Guild Wars 2

nice to see another poll. i just looked over the choices and tbh, it’s going to be challenging to pick just one. they all seem important to me!

i’ll have to think it over and come back to the poll.

Can you clarify what the first option means? is this just increasing the contribution of PPK, or is there more to it?

Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)

“Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)”

It may be the longest to develop … but this is something that may have the most interesting impact for renewed interest in the match.

mcarswell.3768:

Can you clarify what the first option means? is this just increasing the contribution of PPK, or is there more to it?

Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)

It looks like it just PPK, yaks and sentries. But it is a good start in marginalizing PPT. But without points per capture and points per upgrade, things will be ugly for a while.

I wish I could vote for this options plus PPC and PPU.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

For more information on the options in the poll, I recommend checking out Tyler’s Let’s Talk Scoring Thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Let-s-Talk-Scoring

You guys should have pointed out that 1st option is covering the “night capping” inside the poll.

Wow. It looks like people are voting for the major (large) change that doesn’t fix the underlying problems of PPT or population imbalances and will most likely be irreversible due to its complexity.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Changes to Match Structure:

• We’ll split the week long matches into 2 hour time slices we are calling ‘Skirmishes’
• Warscore is used to determine the winner of a Skirmish
• Skirmishes award varying amounts of Victory Points based on placement
• Victory Points are used to determine Match victor
• When a Skirmish ends, Warscore is reset, but actual map-state remains unchanged

The smaller changes that marginalize PPT would be a better option. But oh well.

https://feedback.guildwars2.com/en/results

The alternatives are not at all clear. It would have been better if each option was illustrated with options from Tyler’s mail.

At the moment people are left to basically guess which options are in which category or they simply vote for the ‘goal’, I.e. less imbalance, and maybe Anet then misinterpret that as a vote for a specific (but unspecified!) option.

Jong.5937:

The alternatives are not at all clear. It would have been better if each option was illustrated with options from Tyler’s mail.

At the moment people are left to basically guess which options are in which category or they simply vote for the ‘goal’ I.e. less imbalance and maybe Anet then misinterpret that as a vote for a specific (but unspecified!) option.

they should have also bundled some of those small and medium effort things together. Non-PPT rebalancing, Points per capture, and scaled scoring for upgrades should have all been together as non-PPT scoring options.

This poll was set up to ensure a particular outcome … Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)

it sort of looks like a political poll :P

yeah this poll is terrible. it’s not clear what these options actually entail.

i don’t think people voting for “Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)” understand that this is what everyone was railing against in the other scoring thread…

I have two concerns about this type of poll:

• Large-, medium-, and small-effort proposals have equal weight. Shouldn’t the ‘small’ options be grouped as “this change + 2-3 other small-effort, notable changes not listed” and the ‘large’ as “this change + 0 other notable changes”?
• The focus seems to emphasize ‘scoring’ as opposed to ‘encouraging good fights’. I’d hate to see a great scoring system developed unless it also led to more and better fights (as opposed to the current and past situations in which commanders were motivated to avoid fights). Balancing for PPK/PPT, population, participation etc is good, but ultimately dispiriting if it doesn’t also lead to more exciting & dynamic match-ups.

In other words, it’s great to give players a voice in choosing among the directions y’all are considering. Let’s also make sure that the players recognize the most obvious trade-offs that need to be made, with the end goal of the most interesting WvW possible.

My question would be: Is only one of these things going to ever be done? So if we choose one of the small ones, PPK for example, does that mean nothing else is going to be done next?

Or is this poll just asking which one they should start with and there will be other polls for which to do next?

Email account needs purging again!

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We plan to do everything on the poll. This poll is to help us set priorities of what order you would like to see them.

Really pleased you’re doing it this way. I think giving options will alleviate the angst and you can always point to polling results in future.

If you don’t like the time slice scoring and prefer another method then don’t vote for it, vote for one of the other points options. Get your guild and server mates to vote now or forever hold your peace.

1. Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level
(Medium time frame)
-T3 upgraded structures will have a higher PPT.

2. Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick
(Small time frame)
-Increased points for PPK and killing yaks and sentries.

