Guild Wars 2

I personally don’t think that eliminating all forms of territorial scoring in WvW is possible.

But I have heard quite a few comments about ditching it and I’m curious what you would replace it with.

Points per Cap may eliminate the disproportionate advantage of off hours capping, but doesn’t change the fact that those that like to PvD will still have the advantage. The score difference may not be as pronounce but the advantage would be.

Dumping for PPK doesn’t work as PPK is a function of activity not skill. So the more active servers will simply have more kills.

Using KDR doesn’t work either as it really doesn’t scale and will generally encourage score oriented forces to take positions where they can get the most defensive advantage (i.e bunker/siege up.)

Those are the three that I have considered, what are your thoughts?

Fights, fights and more fights……

I had considered time-limited PPT. Numbers here can be adjusted for balance.
- When an objective is captured it gains 6 ticks worth of PPT for the side that owns it. (roughly 1.5 hours of score).
- When an objective is contested (will have to change contest rules, more to follow), it gains 2 additional ticks of PPT up to a maximum of 2. If it had more than 2 ticks left this rule doesn’t apply.

A needed change to contest rules accompanies this to prevent obvious trolling:
A keep or tower will only contest under the following rules:
- Siege damage to the walls or gate
- Player damage to a gate with less than 95% hp.
A camp will contest under the following rules:
- Player damage to any NPC in the camp that is connected to that camp. (killing a deer in the camp doesn’t count obviously)

The timed PPT idea keeps the score from snowballing over objectives that are not actually in play. This reduces the importance of off-peak presence on a server and moves the importance to when play is evenly matched as the score now requires the objective to be put in play (sides are fighting over it). A server may have a large presence vs another server with a small presence at off-peak time but they won’t be scoring more than what the smaller server can actually contest.

The contest point part adds a risk/reward to attacking. If the attack succeeds you gain score for your server. If it fails the enemy server gets score.

That’s one i considered after going over the different ideas for score and it makes sense to me and is easy to implement for ANET.

Problem starts with there being two radically different groups of people mixed in the same area.

PPK/GvG people don’t want to defend locations like keeps and towers, they just want to generally ‘have good fights’ and preferably beat the enemy into the ground. Often you will find guild groups just running around ignoring any call to defend or help capture anything. Most have no real interest in points or scoring or WvW in it’s present form.

PPT people take over keeps and towers then place siege, their aim is to keep the enemy out and keep the points rolling in. They will immediately go to a tower that’s under attack and defend it. WvW was seemingly designed for PPT people.

Each group has issues with the other’s mode of play, you will not find a simple option that allows both groups to always play harmoniously together.

What is needed is another large scale PvP game mode that is purely for GvG/PPK people. WvW is not really suitable for them and a different option would be preferred.

Serious.7083:

Each group has issues with the other’s mode of play, you will not find a simple option that allows both groups to always play harmoniously together.

One way to solve this could be to give different maps different scoring systems. And have on map that encourages fighting and gaining points through fighting.

Combined with the existing EBG for PPT etc.

Instead of trying to make one system to fit everyone, give everyone a “play ground” they like to play in. The total points can be given for different things, and added together to see how the server does as a total.

Serious.7083:

Problem starts with there being two radically different groups of people mixed in the same area.

PPK/GvG people don’t want to defend locations like keeps and towers, they just want to generally ‘have good fights’ and preferably beat the enemy into the ground. Often you will find guild groups just running around ignoring any call to defend or help capture anything. Most have no real interest in points or scoring or WvW in it’s present form.

PPT people take over keeps and towers then place siege, their aim is to keep the enemy out and keep the points rolling in. They will immediately go to a tower that’s under attack and defend it. WvW was seemingly designed for PPT people.

Each group has issues with the other’s mode of play, you will not find a simple option that allows both groups to always play harmoniously together.

What is needed is another large scale PvP game mode that is purely for GvG/PPK people. WvW is not really suitable for them and a different option would be preferred.

This is why I bring this up. WvW is PPT. There is no escaping that fact.

