WvW Scoring Format
Like I suggested many times: a very easy way to solve this, is make objectives less worth (PPT wise) when their are lesser enemies in the zone.
So a zone with both enemies having queues (so full) you get the normal score for objectives you hold. Having almost none enemies in the zone means you get almost 0 points for your objectives in the zone.
Like I suggested many times: a very easy way to solve this, is make objectives less worth (PPT wise) when their are lesser enemies in the zone.
So a zone with both enemies having queues (so full) you get the normal score for objectives you hold. Having almost none enemies in the zone means you get almost 0 points for your objectives in the zone.
That means a server plays and has a massive lead after the weekend, where almost all servers have full zones, then avoid wvw for the rest of the week and win, because enemy doesn’t get points?
Sounds wrong.
[RG]
Why not just remove whole scoring system. I don’t see why www need it.
Low quality trolling since launch
Seafarer’s Rest EotM grinch
Seafarer’s Rest EotM grinch
Like I suggested many times: a very easy way to solve this, is make objectives less worth (PPT wise) when their are lesser enemies in the zone.
So a zone with both enemies having queues (so full) you get the normal score for objectives you hold. Having almost none enemies in the zone means you get almost 0 points for your objectives in the zone.That means a server plays and has a massive lead after the weekend, where almost all servers have full zones, then avoid wvw for the rest of the week and win, because enemy doesn’t get points?
Sounds wrong.
there are 3 servers. Even if the server who plays best during the weekend decides not to play during the rest of the week (if they can manage it, so even the players who don’t care about the points stay out of wvw) Then the other 2 servers still get points because of the other server players being online.
They even could add the points difference to the point calculations.. having x points more then 2nd server means the ppt calcultation sees it as y players online all the time.
a good portion of these players playing in the off-hours for the sake of the server go to classes, have families, jobs, bills, etc.
players within the same timezone don’t all share the same off-hours, even those with jobs/school/family.
If a player chooses to prioritize game time over other responsibilities, that’s on them.
Should other players really be locked out from WvW just because their playtime window is within what you consider to be “off-hours”?
GamersWithJobs [GWJ]
Northern Shiverpeaks
Northern Shiverpeaks
You got no choice but to accept that 24/7 wvw is what it is. You can’t expect ANET to stop wvw from being 24/7 just because SOME people can’t make it. EU players cant play in NA time and NA players can’t play in EU time. Seems pretty fair to me. It’s not the 24/7 wvw that hurts, its the coverage that hurts
Gumiho/Warrior Dessivie/Mesmer
I’m just a dolyak with presents on its back.
Ex-Kaineng→ IOJ Magnificient
I’m just a dolyak with presents on its back.
Ex-Kaineng→ IOJ Magnificient
Changing the scoring would not really solve anything. In the current server based system, population imbalance and coverage will always make some matchups less fun no matter how the scoring is shifted around.
Sarcasm For Hire [SFH]
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
Like I suggested many times: a very easy way to solve this, is make objectives less worth (PPT wise) when their are lesser enemies in the zone.
So a zone with both enemies having queues (so full) you get the normal score for objectives you hold. Having almost none enemies in the zone means you get almost 0 points for your objectives in the zone.
And every time that you or someone else suggests that, you ignore all the reasons other people point out why it won’t work … not to mention being virtually impossible to implement. Just look at the lag we get every time the bloodlust buff needs to be recalculated.
D/D Thief who prefers mobility to stealth … so yeah, I die a lot
Stormbluff Isle [AoD]
Stormbluff Isle [AoD]
A dynamic point system based on map population would be a good thing.
Right now servers rely heavily on PvD scoring in off-hours and gaining massive point leads just because their server has more players/coverage. Servers should be rewarded for having better organization/better guilds and players and NOT for coverage/population advantage.
The issue with server population imbalance will never be fixed its impossible.
If anet does it right – with a dynamic point system a server wouldnt just gain easy massive point lead which is in its current state impossible to catch up to for the losing server.
Without having a massive point lead the opposite servers are actually a threat. It gives the server with less coverage the chance to do pushes and fight for a better placement. Right now if a server has massive point leads there is no reason for the losing servers to bother entering wvw or fighting for a better place. With a dynamic point system it will come down to who is the actual better server in general and can sustain their ppt at all times and not just off-hour PvDing. We might even see more than 2 competitive matchups.
What a dynamic point system should not do is eliminating any point gain. It should just reduce it not more.
