Guild Wars 2

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/world-vs-world-skirmishes-arrive-on-september-9/

here you go wvw players

discuss!

Sounds interesting. I’d like separate WvW balance to be next. I don’t want boon meta to die, just get leukemia.

Sounds interesting. Might reinstall the game to see how the new changes to wvw are working out.

So what happens when the skirmish begins? Do all objectives get rested at the start of a skirmish?

Zero.4935:

So what happens when the skirmish begins? Do all objectives get rested at the start of a skirmish?

“When each 2-hour skirmish ends, War Score is reset, but actual map state and objective status remains unchanged.”

From the linked source.

Turamarth.3248:

Zero.4935:

So what happens when the skirmish begins? Do all objectives get rested at the start of a skirmish?

“When each 2-hour skirmish ends, War Score is reset, but actual map state and objective status remains unchanged.”

From the linked source.

People can’t read. The key word is “beginning” not the end but that start of a skirmish.

SO what a servers need to do is ktrain the most empty BL and expect at that momment to score war points faster than the other 2 server?

expect cata price rise up, 8+ catas per wall.

It is only my impression or this will be EOTM 2.0, no fights as server trying to cap more than the other for better war points, servers fighthing each other will be a loss of time getting more ppt?

I dont seen players playing this game w/o being in a blob….

Zero.4935:

Turamarth.3248:

Zero.4935:

So what happens when the skirmish begins? Do all objectives get rested at the start of a skirmish?

“When each 2-hour skirmish ends, War Score is reset, but actual map state and objective status remains unchanged.”

From the linked source.

People can’t read. The key word is “beginning” not the end but that start of a skirmish.

And you can’t infer that the map will not change, since when one skirmish ends, another begins. Map state and objective status will remain unchanged.

Zero.4935:

People can’t read.

Lol at the irony.

“but actual map state and objective status remains unchanged.”

Would love to see War Score erode the longer an objective is held. This would limit income from servers fighting empty BL’s in off hours. regardless of server or time. some have peaks in NA, EU, or OCX, but lack in other areas. Max warscore should be acquired on 3 servers fighting in queued maps.

Interesting. I wonder how effective it will be at stopping runaway scores from nightcapping.

Still waiting to see scoring changes the discourage blob wars

Hexinx.1872:

Would love to see War Score erode the longer an objective is held. This would limit income from servers fighting empty BL’s in off hours. regardless of server or time. some have peaks in NA, EU, or OCX, but lack in other areas. Max warscore should be acquired on 3 servers fighting in queued maps.

Does it really matter? If they’re holding an empty BL they’re probably dominant during that time slice anyways so whether they have 1 more ppt or 1000 more ppt a win is a win in that time slot.

I’m not sure I like the idea of additional points for higher tier objectives though, you already have the advantage of them taking much longer to flip.

True … I guess 8 hours equates to what 12 victory points for the winner of 4 × 2 hour time slot skirmishes.

I think assualting higher tier objectives should reward more war score.

Well at least it will be interesting to see if this truly changes anything. I honestly dont think it will. Short term it do allow servers to catch up, but long term its probably the exact same results as with current scoring. In fact, on its own this will make off hour coverage (ie nightcapping) easier for strong servers – with the current system, underdogs can still get a PPT stalemate, or close to it. With skirmishes, theres always a clear winner and a clear looser no matter how balanced the scores was.

Not much to say until we see it in action, but so far seems like a first step in the right direction.

What this does is instead of one color server dominating (average 150 per 5 minute tick) and the other two at ~+40/tick is that that you’ll now have a 3,2,1 system in points from high-to-low as a secondary point system. It’ll make the close wins (one server at average +80/tick, others at +75/tick actually) actually create further gaps than intended which will annoy far more people who PPT (or should I say VP now?).

Hopefully, this also adds commensurate rewards “two greens and blue” (not listed in article) to anyone who has significant participation. I wouldn’t assume so without dev response though.

