Guild Wars 2

This is my first post on the wvw forum and unfortunately it won’t be a pleasant one.
I am from [Gandara] server and really I think that the current point system is unbalanced, it rewards server based on their “ability” to cap empty towers in the middle of the night( early morning like 4-5 am EU time).

Basically the servers here are ranked by coverage rather than the quality and quantity of the players on it, I personally don’t see how this is fair…

So here my suggestion : INFLUENCE ( taken from Civilization 4 mod concept ) and this how it would work:

-Influence driven scoring system
-The influence multiply the total number of current pts( given by owned towers )
-The influence decrease/increase accordingly to the performance of the server during fights and get counted by the hour
-The number of players killed during an hour is calculated, the results is used as coefficient for the the influence multiplier

With this system a server that consistently lose during fights , won’t win the match up by capping empty towers, also it would rewards those outnumbered servers that manage to score a decisive battle during the day

Regardless of all..I really hope the current scoring system get scrapped, it’s really badly implemented.

Opinions?Suggestions?

I have sugested a Active Point system.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that the war score will be adjusted by a factor. And that factor will be related to the population on at a particular time? And in addition there will be a component of the war score that is player kills?

Can you give an example?

WvW was initial made for casuals players (like the ones in eotm actually) that don’t pvp much so they could do a bit of pvp with some pvx objectives, it was never to be a serious game mode.

That influence system could be used for several improvement even to end the ppt score…

Reason WVW will never work well and will have always allot of conflicts its because gw2 model isn’t itself a “serious” game to play, the objectives that players work hard for doesn’t matter after next week, like those small servers that will get blobed almost 24h if they increase in rank and are forced to tank, or basically efforts are reseted at the end of every week…

There are always ways to compensate…for instance, debuffs and buffs. We already have a (lame-ish) Outnumbered Buff. I have said a few times we should have a “Overpopulated” debuff. Things like:

1. If you outnumbered your opponent by x% you have to spend that x% more in supplies to build siege, repair structures, and order upgrades. Up to a max, of course (say, double? triple?). So, for example, you have 30 people, the opponent has 10, You have a 300% increase (triple) in supply requirements. So siege that would cost 60 now costs 180.

2. The same calculation increases your opponents’ vitality and/or power, and also applies a decrease to supply requirements (maybe not as much).

3. It also applies a buff to all guards and lords and wall/gate HPs.

Note: these %s are for example purposes only. But it would be a good idea, I think.

misterman.1530:

There are always ways to compensate…for instance, debuffs and buffs. We already have a (lame-ish) Outnumbered Buff. I have said a few times we should have a “Overpopulated” debuff. Things like:

1. If you outnumbered your opponent by x% you have to spend that x% more in supplies to build siege, repair structures, and order upgrades. Up to a max, of course (say, double? triple?). So, for example, you have 30 people, the opponent has 10, You have a 300% increase (triple) in supply requirements. So siege that would cost 60 now costs 180.

2. The same calculation increases your opponents’ vitality and/or power, and also applies a decrease to supply requirements (maybe not as much).

3. It also applies a buff to all guards and lords and wall/gate HPs.

Note: these %s are for example purposes only. But it would be a good idea, I think.

This. I dont know about the stats being 300 percent but stuff like boons will last 30 percent longer I think is a good idea for outnumbered players.

This will encourage WvW fights even when there is a severe off-balance between servers.

misterman.1530:

There are always ways to compensate…for instance, debuffs and buffs. We already have a (lame-ish) Outnumbered Buff. I have said a few times we should have a “Overpopulated” debuff. Things like:

1. If you outnumbered your opponent by x% you have to spend that x% more in supplies to build siege, repair structures, and order upgrades. Up to a max, of course (say, double? triple?). So, for example, you have 30 people, the opponent has 10, You have a 300% increase (triple) in supply requirements. So siege that would cost 60 now costs 180.

2. The same calculation increases your opponents’ vitality and/or power, and also applies a decrease to supply requirements (maybe not as much).

3. It also applies a buff to all guards and lords and wall/gate HPs.

Note: these %s are for example purposes only. But it would be a good idea, I think.

A debuff wouldn’t be a good idea because then you would get people telling others to get off the map so that the debuff wouldn’t be applied. It would be better to re-visit the outnumbered buff instead and make adjustments.

What’s wrong with people telling others to get off the map? Isn’t that what we want? If they want to try to zerg at a disadvantage due to the debuffs, then so be it. Otherwise, send some to another BL. Seems like a win-win to me.