3. Implement scoring for objective capture
(Small time frame)
-Points for object captures, more points for a higher tier structure.

4. Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population
(Large time frame)
-The skirmish time slice scoring and possibly the controversial action level change.

5. Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities
(Medium time frame)
-Last Stand catch up mechanic.

6. Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes
(Small time frame)
-More ticks, more points.

7. No preference
-You like chocolate frosted vanilla cake with colored sprinkles.

P.S Am I the only one who has a hard time noticing new sticky links on top of the forums? Maybe new red links should start with a sticky and then later placed up there after it’s been a few days, I’m sure it would get enough bumps to stay up. I just tend to ignore that small top part for some reason lol.

Xenesis.6389:

If you don’t like the time slice scoring and prefer another method then don’t vote for it, vote for one of the other points options. Get your guild and server mates to vote now or forever hold your peace.

1. Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level
(Medium time frame)
-T3 upgraded structures will have a higher PPT.

2. Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick
(Small time frame)
-Increased points for PPK and killing yaks and sentries.

3. Implement scoring for objective capture
(Small time frame)
-Points for object captures, more points for a higher tier structure.

4. Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population
(Large time frame)
-The skirmish time slice scoring and possibly the controversial action level change.

5. Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities
(Medium time frame)
-Last Stand catch up mechanic.

6. Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes
(Small time frame)
-More ticks, more points.

7. No preference
-You like chocolate frosted vanilla cake with colored sprinkles.

P.S Am I the only one who has a hard time noticing new sticky links on top of the forums? Maybe new red links should start with a sticky and then later placed up there after it’s been a few days, I’m sure it would get enough bumps to stay up. I just tend to ignore that small top part for some reason lol.

+1

Xenesis, thank you for your post! It helps with tying the bullets point in the “Let’s Talk Scoring” thread to survey choices available!

Many thanks, brother!

I voted for rebalancing points that aren’t in ppt because it was closest to what I really want, which is to change scoring so that playing for fights and playing for score are the same thing.

Making it fair and encouraging that we play for score won’t improve anything if we can’t have fun playing for score.

I disagree with the decision that it was fine to use 3 colors for a 7 choice pie chart.

Guess I shouldn’t nitpick over something so trivial, but someone should add some definition to the edges of the pie chart pieces. There are two same-colored pieces next to each other from the last piece being the restart of the pattern. (Yes, I do know I can look at the numbers instead.)

This poll is extremely ambiguous. What does adjust scoring based on population mean? It is a reference to the OPTIONAL proposal in Tyler’s post about scoring which was not meant to be looked at until the other options had been implemented?

Given that we had a poll to look at scoring followed up by Tyler’s post why is this poll even necessary? Shouldn’t you be looking at implementing what Tyler stated rather than breaking it down even further?

ETA ok I’ve seen the explanation in Tyler’s thread but I still wonder why this poll is even necessary, just implement what Tyler stated you were going to in total rather than piecemeal. You seem to be taking the idea of polling to an extreme.

@morrolan – I think this is the priority of the things mentioned. the choices were not very clear when compared to tyler’s entire list though…. nothing jumped out as 2 hour time slices to mitigate the runaway scores when population is extremely unbalanced (and yes that could be na prime for some servers)

PS: I still think linking beta should be resolved first. Either de-link or set the rules for re-linking (frequency / how the links are made).

Alot of ppl will vote for “Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population” cse red names always look more and they getting blobbed by ranger pets.

I’m in 6,6% of voters. Daamn.

I must say this list of options is really nice to see. I myself are torn between helping servers who are down in points and giving more reward to higher tier items.

I did vote on the helping losing servers option, however I hope you’ll still work on the more point for higher tiers. This is a feature I have been wanting in the game for years now, and I belive it would make players value keeping thing defended over the usuall “they take it, we take it, repeat” that’s been happening."

Wording of the poll was designed purposefully to kill OCX / SEA.