Coverage will still beat the other 2 sides – it just means that the disparity between scores will be less volatile over time. And, in the long run, this also means that the same servers will fight the same servers unless a full reset of glicko is done soon.

“Skirmishes should also help lessen the severity of runaway matches caused by off-hour coverage.” from link is total BS marketing. 2-hour windows will not change who wins in off-peak hours and who ultimately scores more during that time. This change may actually exacerbate the issue as you’ll be able to make an easy case to see which servers have better off hour coverage times via VPs.

So many people don’t come to WvW during off peak anymore because there is no reward for getting pounded (you get 1 VP with +0 score/tick, login and basically do nothing or +40 score/tick).

We’ve got the data for years, I’m curious how many winning/losing servers would actually change places based on this scoring system…I have a sneaky suspicion that <2% of matches would actually be impacted in terms of 1st 2nd 3rd placement. Who wants to crunch some data: http://mos.millenium.org/na ? Example data sitting below: http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/33/419

yeah but someone nightcapping for example … takes home about 12 points while your server takes 4 … what if your NA server is strongest during EU coverage… and you win that 8 hour gap… it all levels out.

Instead of having a possible +190 of whatever every 5 minutes, across the 8 hours… it gives you 50% of the total points available(3 of 6). The rest is split between seocnd and third. The outcome will be the same, but slightly closer end result of victory point differential.

I do agree though , it will be interesting to see if teams give up sooner because they know they wont win this 2 hour gap.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Zero.4935:

People can’t read.

Lol at the irony.

“but actual map state and objective status remains unchanged.”

“When each 2-hour skirmish ends, War Score is reset, but actual map state and objective status remains unchanged.” Since we are trying to quote everything. See the key word “END” Guess not

If the skirmish aren’t a daily thing but an EVERY two hours. It’s literally the same ppt system just in 2hr intervals vs the current 15mins.

And two hours of work equates to 3 points. Or 2, or 1.

Not 190, 160, 75, 40 every five minutes. So the first place has a total potential of 252 points across the week.

Hexinx.1872:

And two hours of work equates to 3 points. Or 2, or 1.

Not 190, 160, 75, 40 every five minutes. So the first place has a total potential of 252 points across the week.

It’s the same points with smaller numbers.

Woo hoo! This has great potential.

No, its not going to change the weekly winners and losers. But what it will do is give incentive to fight hard for a skirmish. You may not be able to win the war but you can win some battles. So the week won’t seem pointless on Saturday when you know who’s going to win the week.

Its all on the players now. Only we can mess this up by how we choose to play. If we choose to K-train then that’s on us. If we choose to give up when behind in a skirmish then that’s on us. Don’t blame Anet if the players fail to take advantage of this change.

Servers and guilds can organize around winning skirmishes during their play time. They can even use strategy and set themselves up for the next skirmish. Even if they can’t win the current one, try to set yourself up for the next, or for the one when you know you’ll have a shot. Lots of ways to play this so that it makes for awesome battles and fun times.

Kind of and kind of not… in the new system your max potential is 50% of the total available. In the current system … you can literally paint the entire EBG and all 3 BL’s your colour if night capping, and you get 100% of total war score (points) … the new system caps your maximum potential income to 50% of total points handed out to all parties.

Hexinx.1872:

yeah but someone nightcapping for example … takes home about 12 points while your server takes 4 … what if your NA server is strongest during EU coverage… and you win that 8 hour gap… it all levels out.

Instead of having a possible +190 of whatever every 5 minutes, across the 8 hours… it gives you 50% of the total points available(3 of 6). The rest is split between seocnd and third. The outcome will be the same, but slightly closer end result of victory point differential.

I do agree though , it will be interesting to see if teams give up sooner because they know they wont win this 2 hour gap.

I’m not sure, because if holding onto higher upgraded objectives helps war score, it might be worth defending that keep or tower to set up for the next skirmish.