I do agree to revisit the outnumbered buff…but since you can target an enemy and see that they have the buff, not sure if it won’t turn out the same way you mentioned – people telling others to get out of the BL.

The more I think about it, this debuff should only apply to an opponent in your own BL. That is, green won’t get the debuff if they outnumbered the enemy in their own BL.

EB doesn’t get the debuff at all.

misterman.1530:

What’s wrong with people telling others to get off the map? Isn’t that what we want? If they want to try to zerg at a disadvantage due to the debuffs, then so be it. Otherwise, send some to another BL. Seems like a win-win to me.

I do agree to revisit the outnumbered buff…but since you can target an enemy and see that they have the buff, not sure if it won’t turn out the same way you mentioned – people telling others to get out of the BL.

The more I think about it, this debuff should only apply to an opponent in your own BL. That is, green won’t get the debuff if they outnumbered the enemy in their own BL.

EB doesn’t get the debuff at all.

Really, you want an entire map yelling at you to get off of WvW because there’s too many people on that map right now? And when you refuse, they will of course harass you, etc. It will create more problems than it solves.

No, getting people off the map is not what we want. That is a ridiculous idea. The objective is to fill the empty maps, not create horrible, artificial punishment to push players off of full maps.

There is no path of logic thay makes sense to offer negative reprocution for playing the game.

Indeed reworking the outnumbered buff (and make it invisible for enemy, like the cmd tag) would be the good way to go.

ANet will not under any circumstances break their philosophy by punishing you for having more players. So an Outnumbering debuff will not happen.

I’ve posted some suggestions on what could be done with the outnumbering bonus before, but things like increasing supply limit, decreasing building/repairing time, upping skill target limit, etc, Things that will help you to accomplish more of the same things but with less numbers. But it is an incredibly difficult thing to get right, since you must still rather want to have more players than get the bonus.

coglin.1867:

No, getting people off the map is not what we want. That is a ridiculous idea. The objective is to fill the empty maps, not create horrible, artificial punishment to push players off of full maps.

There is no path of logic thay makes sense to offer negative reprocution for playing the game.

Why not? You are obviously on a server that can steamroll a BL of a server that cannot hope to match your numbers. That fun for you? This an exciting way to play? Oh, right. There’s very little sportsmanship amongst people who play online games. I forgot…very few of them ever had the opportunity to participate in team sports in real life. I guess doing this online is retribution for how things didn’t work out for them.

The fact is, I don’t like to steamroll a server when we outnumber them constantly, and I don’t like it done to me either. So, yes. If they have to punish a server that spent gold getting Oceanic and SAE guilds to move over from other servers – and now they are so over-populated that there is really no competition anymore – then so be it.

So, you want to have 200 active WvW players against a server that can barely muster 50 at the best of times, then, yeah, you have to expect a handicap. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it if it happened to me. But I guess leveling the playing field is something you cannot support. I get it.

So..let me know what server you are on. If we end up playing against you, I’ll put a shout out to not show up for the week. That way, you can maximize all your fun times.

coglin.1867:

No, getting people off the map is not what we want. That is a ridiculous idea. The objective is to fill the empty maps, not create horrible, artificial punishment to push players off of full maps.

There is no path of logic thay makes sense to offer negative reprocution for playing the game.

By the way….what’s a “reprocution”?

The “overpopulated” de-buff concerning supply has been around for ages and IIRC was never even addressed by Devs once.
I don’t agree that it should also apply to NPC etc., that is bloating the exceptions too much for my taste.
My choice would be to work on points awarded, e.g. that towers on home BLs award less points per tick than on enemy BLs. Although WvW was never designed to provide equal ground for all three servers, leading severs should get less points for steam rolling the 3rd place server (and 3rd placed should get more points when trying to stand up against the leader in the match).

I have no idea will ever change the scoring system they have now and looking back at the history of recognizing sever imbalance and match up problems, I would be surprised if they ever will look into that at all.

Gorani.7205:

My choice would be to work on points awarded, e.g. that towers on home BLs award less points per tick than on enemy BLs.

When you have a significant population advantage, it’s pretty easy to “lock down” your own BL and consistently hold at least your “natural” Bay/Hills in the enemy BLs.

So this sounds like a gimme to the overstacked server more than anything else.

Gorani.7205:

I have no idea will ever change the scoring system they have now and looking back at the history of recognizing sever imbalance and match up problems, I would be surprised if they ever will look into that at all.

I agree. They must have the numbers they could crunch, but, like most of WvW, they seem intent on ignoring any and all issues.

Ah well. Too much to hope for, I guess.