The bulk of the complaints about the game mode come from fight guilds who are looking for some sort of structure in WvW to have a ‘fair’ fight which is never going to happen.

The point of PPT is to generate territorial disputes that lead to fun fights. However the problems with balancing server populations and timezone populations makes this unlikely in the games current state.

Anet should give the fight guilds a structured arena. I think they will still participate in WvW but will be more accepting of what WvW is and not try to turn it into something it is not.

I still believe the problem with PPT is population balance both across servers and timezones. And no amount of fixing fight mechanics is going to fix WvW current problems. It may make fight guilds happy because they are not actually playing the game of WvW … they are just looking for fights.

But my experience has shown that just about every time a fight commander loses a fight it is somehow Anet’s fault. And every now and again a fight commander will win in spite of Anet.

Short of giving every fight commander a “me win” button, they will always claim that more balancing is required to make the game exactly they way it needs to be for them personally to win. Essentially the are asking Anet to adjust the game to their style of tactics.

The futility of the situation grows daily.

Serious.7083:

PPK/GvG people don’t want to defend locations like keeps and towers, they just want to generally ‘have good fights’ and preferably beat the enemy into the ground. Often you will find guild groups just running around ignoring any call to defend or help capture anything. Most have no real interest in points or scoring or WvW in it’s present form.

That is because for a very long time now “points” and “winning” have become useless in WvW. There is no real award for winning the match and if your server manages to move up to next tier it will probably get ran over by enemy 3 times the size.

Because servers have hugely different populations there is only very few servers that actually can fight each other. So there is reason to win and guilds are about having “fun fights”.

TorquedSoul.8097:

This is why I bring this up. WvW is PPT. There is no escaping that fact.

The bulk of the complaints about the game mode come from fight guilds who are looking for some sort of structure in WvW to have a ‘fair’ fight which is never going to happen.

….

The futility of the situation grows daily.

Some people play to complain, nothing anyone does will change that fact.

In the game Rift, the equivalent of WvW doesn’t use scoring based on how long structures are held. Matches are only three hours and the winning team wins by holding a set number of structures and then there’s still a brief chance to reverse the majority. But the match ends when that large number is held for a certain time. You also can bring power-ups to structures which count for some points if delivered successfully, I think. There may also be PPK.

Rift’s WvW is called Conquest. Here’s a brief description. Hopefully I won’t get in trouble. I like both GW2 and Rift but they do some things differently.

http://www.trionworlds.com/rift/en/game/pvp/

Here’s a more detailed description of how Rift’s Conquest PvP mode works.

http://community.riftgame.com/en/2012/05/14/introducing-conquest-test-the-latest-in-rift-pvp-on-thursday-517/

“The match ends when a single team has claimed 40% of the control points or 5,000 players are killed – once this happens a 10 minute timer will start, this is your chance to make a last grab for control – after which you’ll earn your rewards!”

Most problems with WvW would be resolved if you greatly reduced the scope. But then we really aren’t talking about the same thing anymore.

What you are describing above is a slightly bigger version of a sPvP match which would probably look more like GvGvG than WvW.

So, to be redundant, PPT is not necessary for WvW. GW2 doesn’t need to exactly copy Rift or any other game’s large-scale PVP, but it could keep the weekly format, while change scoring to final percentage of structures controlled or 20,000 enemies killed (make up your own big number), with a 24 hour chance to reverse, or something like that… Please add ideas to this if you have any.

Not really. Let me tell you, I played Conquest in Rift a few times and the map is at least as big as GW2 WvW maps. It can also hold the same number of players. It had big zerg vs zerg fights. I am telling you, I played in their map and it was huge.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Most problems with WvW would be resolved if you greatly reduced the scope. But then we really aren’t talking about the same thing anymore.

What you are describing above is a slightly bigger version of a sPvP match which would probably look more like GvGvG than WvW.

The problem is not so much about PPT being a part of WvW, its that the scoring system is outdated and does not reflect the dynamic nature of wvw. Things like backcapping, nightcapping, ktraining etc w/e you want to call it ruins a lot of effort people make towards generating points for their server and simply leaves a bad taste in players mouths for this type of gameplay choosing instead to just go for fights and not care about PPT or scores.