When you let the majority screw over the minority you get garbage. It’s now official, the only thing that matters in WvW is the zerg. You can kiss this game goodbye.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Wow. It looks like people are voting for the major (large) change that doesn’t fix the underlying problems of PPT or population imbalances and will most likely be irreversible due to its complexity.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Changes to Match Structure:

• We’ll split the week long matches into 2 hour time slices we are calling ‘Skirmishes’
• Warscore is used to determine the winner of a Skirmish
• Skirmishes award varying amounts of Victory Points based on placement
• Victory Points are used to determine Match victor
• When a Skirmish ends, Warscore is reset, but actual map-state remains unchanged

The smaller changes that marginalize PPT would be a better option. But oh well.

https://feedback.guildwars2.com/en/results

Because “Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)” uses off hours players as scapegoats and blames it on the night capping boogeyman. It turns the issue into an “us and them” situation and it’s very easy not to care about them.

The combination of the other options is a much fairer way of balancing score than simply changing the formula to hide the presence of players outside of the privileged prime-time. The other options work towards a scoring system which seems to reward active scoring and successfully capturing objectives. This would naturally result in more PPT during times where there are more players to actively play and capture things (as long as they genuinely try to cap instead of farming OJs which is what is currently done by the majority of people), but it does this without changing the scoring formula to decide that holding a camp is worth more during six hours of the day than it is during the other 18. Everyone can equally participate in changes to how score is actively valued (even things like PPK ensure more populated time zones are worth more points without reducing the score awarded for the same thing done by less populated periods).

The leading vote in the poll is basically “us and them”. It says the accomplishments of a guild actively defending and holding their borderlands during the wrong time of the day is valued less than those of an NA guild doing the same thing. It says a guild which ninjas a borderlands during prime-time hours is worth more than one that does it against active defense during the other 18 hours of the day.

Instead of focusing on the biggest issue (population imbalance – taking a tower defended by five or 20 people isn’t that different if you have five or 20 people on your side as well) or focusing on how to actively reward player actions (which would be equal for all times of the day) we are voting to hide the impact of population imbalance from the score. It won’t go away, it will just be less visible and probably less likely to be fixed.

I’m a little worried what a fix for night capping/coverage would bring. A server or zerg shouldn’t be crippled because they have more players at a given time, that will draw them away from playing at all. That or it forcing them to split up zergs just to keep the same advantage.

I do like the idea of separating the ticks up more though. I think that even though I might lose everything while I sleep, I would feel better knowing I did a lot while I was on.

Polls really are needed, and I appreciate that Anet is finally using them. I have been frustrated though they have been ignoring the many different solutions offered by numerous people that would improve the game in lieu of ones that will cause further decline. There are better solutions than what Anet is offering players to choose from.

I do however, think these polls have been poorly done and the options are not very good. I do not see anything alternative that the bad system they originally proposed being proposed. Rather than giving different options for how to best solve the issues, it forces you to choose between bad options that are less than clear to most voting on what that entails. " current" population, for example, does not mean the same thing to players as it does to the developers.

Thanks for the polls, but if they continue to prop up a failed passive scoring system rather than value all of their players equally, of course the game will decline long term. I have not seen options being offered that drop the passive scoring that is causing the runaway score in the first place. Creating more of a mess on top of the problem before trying to come back and fix it later doesn’t help the situation, it makes it worse.

Bad options are just bad. :\

It should never be considered by a developer to “poll” to devalue the efforts of another player. It was stated " we will poll for this later" on a issue that should have never even been considered due to that not treating players equally. Putting a system in place with that even being considered down the road rather than address the actual problem causing this ( passive scoring) is just not thinking ahead of where this ends.

3-2-1 / 5-3-2 – 2 hour time slice scoring may prevent runaway scores, but unfortunately that is lumped in with action level issue. you would think they could run the time slice scoring against old matches and see if it makes any difference at all. present the comparison and the consumer can make an informed decision….

Sorry, I totally do not understand the purpose of this polling. Isn’t the changes supposedly comprehensive and not selective parts?

SkyShroud.2865:

Sorry, I totally do not understand the purpose of this polling. Isn’t the changes supposedly comprehensive and not selective parts?

the poll is the order they implement. the changes will be introduced piecemeal and not after all changes are done…..

Aww, the dictatorship of the many…

None of these choices really appeal to me.

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)
Lot of work over something that has high of chance going horribly wrong, benefits being controversial… just steer away from this option.

Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes (Small)
This only fixes the tiny issue where capturing an objective just before tick grants few extra points. I assume the objective PPT would be lowered to match the timer, so that for example towers yield 3 and 1/3 points per tick – messy.

Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities (Medium)
This could dilute the currently very active weekend period after the reset.

Implement scoring for objective capture (Small)
No. This has been thoroughly tested in EotM and the results are clear: no defending, avoid fights, blob up and k-train.

Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level (Medium)
Since most of the passive points are from dolyaks, only changing the objective PPT amounts to very little effect.

If on the other hand the PPT from T3 objectives is set very high, for example PPT^Tier:

• non-upgrade objectives would be ignored
• servers would stack up forces on T3 objectives only
• waypointing monoblob between maps to flash capture T3 objectives would become preferred strategy

Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)
This probably means increasing points from player kills, sentry kills and dolyak kills. Increasing PPK by large amount can lead to situation where players avoid any fighting when the odds do not greatly favor them. When objectives are no longer the main source of points, why would any commander choose to go near siege fire?

No preference
Could this be reworded as Do not implement any of the above?

Edit: My vote went to the 5-min timer as it seems to do the least harm.

I have to say it’s great to have this level of interaction with the team, but this poll is bad.

After all the discussion on scoring, I could see two polls that might have worked:

1. “OK, thanks for all your ideas! Here are some of yours and some of ours, tidied up a bit and consolidated. They span the full range of ideas expressed. Please let us know which path you think we should take.”

2. “We’ve read all your comments and thought about them. Here are our revised suggestions. Please vote on them.”

The current poll_sounds_ like they have just ignored the feverish discussion on scoring, which they initiated, are just going ahead with their original ideas and all we get to do is set the order in which they are done. It may not be like that, but as we’ve had no feedback at all on the “talk scoring” thread, what are we supposed to think? At the very least this poll should have been backed by a document which defined what each of the options now meant.

Korgov.7645:

Aww, the dictatorship of the many…

None of these choices really appeal to me.

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)
Lot of work over something that has high of chance going horribly wrong, benefits being controversial… just steer away from this option.

Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes (Small)
This only fixes the tiny issue where capturing an objective just before tick grants few extra points. I assume the objective PPT would be lowered to match the timer, so that for example towers yield 3 and 1/3 points per tick – messy.

Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities (Medium)
This could dilute the currently very active weekend period after the reset.

Implement scoring for objective capture (Small)
No. This has been thoroughly tested in EotM and the results are clear: no defending, avoid fights, blob up and k-train.

Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level (Medium)
Since most of the passive points are from dolyaks, only changing the objective PPT amounts to very little effect.

If on the other hand the PPT from T3 objectives is set very high, for example PPT^Tier:

• non-upgrade objectives would be ignored
• servers would stack up forces on T3 objectives only
• waypointing monoblob between maps to flash capture T3 objectives would become preferred strategy

Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)
This probably means increasing points from player kills, sentry kills and dolyak kills. Increasing PPK by large amount can lead to situation where players avoid any fighting when the odds do not greatly favor them. When objectives are no longer the main source of points, why would any commander choose to go near siege fire?

No preference
Could this be reworded as Do not implement any of the above?

Edit: My vote went to the 5-min timer as it seems to do the least harm.

This is a real problem. You have had to make loads of assumptions here, some of which we know are wrong.For example, ANet have already said in another post that ppk is included in option 1. Not your fault, as we are all in the dark.

I really think that, if this poll is to be any use, it needs to be removed, reworded and reposted!

mcarswell.3768:

i don’t think people voting for “Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)” understand that this is what everyone was railing against in the other scoring thread…

Ehm.. ‘everyone’? I really think it is better to have lower scores when there are less people playing.. it doesn’t make sense to award points per tick for structures when nobody is fighting over them.

Sirendor.1394:

mcarswell.3768:

i don’t think people voting for “Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)” understand that this is what everyone was railing against in the other scoring thread…

Ehm.. ‘everyone’? I really think it is better to have lower scores when there are less people playing.. it doesn’t make sense to award points per tick for structures when nobody is fighting over them.