But i guess alot of ppl are just afraid of it that their server has to actually work for it to gain a good and sustained point lead.
As a sidenote that bs with my time is more value than yours and vice versa (which often comes up in threads like that) just cut that crap. It has nothin to do with a dynamic point system.
Changing the scoring would not really solve anything. In the current server based system, population imbalance and coverage will always make some matchups less fun no matter how the scoring is shifted around.
That’s not correct. Changing the scoring metric would lower the reward and score disparity of PvD play during off hours.
Though I will argue a dynamic system is much to prone to the player base gaming that system.
It’s an easy enough fix to reduce PPT for holdings to 20% of the total score. While incentivizing hard positions such as keeps and towers with a buff/bonus to something.
For those that remember early orb mechanics when someone had it, it was a straight up 2v1 on that keep till the orb was reset. I’m not saying the orb mechanic itself was great but the motivation of opposing servers to reset or take it was very high.
That is what gives value to hard positions even if PPT value is lower on them.
-KNT- BG
Scoring should be an active gameplay element not a passive gameplay element and the fix, as simple as it is, evades the dev team like a dog chasing it’s own tail.
Here’s what ya do. You gain points for capturing the point. No points per tick, just one lump sum of points paid to your server. Now if the point is under attack there’s this nifty thing that kicks off called an event, and the condition is to hold the position. The current rewards for this event are personal, but the result contributes to holding the point for PPT. But in a system without automatic PPT the only time the world gains points is for successfully defending the point. The amount of points is relative to the number of attackers and the type of point. If just one guy is contesting a keep by knocking on the door and someone defending repairs that door there’s not enough players to grant points to the defending team. Any group of 10 or more however should do a bronze tier point score (50% of max points) 15 or more should be silver (75% of max points), and 20 or more should be good (100% of max points).
Committing to defense awards points only if it’s being threatened, and if that attempt at defense succeeds. On the flip side committing to attacking a point awards points only if it succeeds, but the enemy will slowly be gaining points during the attack if they defend.
Also, turn off these ridiculous bloodlust buffs, but keep the points for stomps mechanic (2 points for any stomp) but also 1 point per kill, so open field combat can pay off big.
If this is done points accrued are relative to active fights, thus the more active fights the more potential points the fewer active fights the smaller the potential points. Basic. Simple. Uncomplicated.
Counters:
- Blob zerging for PPT
- Population Imbalance
- Playing the Clock
- Disincentive to Defend
- Unproductive Open Field Fights
- Genuinely Boring Meta to Win
Don’t even know why I bother posting this, they’re gonna do whatever they want to do regardless of the fierce opposition to it presented by the “vocal minority”…funny how if you speak up your a vocal minority and if you don’t your automatically a completely satisfied fan with no problems with the game at all… extremely hard to reason with that kind of logic -.-’
Circumventing profanity filters one kitten at a time.
Servers should be rewarded for having better organization/better guilds and players and NOT for coverage/population advantage.
To be honest, if they really wanted to make it even, they shouldn’t have made differences in servers as far as EU and NA because they don’t keep EU players in EU servers, and NA players in NA servers anyway.
Yeah, not all NA players have the same “off-hours” as one another, but it’s definitely closer than the difference between EU/Oceanic players. They could have made it an even playing field if off the bat, they didn’t label the servers NA and EU.
Anyway, I just came back to post because that person I quoted got the gist of my post. Coverage =/= Skill. But yeah, Anet don’t care about that.
Like I suggested many times: a very easy way to solve this, is make objectives less worth (PPT wise) when their are lesser enemies in the zone.
So a zone with both enemies having queues (so full) you get the normal score for objectives you hold. Having almost none enemies in the zone means you get almost 0 points for your objectives in the zone.
I like this very much, but I would tweak it slightly to have the comparison be total players in wvw vs. total players in wvw. Here is why.
Say servers A and B have the same number of people in wvw. Server A is kicking tails in server B BL. To relieve pressure, server B sends a team to go flip camps and towers in server A BL and force server A to either send some people from server B’s BL back to their home or lose points. In your system, B would get no points for the flipping but B would get full points for flipping them back, despite both populations being equal.
If a server gets PvDoored at any time of the day simply because they refuse to put troops in a particular BL, well they should lose points. It’s really PvDooring when the opponent is severely outnumbered that you want to avoid.