One of the problems with the current scoring system is that it is imbalanced, why is a paper keep worth the same as a fully upgraded keep? I have proposed several times that this needs to be reworked by making scoring reflect the upgrade of the objective, the more upgraded it is the more points its worth.

For example
t1 keep-10 PPT
t2 keep- 15 PPT
t3 keep- 25 PPT

There should also be some kind of PPC system. We have all been in that situation, where you spend an hour taking a fully upgraded keep defended by a blob, and just happened to cap it right after the tick, and 5 minutes later…its gone, and you got nothing for it. At least with PPC, which should also reflect the upgrade scoring system I mentioned, every time you capture something you can contribute to your server.

@Calanthe

All I’m saying is that if you stick that format into a week long event you end up with something much worse than PPT.

It doesn’t resolve the primary problems with PPT that off hours capping gives an advantage.

If the game ends when someone reaches a control threshold then some games will be ridiculously short and probably end in the middle of the night when few people are playing.

On the same note, the need for people to engage in unhealthy “cancerous” behavior would increase not decrease because now a 24/7 vigil would be required to guard territory.

My goal here isn’t to solve the PPT problem but rather to show the “negatives” that people associate with PPT are really just a consequence of a week long open world game involving large numbers of people.

Short of shrinking the game down to what you suggested you are not likely to fix some of the major complaints.

However fixing the population imbalance and integrating NA and EU resolves most of problems people associate with PPT. Unequal force and timezone shenanigans.

I agree with your point about lack of score for upgraded structures. I have made that point before in long-dead forum discussions. Points for upgrades is a good idea.

X T D.6458:

One of the problems with the current scoring system is that it is imbalanced, why is a paper keep worth the same as a fully upgraded keep? I have proposed several times that this needs to be reworked by making scoring reflect the upgrade of the objective, the more upgraded it is the more points its worth.

For example
t1 keep-10 PPT
t2 keep- 15 PPT
t3 keep- 25 PPT

X T D.6458:

The problem is not so much about PPT being a part of WvW, its that the scoring system is outdated and does not reflect the dynamic nature of wvw. Things like backcapping, nightcapping, ktraining etc w/e you want to call it ruins a lot of effort people make towards generating points for their server and simply leaves a bad taste in players mouths for this type of gameplay choosing instead to just go for fights and not care about PPT or scores.

One of the problems with the current scoring system is that it is imbalanced, why is a paper keep worth the same as a fully upgraded keep? I have proposed several times that this needs to be reworked by making scoring reflect the upgrade of the objective, the more upgraded it is the more points its worth.

For example
t1 keep-10 PPT
t2 keep- 15 PPT
t3 keep- 25 PPT

There should also be some kind of PPC system. We have all been in that situation, where you spend an hour taking a fully upgraded keep defended by a blob, and just happened to cap it right after the tick, and 5 minutes later…its gone, and you got nothing for it. At least with PPC, which should also reflect the upgrade scoring system I mentioned, every time you capture something you can contribute to your server.

I could see how a PPC + PPT + PPK could be a partial solution.

However ditching PPT altogether would remove any sense of urgency. And PPC will just create a backcapping race. If you look at my activity charts, the people that win PPT would still win PPC. The PPT to capture efficiency represents less than 10% error in outcomes.

And this system would still have the problems associated with population imbalances across servers and time zones.

Ok, I understand your points. Let me explain what happened in Rift Conquest: control points were flipped, then flipped back, and factions kept flipping points until they got enough to reach the threshold. Of course, each faction kept losing control of many points because it was very difficult defend them (and there were like 40), but that already happens in WvW….

TorquedSoul.8097:

On the same note, the need for people to engage in unhealthy “cancerous” behavior would increase not decrease because now a 24/7 vigil would be required to guard territory.

The way Rift handles the potential problem of population imbalance is to group people temporarily into factions, instead of grouping them by server. When you enter the game mode, you’re put into the faction that needs another person until the numbers are filled. Kind of like EOTM already does.