You are still awarding points per tick when no one is fighting over them proposed in this system.. People fighting over the objectives is not even being addressed. They left passive scoring in the game, they just wish to treat players unequal over it instead.

You PvD undefended objectives during the right time of day = WIN! You PvD during the wrong time of day = LOSE!

Nothing at all in this system encourages players to not PvD at all. The proposed systems by multiple players addressed that issue, but not the one people are voting for here.

The cause is rewarding PvD at all, that didn’t change at all, just when you are allowed to do it changed. Some players PvD is more valuable than others.. *.Shakes Pom Poms! GOO PvD PvD all you see is PvD! GOOO AC’s! = WIN YAY!

lil devils x.6071:

Sirendor.1394:

mcarswell.3768:

i don’t think people voting for “Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)” understand that this is what everyone was railing against in the other scoring thread…

Ehm.. ‘everyone’? I really think it is better to have lower scores when there are less people playing.. it doesn’t make sense to award points per tick for structures when nobody is fighting over them.

You are still awarding points per tick when no one is fighting over them proposed in this system.. People fighting over the objectives is not even being addressed. They left passive scoring in the game, they just wish to treat players unequal over it instead.

You PvD undefended objectives during the right time of day = WIN! You PvD during the wrong time of day = LOSE!

Nothing at all in this system encourages players to not PvD at all. The proposed systems by multiple players addressed that issue, but not the one people are voting for here.

Ok maybe I am wrong on this, but I thought the proposal included that when side A has high numbers but side B and C have low numbers, scores for side A will be lower too.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, also would like some developer answer on this, cause it’s not really clear.

Also Lil, I am not trying to defend PvD and passive scoring, because I personally find it a rather bad system, but maybe when they change the way PPT works (based on activity) there will be less PvD and karmatraining and more organised defenses and fights.

Sirendor.1394:

lil devils x.6071:

Sirendor.1394:

mcarswell.3768:

i don’t think people voting for “Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)” understand that this is what everyone was railing against in the other scoring thread…

Ehm.. ‘everyone’? I really think it is better to have lower scores when there are less people playing.. it doesn’t make sense to award points per tick for structures when nobody is fighting over them.

You are still awarding points per tick when no one is fighting over them proposed in this system.. People fighting over the objectives is not even being addressed. They left passive scoring in the game, they just wish to treat players unequal over it instead.

You PvD undefended objectives during the right time of day = WIN! You PvD during the wrong time of day = LOSE!

Nothing at all in this system encourages players to not PvD at all. The proposed systems by multiple players addressed that issue, but not the one people are voting for here.

Ok maybe I am wrong on this, but I thought the proposal included that when side A has high numbers but side B and C have low numbers, scores for side A will be lower too.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, also would like some developer answer on this, cause it’s not really clear.

---

Also Lil, I am not trying to defend PvD and passive scoring, because I personally find it a rather bad system, but maybe when they change the way PPT works (based on activity) there will be less PvD and karmatraining and more organised defenses and fights.

They stated the activity based scoring would be based around a" prime time" activity schedule of 6 hours, not on the actual prime time activity of those servers where depending on what time you play will determine how many total contribution points you can get per time slice.

Prime Time would be universal per datacenter. For example, all worlds in NA would have the same 6 hour period (of highest activity) as their Prime Time hours. All EU woulds would have a different 6 hour range for their Prime Time. ~Tyler Bearce

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Let-s-Talk-Scoring/first

( about half way down the first page Tyler addressed that issue)

So if you have activity outside that as your prime time.. your effort is not worth as much as the rest of the players.

The biggest issue is they are creating this system to keep the passive scoring propped up and are willing to treat players poorly to do so and they will not be able to remove it easily to solve it later..

Cementing in a system based on rewarding lazy game play isn’t fixing anything, it is only going to cause more problems..

EVEN worse, most the people responding in the poll do not even know this, so when Anet comes out says “This is what you asked for!” people may rage even further..

Voted! thanks for focusing on WvW Anet.

Sirendor.1394:

lil devils x.6071:

Sirendor.1394:

mcarswell.3768:

i don’t think people voting for “Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)” understand that this is what everyone was railing against in the other scoring thread…

Ehm.. ‘everyone’? I really think it is better to have lower scores when there are less people playing.. it doesn’t make sense to award points per tick for structures when nobody is fighting over them.