The big change will come from actually playing the skirmish matches as stand alone bouts. While the week-wide score will still be more important, I can see some fun in hopping on for a few hours with the goal of winning the shorter skirmish. Should be fun.

Zero.4935:

It’s literally the same ppt system just in 2hr intervals vs the current 15mins.

5 minutes, not 15 minutes. Whether your side wins by 5 PPT or wins by 1000 PPT in that 2-hour window does not matter. Same with the losing side…
——-

Griefing supplies and spying commander tags will increase = not good. If players are seeing the other server “cheat”, they will give up on close skirmishes and that will ultimately hurt more than help.

I still don’t get why we can’t have a full EBG/BL map reset say every 4-hour period.

I like this. Maybe give a chance for defenders to affect the score more. The longer you hold them off the less time they have to cap other forts. Also if you can use just a couple players to delay them that’s less enemy to stop your assaulting forces.

I don’t understand how this will be any better than what we already have. Scores are just chunked into half of the time EOTM style matchups occur and consolidated smaller numbers still add up to our existing problem. People brought up nightcapping here and this doesn’t seem to address that. Maybe it would make more sense to scale the scoring somehow to the number of active players on the map across all servers currently in a matchup for that 2 hour slice of time? One server could be blobbing while the other 2 servers have like 5 people but they could be ticking for a lot less with the way it scales relative to the number of active people (participation), but I think that would make it harder to find definition in finding variations in matchups between servers per week.

Zero.4935:

Hexinx.1872:

And two hours of work equates to 3 points. Or 2, or 1.

Not 190, 160, 75, 40 every five minutes. So the first place has a total potential of 252 points across the week.

It’s the same points with smaller numbers.

this is what I think – making the match SEEM closer, but not really…

Artaz.3819:

Zero.4935:

It’s literally the same ppt system just in 2hr intervals vs the current 15mins.

5 minutes, not 15 minutes. Whether your side wins by 5 PPT or wins by 1000 PPT in that 2-hour window does not matter. Same with the losing side…
——-

Griefing supplies and spying commander tags will increase = not good. If players are seeing the other server “cheat”, they will give up on close skirmishes and that will ultimately hurt more than help.

I still don’t get why we can’t have a full EBG/BL map reset say every 4-hour period.

Because it’d be unfair and disruptive. If they reset the map that means kicking people out of the zone and then 10 minutes of sitting in LA waiting for them to re-open. Not fun.

But, then what 4 hour section? I’d want 6pm-10pm Pacific, but that means that it’d cut at 9pm eastern which is kind of prime time for them. So it’s going to make someone unhappy.

Liston.9708:

Zero.4935:

Hexinx.1872:

And two hours of work equates to 3 points. Or 2, or 1.

Not 190, 160, 75, 40 every five minutes. So the first place has a total potential of 252 points across the week.

It’s the same points with smaller numbers.

this is what I think – making the match SEEM closer, but not really…

It is closer because winning a skirmish gains you less points advantage than currently dominating a timezone does.

morrolan.9608:

Liston.9708:

Zero.4935:

Hexinx.1872:

And two hours of work equates to 3 points. Or 2, or 1.

Not 190, 160, 75, 40 every five minutes. So the first place has a total potential of 252 points across the week.

It’s the same points with smaller numbers.

this is what I think – making the match SEEM closer, but not really…

It is closer because winning a skirmish gains you less points advantage than currently dominating a timezone does.

Also on the flip side, barely getting a win will result in far more points. Could be good or bad, a very close 2hour section will mean more than it previously did.

I’m hopeful that this will be an improvement, if for nothing else people will come back to try it out. Like others have said, it might make for better fights, if people look at it as a small win for just the single skirmish and not worry so much for the overall score.

Also this is just the start as anet said and there will be more added, so we’ll just have to see what the next update brings.

