week.

Personally? As long as you’re having fun in WvW, you’re “winning”.

Zaxares.5419:

Officially, the victor in WvW is whoever has the highest score by the end of the week.

Personally? As long as you’re having fun in WvW, you’re “winning”.

+1.
I don’t care how people want to define winning. You come first place, you win.

Coverage wins, honestly you don’t actually win anything in reality, its mainly having the most players who usually end up karma training, because other servers want to sleep really. PPT is not bad, but populations are so imbalanced, having to have 24/7 coverage; not only to keep upgraded structures is a chore unless you have enough players.

Winning fights is satisfying, especially as a Guild or as a roamer who can be useful, at least you have a challenge in front of you.

Liston.9708:

If you are having fun – you are winning…….

No I see fun and winning as two completely different dimensions.
Winning can be fun, but it can as well be boring.
You can have fun while winning, but some looses are very funny as well.

Wining is given by ANet, it could have been defined better, but it is as it is.
Or more general, it is defined by the rules of the game.
For sure the way it is defined, and our awareness of that, reduces possible fun on winning a lot. In fact it’s quite irrelevant that you win or loose, if that is already clearly decided by prematch manpower distribution. Which is a pity, as just playing for fun misses a challenge.

ppt is dirty and mostly boring stuff. It’s like pve, u getting bored after some time of playing it.

good fights, open field, smallscale, sometimes for structures but mostly not blobbing, sometimes it can be fun aswell, but mostly if you are leading zi blob =))

gvg

banishing out of cliffs <3

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

Zaxares.5419:

Officially, the victor in WvW is whoever has the highest score by the end of the week.

Personally? As long as you’re having fun in WvW, you’re “winning”.

+1.
I don’t care how people want to define winning. You come first place, you win.

Can you really win something if there’s no competition though? Most of the time it’s not even close.

Most of the above make clear, that it is currently not possible to win WvW.

To win it needs a competition with agreed rules by every participant.

As all of you describe different rules, you aren’t in a competition, so no one can win.

GvcG may be a (different) competition. There are rules the guilds agree on and that determine who wins.

But yes, even without (or because there is no) competition (and therefore no win) you can have or gain a lot fun.

Winning is depend on you. What you call a win? Finish on the first place? Lot of players win whos never joined to wvw. For somebody if they stay alive they won.
For me a win happens when we beat the opponent in a clash.
There are people whos win when they defend a tower. Maybe they die 8 times but they come back again and again while the enemy goes away

Winning depends on you and your opponent.

Take your tower example: if the attacker all fly to the Lord room and conque the tower by that, did they won? No they cheat, as they violated the agreed rules.

Take your “we bash the opponents”, if it wasn’t their goal to beat you, but it was their goal to delay you (e.g. because they are much less), such that you aren’t able to hinder their friends to take a tower. So you are fighting, then their friends tell them “we got it”, the few remainings stop fighting and you slay them. Who won?

• You? Only if they wanted to beat you, which wasn’t their goal.
• Them? Only if you had any interest keeping this tower, but if you did not, no.
• Both? Some would call it a win-win situation, ie. both won. But I only see that a marketing gag, that weakens the meaning of the term winning.
• None? I would say none, both reached their goals, but as you didn’t shared a goal and rules none won.

You win if enemy rage and won’t get lot’s of loot and wexp. You also win if you manage drop upscaled down before he manage get in cap circle.

Enemy dead, me alive. That is winning for me.

Offair.2563:

Enemy dead, me alive. That is winning for me.

They never die, they just respawn

@dayra – no use telling other people they are wrong. That is THEIR definition of winning. May not align with yours, but that is ok. I don’t think yours is wrong either – just means something different to you.

But you are aware that we end-up in babylon, if everyone assigns a different meaning to a word?

Kaos.9162:

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

Zaxares.5419:

Officially, the victor in WvW is whoever has the highest score by the end of the week.

Personally? As long as you’re having fun in WvW, you’re “winning”.

+1.
I don’t care how people want to define winning. You come first place, you win.

Can you really win something if there’s no competition though? Most of the time it’s not even close.

Meh.. You win some you lose some. If the server we’re up against out numbers us 10 to 1 I’m not going to say “they didn’t win because they had way too many people” when the week is over. Who ever has the most points is the winner, the weekly bonus rewards based on your servers performance in the previous match up makes that pretty clear. I’m not in any way suggesting that blob = skill, I’m just saying that I’m not going to deny our loss if we’re heavily out matched. Until ANet designs a system that can score based on number of defenses and successful open field battles, 100 PPT > 0 PPT.