You are still awarding points per tick when no one is fighting over them proposed in this system.. People fighting over the objectives is not even being addressed. They left passive scoring in the game, they just wish to treat players unequal over it instead.

You PvD undefended objectives during the right time of day = WIN! You PvD during the wrong time of day = LOSE!

Nothing at all in this system encourages players to not PvD at all. The proposed systems by multiple players addressed that issue, but not the one people are voting for here.

Ok maybe I am wrong on this, but I thought the proposal included that when side A has high numbers but side B and C have low numbers, scores for side A will be lower too.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, also would like some developer answer on this, cause it’s not really clear.

---

Also Lil, I am not trying to defend PvD and passive scoring, because I personally find it a rather bad system, but maybe when they change the way PPT works (based on activity) there will be less PvD and karmatraining and more organised defenses and fights.

Anet has said that PPT is here to stay unfortunately. The best we can hope for is for them to marginalize its impact by incorporating more activity based scoring.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Sirendor.1394:

lil devils x.6071:

Sirendor.1394:

mcarswell.3768:

i don’t think people voting for “Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)” understand that this is what everyone was railing against in the other scoring thread…

Ehm.. ‘everyone’? I really think it is better to have lower scores when there are less people playing.. it doesn’t make sense to award points per tick for structures when nobody is fighting over them.

You are still awarding points per tick when no one is fighting over them proposed in this system.. People fighting over the objectives is not even being addressed. They left passive scoring in the game, they just wish to treat players unequal over it instead.

You PvD undefended objectives during the right time of day = WIN! You PvD during the wrong time of day = LOSE!

Nothing at all in this system encourages players to not PvD at all. The proposed systems by multiple players addressed that issue, but not the one people are voting for here.

Ok maybe I am wrong on this, but I thought the proposal included that when side A has high numbers but side B and C have low numbers, scores for side A will be lower too.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, also would like some developer answer on this, cause it’s not really clear.

---

Also Lil, I am not trying to defend PvD and passive scoring, because I personally find it a rather bad system, but maybe when they change the way PPT works (based on activity) there will be less PvD and karmatraining and more organised defenses and fights.

Anet has said that PPT is here to stay unfortunately. The best we can hope for is for them to marginalize its impact by incorporating more activity based scoring.

YUP, they said the DBLs were too. How you like ’em Alpines? You do not change things by shutting up about it.

Moving PPT to every 5 min.. how about every min? Then remove the buildings adding to the score just sitting there. they can have the caps add a small amount, but not the building just sitting there.. Oh yea then it isn’t PPT anymore it is action based.

Liston.9708:

SkyShroud.2865:

Sorry, I totally do not understand the purpose of this polling. Isn’t the changes supposedly comprehensive and not selective parts?

the poll is the order they implement. the changes will be introduced piecemeal and not after all changes are done…..

And isn’t that bad? All the mentioned changes affect the overall scoring. They might be working good as a whole together but it might perform really bad in parts. Thus, using incremental approach is questionable.

Jong.5937:

Korgov.7645:

Aww, the dictatorship of the many…

None of these choices really appeal to me.

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)
Lot of work over something that has high of chance going horribly wrong, benefits being controversial… just steer away from this option.

Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes (Small)
This only fixes the tiny issue where capturing an objective just before tick grants few extra points. I assume the objective PPT would be lowered to match the timer, so that for example towers yield 3 and 1/3 points per tick – messy.

Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities (Medium)
This could dilute the currently very active weekend period after the reset.

Implement scoring for objective capture (Small)
No. This has been thoroughly tested in EotM and the results are clear: no defending, avoid fights, blob up and k-train.

Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level (Medium)
Since most of the passive points are from dolyaks, only changing the objective PPT amounts to very little effect.

If on the other hand the PPT from T3 objectives is set very high, for example PPT^Tier:

• non-upgrade objectives would be ignored
• servers would stack up forces on T3 objectives only
• waypointing monoblob between maps to flash capture T3 objectives would become preferred strategy

Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)
This probably means increasing points from player kills, sentry kills and dolyak kills. Increasing PPK by large amount can lead to situation where players avoid any fighting when the odds do not greatly favor them. When objectives are no longer the main source of points, why would any commander choose to go near siege fire?