I for one see this as good thing and so thankful to anet for trying to improve WVW, I’m crossing my fingers that this brings in more players.

OriOri.8724:

Interesting. I wonder how effective it will be at stopping runaway scores from nightcapping.

Still waiting to see scoring changes the discourage blob wars

Well…

• the maximum difference in score will be smaller, so… it MUST look better.

morrolan.9608:

Liston.9708:

Zero.4935:

Hexinx.1872:

And two hours of work equates to 3 points. Or 2, or 1.

Not 190, 160, 75, 40 every five minutes. So the first place has a total potential of 252 points across the week.

It’s the same points with smaller numbers.

this is what I think – making the match SEEM closer, but not really…

It is closer because winning a skirmish gains you less points advantage than currently dominating a timezone does.

Yes, I agree. It may look closer, and in fact it will BE closer, but it may not really have been a realistic possibility for the other servers to win.

It seems that there might be scope for strategically winning skirmishes, though I’m not sure how realistic this prospect is. It certainly gives a LOT more incentive to focus on The Tick.

This will not discourage blob wars, that’s not even part of it’s remit. Nor is that something we should necessarily desire.

cgMatt.5162:

I don’t understand how this will be any better than what we already have. Scores are just chunked into half of the time EOTM style matchups occur and consolidated smaller numbers still add up to our existing problem. People brought up nightcapping here and this doesn’t seem to address that. Maybe it would make more sense to scale the scoring somehow to the number of active players on the map across all servers currently in a matchup for that 2 hour slice of time? One server could be blobbing while the other 2 servers have like 5 people but they could be ticking for a lot less with the way it scales relative to the number of active people (participation), but I think that would make it harder to find definition in finding variations in matchups between servers per week.

Think about it this example, if one server has a larger NA presence, they may own 60% of all the objectives in their time frame. Another server in the same tier has the largest OCX/SEA population and can own 80% of the map objectives in their time frame because they have little opposition. With the old scoring method, the OCX server owning 80% of the objectives generates more total PPT during OCX hours than the larger NA server does during NA primetime. If this flip-flop of objectives occurs for about the same number of hours, then the OCX server will out-PPT the NA server under the old scoring method…with the new method, their score could roughly be the same after a 24-hour period. This doesn’t take into account all the other scoring factors, but hopefully it makes sense looking strictly at PPT.

Jerus.4350:

Also on the flip side, barely getting a win will result in far more points. Could be good or bad, a very close 2hour section will mean more than it previously did.

This is what I’m really keen about. Players in NA primetime have had a relatively negligible effect on the overall matchup; a server with a distinctly powerful NA team will actually be able to win weeks because of it.

so this is it right? correct me if i am wrong

Every 2 hours, scores reset(0 score across the boards)

Winner(and losers) after a 2 hour match get allocated certain points

Keeps/camps/towers will not reset

Who is dominating will keep dominating

What benefits do I see?

A losing server can try hard @ their prime time zones to get the + 3 points for winning that 2 hour match.

Again Anet is awarding whoever has the bigger blob. Not awarding any kind of skilled groups or smaller servers or anything. This is only going to encourage more blobbing for the ppt and more pvd. More server stacking etc.
If Anet wanted the player base to move from being skilled to mindless drone 111111 spamming then they are well on the way of permanently achieving that goal as all the skilled players have already left the game and more are being pushed out.

Nocturnal Lunacy.8563:

Not awarding any kind of skilled groups or smaller servers or anything.

On the contrary, kill score will be drastically increased in relevance. If a guild group can reliably and efficiently murder zerglings, it can create score swings in the skirmish that would otherwise be irrelevant in the current state of WvW.

