Guild Wars 2

I approve of this, specially of the point value to population %:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/A-possible-solution-to-WvW-score-problem-not-just-the-nightcapping/first#post259604
:)

I’m Tatsumi and I approve this message!

love the idea, it makes Wv3 more balanced and based on a servers skill even if a server exploits night capping to win

Great ideas Ascii, It’d be great if they got implemented!

bravo +1 from me

I still don’t see how point scaling based on population can be considered fair. What makes a 500v500v500 battle any better than a 100v100v100 battle?

Tzash.5748:

I still don’t see how point scaling based on population can be considered fair. What makes a 500v500v500 battle any better than a 100v40v20 battle?

There i fixed it for you^^^

Ranc.7192:

Tzash.5748:

I still don’t see how point scaling based on population can be considered fair. What makes a 500v500v500 battle any better than a 100v40v20 battle?

There i fixed it for you^^^

Haha. This.
Really really great suggestions that would plain out make WvW, the reason i bought this game, worth playing.

Ranc.7192:

Tzash.5748:

I still don’t see how point scaling based on population can be considered fair. What makes a 500v500v500 battle any better than a 100v40v20 battle?

There i fixed it for you^^^

Totally missing the point, and doing so with pure conjecture at that since you will not find any facts to consistently support your numbers. Population imbalances are different to total population, but the OP specifically referred to scaling based on total pop.

Point value for % population is not a reasonable fix. How you describe it, it would even treat a 500v50v50 the same as a 200v200v200.

Changing the outmanned buff is also not a reasonable fix. It would ruin the fun of all those guys out there enjoying 1v1 and other small encounters. There are better fixes to the underlying problem, and they are well known to game developers as many games have faced the same problem. Have faith that ArenaNet developers can do their job and implement a better solution. They have shown you the amazing talent they have, so give them at least a little credit.

Ascii.9726:

@ Richard.8207 Just wow lol. I forgot world vs world is about 1v1’s /facepalm.

And if you actually read the post rather then skimming it, you would see the population scaling idea is dependent on TOTAL population, not current.

( assuming 100 people per borderland per server)
Prime-time: 1,200 people / 1,200 people = 100% full instance = 100% full point value.

Night-Time: 80, 70, 70, 50 for one server, 50, 20, 40, 10 for another server, 20, 30, 30, 10 for the last server: 480 / 1,200 people = 40% full instance = 40% point values for objectives.

Its simple mathematics really.

So the last server, outmanned on every map, only gets 40% for capturing objectives, despite the fact that its probably harder for them than their prime time counterparts.

Your simple mathematics don’t quite add up.

Ascii.9726:

Just wow lol. I forgot world vs world is about 1v1’s /facepalm.

If you’re going to just dismiss how anyone else plays the game because it is not how you play the game, there is really no point talking about the issue with you. The developers clearly intended WvW to have things for smaller groups to do, hence the objectives they can accomplish with a small group.

Ascii.9726:

And if you actually read the post rather then skimming it, you would see the population scaling idea is dependent on TOTAL population, not current.

( assuming 100 people per borderland per server)
Prime-time: 1,200 people / 1,200 people = 100% full instance = 100% full point value.

Night-Time: 80, 70, 70, 50 for one server, 50, 20, 40, 10 for another server, 20, 30, 30, 10 for the last server: 480 / 1,200 people = 40% full instance = 40% point values for objectives.

Its simple mathematics really.

Here’s the problem. On Henge, we can easily fill 500 slots of the total 600 (if 600 is the total allowed in a map) even if the opponents are mostly asleep and only fielding 50 players each.

And as others have pointed out, there is absolutely no reason to implement a system that rewards a fair 100v100v100 fight as somehow only half as important as a 200v200v200 fight. If you reflect on what others are saying about your idea, perhaps you can improve it rather than relying on just insulting everyone?

Ascii.9726:

It’s not meant to make the whole idea of WvW easier, if your server is undermanned then you will hold less objectives on the map regardless. The principle behind the idea is to not allow the night-capping server to gain massive, uncatachable leads in points during periods were they have no competition.