Hmm… Idea time.

What if, at the end of each week’s matchup, we can talk to the Battle Historian to see a list of stats for the past week. Things like:

Number of player kills: [Server 1] | [Server 2] | [Server 3]
Number of player deaths: [Server 1] | [Server 2] | [Server 3]
Number of successful captures: [Server 1] | [Server 2] | [Server 3]
Number of successful defenses: [Server 1] | [Server 2] | [Server 3]
Number of dolyaks killed: [Server 1] | [Server 2] | [Server 3]

etc. etc.

Overall player ratio in percent.
Mean player numbers in percent per 4h time-slice, I.e. at 0:00 till 4:00, 4:00 till 8:00, …
Mean score per 4h time-slice, I.e. at 0:00 till 4:00, 4:00 till 8:00, …

ANet seem to prefer to keep the player numbers secret. However for comparison relative player ratio is sufficient and doesn’t allow to infer the real numbers.

Statements like

“Who’s, green had 50% more troops but only managed to get 20% more points. Great job!”

“During prime with equal we crushed them, they only won as they had 3 times as many player in the night.”

would have an emperical base.

Having them at the battle historian, is nice, even nicer would be to have them in the API, such that sites like http://www.gw2score.com can produce fancy evaluations out of them.

PS: Which objectives got flipped how often by each server you can already see there. And the score distribution between objective possession (score from tick) and bloodlust-stomps+doylaks+sentry’s (Score not from tick) you can see there as well.

Winning in WvW is having the highest total score at the end of the matchup. This isn’t up for debate, it’s the only visible score for a reason.

Whether this victory has any meaning however is an entirely different topic of course.

ykyk.2740:

Winning in WvW is having the highest total score at the end of the matchup. This isn’t up for debate, it’s the only visible score for a reason.

Only server winning is defined that way. Individual victory can be achieved any number of ways. Winning to many is defined as being successful in ones endeavor.

Deso was ticking near 0 last week during the night AFAIK, we were being spawn camped, but eventually pushed SFR back and took the keep back, which felt as good or better than ticking high I feel.

People would take this scoring system seriously if we had close MUs and if it had more meaning.

Straegen.2938:

ykyk.2740:

Winning in WvW is having the highest total score at the end of the matchup. This isn’t up for debate, it’s the only visible score for a reason.

Only server winning is defined that way. Individual victory can be achieved any number of ways. Winning to many is defined as being successful in ones endeavor.

Yes, but your question was “how do you define winning in WvW”. There is only one answer to that.

What you are describing would be winning open-field fights, or small scale engagements, or even a prolonged battle over a key objective. These are all perfectly fine ways to have fun and most of the time is all you can ask for in a scoring mode as inherently flawed as WvW. Nevertheless, that’s not how winning in WvW is defined.

What you are saying is equivalent to suggesting that in any other competition, the losing team (who lose as described by the rules of the game) can claim they won because of some arbitrary measure they defined – such as they “had more fun” or “played better even though they lost”. Nobody will take them seriously. That’s not how competition works, no matter how flawed WvW’s brand of “competition” is.

Straegen.2938:

Only server winning is defined that way. Individual victory can be achieved any number of ways. Winning to many is defined as being successful in ones endeavor.

The problem with WvW is that one can be successful in their endeavors (e.g., getting dolyaks to sites and upgrading them) and even successful in terms of points while one is playing, yet the game will tell you that you are not winning or are a loser through rewards and points. I lose gold when I spend my day doing defensive housekeeping in WvW while the players out fighting in the field are getting gold, equipment drops, karma, and so on. Yes, I may feel like a winner when I get the dolyaks into a tower to complete the door upgrade and I might even get a gold medal on my screen when I get a dolyak in to it’s final destination, but the game makes me spend money to run upgrades and gives me no loot for successfully running dolyaks, so the game is telling me I’m a loser. And yes, I may feel like a winner when my server controls SMC and we are earning more points per tick than the other servers, but the total score showing us 20,000 points behind tells a different story, that we are the losers. That disconnect is a problem.

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women

John.4879:

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women

First Conan quote… you sir win the coveted Eye of the Serpent ruby!