Creating advantages for smaller servers is a bizarre idea, but better organized and higher skilled servers will come out of the change better than they were before as the timezones that they can dominate will actually produce real differences.

cgMatt.5162:

I don’t understand how this will be any better than what we already have. Scores are just chunked into half of the time EOTM style matchups occur and consolidated smaller numbers still add up to our existing problem. People brought up nightcapping here and this doesn’t seem to address that. Maybe it would make more sense to scale the scoring somehow to the number of active players on the map across all servers currently in a matchup for that 2 hour slice of time? One server could be blobbing while the other 2 servers have like 5 people but they could be ticking for a lot less with the way it scales relative to the number of active people (participation), but I think that would make it harder to find definition in finding variations in matchups between servers per week.

First of all, it will be better for glicko rating. Current rating gain/loss is based on the point spread between two servers. The higher the difference in score between two servers, the better a server is said to “perform” against expectations. So run-away scores from night-capping has an artificial inflation/deflation effect on servers. My guess is now performance will be measured by number of skirmishes won so it will be harder to inflate a rating due to coverage. Coverage will still give an advantage.

Second, the thing you ask about scaling the scoring based on activity level should already be written in. It was part of the scoring changes we all voted yes for, which Anet said is controversial and currently an optional feature. They want to see how skirmishes go first before turning it on. It would be a multiplier to the skirmish score based on activity level so if, for example, a server wins a skirmish while activity level is high, they would be awarded 5 points instead of only 3. Anet also said NA Prime on NA servers would always be high activity level which left a lot of non-NA players feeling devalued and against that change.

504 total points throughout the week

252 points for first place finishes awarded
168 points for second place finishes awarded
84 points for third place finishes awarded

252 is the maximum victory point score a server can accumulate across 1 week, provided they win every 2 hour skirmish

The impact of servers fighting for those points awarded in prime time will be more valuable then ever.

The impact a server has on winning off peak hour match ups is more valuable than ever.

The same issues we have will still exist (little can be done on floating populations across 24 hour periods by Anet, as you will always affect players playing during those time periods). You can think of 252 as a ‘perfect’ week. In reality though, we should see some varied results especially from servers who have populations spread out across the various timezones.

I see this favoring DB and JQ very much, or any in NA for example, who have strong presences outside of NA prime time. Same can be said about EU, with teams playing in their off hours. That’s not the point of putting this system in place though.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out when it starts. Maybe BG tries for server first and goes for 252 perfect week the first week.

Hexinx.1872:

Kind of and kind of not… in the new system your max potential is 50% of the total available. In the current system … you can literally paint the entire EBG and all 3 BL’s your colour if night capping, and you get 100% of total war score (points) … the new system caps your maximum potential income to 50% of total points handed out to all parties.

A score comeback is still just as difficult to accomplish. The overpopulated/bandwagon server will not be able to run up the same large number that they can now, but nor can the underdog retake a score deficit as easily.

Coverage and WvW-active population will still determine the winner in each week.

i don´t care about scoring and ppt at all but i guess everthing that bring back some ppl in wvw is good. so let´s see.

Svarty.8019:

OriOri.8724:

Interesting. I wonder how effective it will be at stopping runaway scores from nightcapping.

Still waiting to see scoring changes the discourage blob wars

Well…

• the maximum difference in score will be smaller, so… it MUST look better.

morrolan.9608:

Liston.9708:

Zero.4935:

Hexinx.1872:

And two hours of work equates to 3 points. Or 2, or 1.

Not 190, 160, 75, 40 every five minutes. So the first place has a total potential of 252 points across the week.

It’s the same points with smaller numbers.

this is what I think – making the match SEEM closer, but not really…

It is closer because winning a skirmish gains you less points advantage than currently dominating a timezone does.

Yes, I agree. It may look closer, and in fact it will BE closer, but it may not really have been a realistic possibility for the other servers to win.

It seems that there might be scope for strategically winning skirmishes, though I’m not sure how realistic this prospect is. It certainly gives a LOT more incentive to focus on The Tick.

This will not discourage blob wars, that’s not even part of it’s remit. Nor is that something we should necessarily desire.