BTW, you would also have to have some sort of running metric regarding average number of people in the zone during the tick period or kittens would port large zergs out of WvW just before a tick period ends and then port back in once they had gained a giant chunk of score.
But you are on the right track.
They could have made it an even playing field if off the bat, they didn’t label the servers NA and EU.
They’re labeled that way to indicate to players where the data center is located, so players can make informed decisions based on probable latency issues.
GamersWithJobs [GWJ]
Northern Shiverpeaks
Northern Shiverpeaks
Committing to defense awards points only if it’s being threatened, and if that attempt at defense succeeds. On the flip side committing to attacking a point awards points only if it succeeds, but the enemy will slowly be gaining points during the attack if they defend.
The real problem with this is the fact that spies can have a huge impact. They can go feed a team points, by fake attacking a keep.
Also servers could decide to trade back and forth (somewhat hindered by RI) in an attempt to inflate their score.
In general I don’t think a population based metric will work, but I do think there should be some point based bonus to attacking a server that has a much higher score.
That’s not correct. Changing the scoring metric would lower the reward and score disparity of PvD play during off hours.
Though I will argue a dynamic system is much to prone to the player base gaming that system.
There are no “off hours” which is sort of the point. If 100v20 is happening at 4AM server time and 20v100 at 8PM server time, what are the off hours? Even if the scoring somehow becomes dynamic both servers will most likely end up in nearly the same spot fighting each other. Drop a strong Oceanic server down a few notches and they will be even more dominant at that time thus raising their score.
Then we get into servers who have a strong NA Prime Weekday against a servers with a strong NA Prime Weekends. How do we score them so they balance each other out? Even in a dynamic system probably right where they are now.
If we are after even matches, frankly the score should not determine the matchups and matchups should not be server based.
Sarcasm For Hire [SFH]
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
“Youre lips are movin and youre complaining about something thats wingeing.”
Committing to defense awards points only if it’s being threatened, and if that attempt at defense succeeds. On the flip side committing to attacking a point awards points only if it succeeds, but the enemy will slowly be gaining points during the attack if they defend.
The real problem with this is the fact that spies can have a huge impact. They can go feed a team points, by fake attacking a keep.
Also servers could decide to trade back and forth (somewhat hindered by RI) in an attempt to inflate their score.
In general I don’t think a population based metric will work, but I do think there should be some point based bonus to attacking a server that has a much higher score.
It would take no less than 10 spies attacking the keep to generate the 50% defense point score and only if there are at least 10 players defending. That being the case there’s nothing stopping players from griefing the event right now in exactly the way you describe. With enough spies you could queue an enemy BL and let your home server hold down the whole place while you costume brawl at spawn.
Circumventing profanity filters one kitten at a time.
just make the WvW match last 3 days a week. start on friday night, end on monday night. this will make people have something to look forward to comes weekend. of course stacked server will suffer the queue but that’s their problem for stacking.
maintain the scoring format as it is.
the rest of the week people can do PvE, living story, sPvP etc….
Cutie Phantasmer/Farinas [HAX] – CD Casual
Archeage = Farmville with PK
Archeage = Farmville with PK
WvW scoring format should have been changed a long time ago. A 24/7 open scoring system is ridiculous. I personally don’t do it, but there are many commanders who are spending a ridiculous amount of effort in attempts to provide coverage in the off hours. They say it’s fine now, but it will eventually burn them out. Along with the players who don’t have anything better to do, a good portion of these players playing in the off-hours for the sake of the server go to classes, have families, jobs, bills, etc.
Yeah, we are able to make our own decisions and make more logical decisions, but these are players that enjoy the game so much that they are living a pretty unhealthy lifestyle. Even then, they are still the minority and much of what they do, from defending, to upgrading, etc goes with a end result of nothing to show for.
I don’t have much of a suggestion to fix this, perhaps finally put a IP split between EU and NA players to even out the playing field, but I myself enjoy my New Zealand and Australian friends as I’m sure others do. But I hope you guys can look into this and find a solution. WvW is as much of a coverage game, as it is a numbers game but there are servers out there that have absolutely no presence outside of prime time.
So in short summary, lets Ban EU players from playing on NA servers but allow ozies and kiwis to play on NA servers. Discrimination at its finest.
We chewed through this topic over a year ago in what was then called “the night-capping debate”.
The scoring system is crap……and I think it’s slowly beginning to sink in.
Yes, having score scale according to current player activity would help, but it wouldn’t address some of the more fundamental issues.