Undermanned teams already face an uphill battle and yet you want to further marginalise their efforts. Frankly if a team has to put in 4 times the effort then they should be rewarded 4 times more, not punished.

And the myth that all night-capping teams face no competition needs to stop. It is unsubstantiated and only parroted about by those people who do not play in off peak so have no idea what they are talking about.

omg a post that is formatted correctly! IT HAS BULLETS!…and BOLD TITLES!

God the forums are ruined now T.T

Point Value to Population %: At the moment all point values of objects on the map are fixed, this means during off peak hours the ‘Night-capping’ guilds take advantage of outnumbering the enemy and capture major points holding them for 12+ hours and earning a huge lead on the sleeping enemies. A simple fix to this would be scaling values depending on the total population of the 3 servers in the 4 borderlands.

exactly what i’d prefer for the ranking!

So basically you are asking them to rework WvW, which is a small niche in a huge game. I would bet you will see an expansion to the game before all the issues addressed here see any fixes.

The game is what it is. More want to play WvW than there are slots for. If I have a line out the door I am not spending my time and money messing with my product.

I see people are complaining about the outmanned buff suggestion, well, here’s to that.

As it is now, it’s totally useless. By giving stats, you think it’d ruin the 1v1 situations.
A possible fix to the 1v1 and smaller group vs smaller group situations considering it’d grant stats is, only assign Outmanned buff with 2 conditions:

- The server has at least 50% less players in that borderland than the most populated one.
- Assign it to zones only, not to the whole map. As in, if Server A is sieging Dreaming Bay outside prime time, and Server B is on low population AND they are greatly outnumbered in the Dreaming Bay zone aswell, they get a stat boost.

Thoughts?

Ascii.9726:

And if you actually read the post rather then skimming it, you would see the population scaling idea is dependent on TOTAL population, not current.

( assuming 100 people per borderland per server)
Prime-time: 1,200 people / 1,200 people = 100% full instance = 100% full point value.

Night-Time: 80, 70, 70, 50 for one server, 50, 20, 40, 10 for another server, 20, 30, 30, 10 for the last server: 480 / 1,200 people = 40% full instance = 40% point values for objectives.

Its simple mathematics really.

Here’s the problem. On Henge, we can easily fill 500 slots of the total 600 (if 600 is the total allowed in a map) even if the opponents are mostly asleep and only fielding 50 players each.

Agreed, that is indeed the problem. When all 3 servers are at maximum capacity, then the fight is fair and whoever is a “better” server gets more points, but typically not by a large margin. However, during non-peak hours, when Henge (and its relatively over-sized Oceanic population) have 500/600 while the two other servers (whose North American based population – as expected from North American servers [not that its the Oceanic populations fault that Anet has forced them to choose between NA and EU] – is sleeping) are fielding 50 -as you stated- means that for at least 6 hours, Henge receives more points with no effort than the other two servers could possibly earn during 6 hours at peak play time, when all three servers are equally represented. By decreasing the points earned during non-peak hours, it helps equalize population distribution by time.

It is unfortunate that then a 100v100v100 fight would also earn fewer points…I don’t have any statistics on how common this kind of battle is compared to 150v100v50 and maximum capacity battles, but I find that there are Q’s for most of the times at which I play.

@OP
completely agreed on all the points.

Richard.8207:

Point value for % population is not a reasonable fix. How you describe it, it would even treat a 500v50v50 the same as a 200v200v200.

Changing the outmanned buff is also not a reasonable fix. It would ruin the fun of all those guys out there enjoying 1v1 and other small encounters. There are better fixes to the underlying problem, and they are well known to game developers as many games have faced the same problem. Have faith that ArenaNet developers can do their job and implement a better solution. They have shown you the amazing talent they have, so give them at least a little credit.

haha oh man, you’re so wrong I can’t even start to point how wrong you are, about everything.