I know the scores will look better, and they will be really close no matter what. I am just worried though that a server could still run away with nightcapping and obtaining lots of extra points pretty much uncontested. Under the new system, there is a smaller chance to regain those points, especially if that same server is active during the day as well and you can’t guarantee winning every matchup (or even if you do and they come in second every skirmish it will take you a long time to make up those points they took overnight). I’m sure it will be better than the current system, just waiting to see how much better it really will be.

And yes, we should desire something to discourage blob wars. Not everyone enjoys that playstyle, but the current game encourages it so much that many feel pressured into joining a blob, which ultimately makes them dislike WvW and stop playing this mode. It doesn’t have to disappear, but going out in small groups or even solo should be just as rewarding as running over everything in a bulldozer and just using your autoattacks. Right now a blob is far superior to a small group because they just cannot be stopped except by another blob

The point of this change IMHO is NOT to change the outcome of any matches.

The point of this change is, no matter when you login or what the weekly scores are, you can push to win the current 2 hr skirmish.

That is all. It is not some all encompassing fix. It is meant to give some meaning to your efforts and give people who need it, something to point at on the scoreboard.

People who play for weekly wins can, people who play for fights can. Further scoring changes to follow.

Good luck enjoy the game.

The artificial balancing is finally here, anet will now successful get people to shut up about night capping and get people to forget about population balancing. However, people will now complain purely on coverage war and thus population balancing reborn again.

Seriously, I hope anet just focus on population balancing, is the root of all problems.

Dream In A Dream.7213:

Sounds interesting. Might reinstall the game to see how the new changes to wvw are working out.

hope you didnt gave all ur gold and items like the one who quit yesterday…. lel

Aeolus.3615:

SO what a servers need to do is ktrain the most empty BL and expect at that momment to score war points faster than the other 2 server?

And that doesn’t already happen? The point of the skirmish scoring is to stop the 10-15k overnight scoring that ruins matches even on the first night. So you got 10k in score the other two servers only got 4k and 2k, here’s your 3, 2, 1 points.

Also now commanders can take a 2 hr slot and try to make a push for points which can make a difference.

Also if anyone decides to give up playing because they’re going to lose a 2hr skirmish you might as well give up on the game, plus they’re a bunch of underdunders since matches right now have servers that are determined to be last from the start of reset and yet you still play.

Lastly, while it’s nice to finally have this out…. wake me up when combat becomes fun again.

SkyShroud.2865:

The artificial balancing is finally here, anet will now successful get people to shut up about night capping and get people to forget about population balancing. However, people will now complain purely on coverage war and thus population balancing reborn again.

Seriously, I hope anet just focus on population balancing, is the root of all problems.

The population balance is purely on the players. Players don’t want balanced matches, they want easy wins. That’s why they stack in the same server instead of spreading to have balanced matches.
The only way Arena Net could balance things were if they close servers transfer, but that’s part of their income (gem sales) and I don’t think they will ever do that.

Hexinx.1872:

504 total points throughout the week

252 points for first place finishes awarded
168 points for second place finishes awarded
84 points for third place finishes awarded

252 is the maximum victory point score a server can accumulate across 1 week, provided they win every 2 hour skirmish

The impact of servers fighting for those points awarded in prime time will be more valuable then ever.

The impact a server has on winning off peak hour match ups is more valuable than ever.

The same issues we have will still exist (little can be done on floating populations across 24 hour periods by Anet, as you will always affect players playing during those time periods). You can think of 252 as a ‘perfect’ week. In reality though, we should see some varied results especially from servers who have populations spread out across the various timezones.

I think this is a very good summary. The score list at the top also shows this is going to have an effect on how glicko works, because that distribution is what a blowout will look like.
Being able to win will be important any time of the day, but being able to win by colossal margins will not grant any further benefit.

The other thing we might see is an increased level of co-ordination around the 2-hour mark. It makes sense to time attacks for when you can make them count.

Forum Bug again?