No preference
Could this be reworded as Do not implement any of the above?

Edit: My vote went to the 5-min timer as it seems to do the least harm.

This is a real problem. You have had to make loads of assumptions here, some of which we know are wrong.For example, ANet have already said in another post that ppk is included in option 1. Not your fault, as we are all in the dark.

I really think that, if this poll is to be any use, it needs to be removed, reworded and reposted!

Yes, it was not easy to connect the voting items to items discussed in that other thread.

Tyler elaborated on 2 items:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Let-s-Talk-Scoring/page/11#post6152807

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)
This actually means Skirmishes – 2 hour time slices that grant Victory Points.

This is not so bad in itself. It will prevent empty maps ticking points for the nightcappers to some extent. The nightcapping team will still hold majority of objectives which are not reset so they are likely to win the following Skirmishes, too. I’m not all that sure this is worth the (Large) effort and more complex points system.

However ANet also intends to reward both the winner and the second server for each Skirmish. This means the blue server will focus on red instead of trying to win which ruins the 3-way battle. This is no different from current system where you take points where you most easily get them instead of fighting off your closest competition.

Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)
This means increasing PPK to 3, or even to 5, and increasing sentry kill and dolyak kill and delivery rewards.

Anet intends to implement 5 minute immunity which opens possibility to exploit the system.

5 PPK is not that terrible, but there is also plans to reduce objective PPT. This can lead to situation where commanders avoid fighting anywhere near enemy towers; defenders run away from keep as soon as gates fall to avoid dying at a desperate lord fight.

lil devils x.6071:

YUP, they said the DBLs were too. How you like ’em Alpines? You do not change things by shutting up about it.

They said at the start they wanted to rotate them. They just took their fine time about it. I accept all the complaints got changes to the maps and Alpine brought back earlier than it would otherwise.

lil devils x.6071:

How you like ’em Alpines? You do not change things by shutting up about it.

This is like nails on a chalkboard for me.

Gaming companies really do have to nip this kind of thinking in the butt. The “if I yell long and loudly enough, they’ll cave” mentality is a scourge to every MMO out there.

@Jayne

ANet did the right thing…concerning this particular outcry about Alpine maps by WvW players…imho…

Diku

p.s.
I’d like to teach…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib-Qiyklq-Q

It would be nice if ANet can later actively swap out Classic Coke & New Coke maps to keep it entertaining for both lovers of “Coke”.

Jayne.9251:

lil devils x.6071:

How you like ’em Alpines? You do not change things by shutting up about it.

This is like nails on a chalkboard for me.

Gaming companies really do have to nip this kind of thinking in the butt. The “if I yell long and loudly enough, they’ll cave” mentality is a scourge to every MMO out there.

Nope, not at all. If you know the History in MMO’s you would know EXACTLY what happens when they don’t cave. The SWG CU Riots.. The dev didn’t cave, the game died and closed due to them “sticking to their guns.” Players should ALWAYS voice their happiness/ dissatisfaction with a game. Leaving because you are not happy with their decisions without saying anything isn’t helping the devs know how to fix the problem. Speaking up IS how you save it.

You kill your game fastest by not listening to the players.

ANet needs to do a better job on how they manage doing these Polls & How they use it to implement changes…imho.

I just want to say that I really like that you include the amount of work involved for each so that people can make an informed vote.

Well thank you for listening to our opinions, it’s nice to see Anet looking for feedback.

I do however have concerns about this poll. The “Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)” option should have been left off this poll. As it was previous announced as a controversial maybe it really shouldn’t be the first priority.

After the other options had been sorted by priority, Implemented and reviewed. Then a poll for whether or not to implement this option giving full details of what that means should have been done. The problem with putting such a controversial option on this poll with 5 other options, mean those for it have one voting option, those against it have 5 options. Something as controversial as reducing the impact of non NA players really should be a straight Yes or No vote.

As a player outside of the US i’m deeply concerned about what such changes would do for the game mode.