[quote=6046472;TorquedSoul.8097:]

Calanthe.3857:

Ok, I understand your points. Let me explain what happened in Rift Conquest: control points were flipped, then flipped back, and factions kept flipping points until they got enough to reach the threshold. Of course, each faction kept losing control of many points because it was very difficult defend them (and there were like 40), but that already happens in WvW….

TorquedSoul.8097:

On the same note, the need for people to engage in unhealthy “cancerous” behavior would increase not decrease because now a 24/7 vigil would be required to guard territory.

Its more a result of competitive behavior than game design. The grinders will always win a large scale game because insane persistence is required. Organization, strategy and skill can help a little, but the ambitious player will always outwork you.

TorquedSoul.8097:

X T D.6458:

The problem is not so much about PPT being a part of WvW, its that the scoring system is outdated and does not reflect the dynamic nature of wvw. Things like backcapping, nightcapping, ktraining etc w/e you want to call it ruins a lot of effort people make towards generating points for their server and simply leaves a bad taste in players mouths for this type of gameplay choosing instead to just go for fights and not care about PPT or scores.

One of the problems with the current scoring system is that it is imbalanced, why is a paper keep worth the same as a fully upgraded keep? I have proposed several times that this needs to be reworked by making scoring reflect the upgrade of the objective, the more upgraded it is the more points its worth.

For example
t1 keep-10 PPT
t2 keep- 15 PPT
t3 keep- 25 PPT

There should also be some kind of PPC system. We have all been in that situation, where you spend an hour taking a fully upgraded keep defended by a blob, and just happened to cap it right after the tick, and 5 minutes later…its gone, and you got nothing for it. At least with PPC, which should also reflect the upgrade scoring system I mentioned, every time you capture something you can contribute to your server.

I could see how a PPC + PPT + PPK could be a partial solution.

However ditching PPT altogether would remove any sense of urgency. And PPC will just create a backcapping race. If you look at my activity charts, the people that win PPT would still win PPC. The PPT to capture efficiency represents less than 10% error in outcomes.

And this system would still have the problems associated with population imbalances across servers and time zones.

Well my idea doesn’t ditch PPT, it simply makes it a little more fairer and dynamic instead of just being a one size fits all approach. The thing is, if one side wants to win, there will always have to be an effort made towards it, stuff like back capping and night capping will always happen, we cant be everywhere at all times. However combined with the change in points you get for capturing and holding, it would potentially reduce the effect of something like nightcapping because all those paper objectives would be worth less points. So this idea is not meant to solve all these problems, simply to modernize the scoring system.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Serious.7083:

Problem starts with there being two radically different groups of people mixed in the same area.

PPK/GvG people don’t want to defend locations like keeps and towers, they just want to generally ‘have good fights’ and preferably beat the enemy into the ground. Often you will find guild groups just running around ignoring any call to defend or help capture anything. Most have no real interest in points or scoring or WvW in it’s present form.

PPT people take over keeps and towers then place siege, their aim is to keep the enemy out and keep the points rolling in. They will immediately go to a tower that’s under attack and defend it. WvW was seemingly designed for PPT people.

Each group has issues with the other’s mode of play, you will not find a simple option that allows both groups to always play harmoniously together.

What is needed is another large scale PvP game mode that is purely for GvG/PPK people. WvW is not really suitable for them and a different option would be preferred.

This is why I bring this up. WvW is PPT. There is no escaping that fact.

The bulk of the complaints about the game mode come from fight guilds who are looking for some sort of structure in WvW to have a ‘fair’ fight which is never going to happen.

The point of PPT is to generate territorial disputes that lead to fun fights. However the problems with balancing server populations and timezone populations makes this unlikely in the games current state.

Anet should give the fight guilds a structured arena. I think they will still participate in WvW but will be more accepting of what WvW is and not try to turn it into something it is not.

I still believe the problem with PPT is population balance both across servers and timezones. And no amount of fixing fight mechanics is going to fix WvW current problems. It may make fight guilds happy because they are not actually playing the game of WvW … they are just looking for fights.

But my experience has shown that just about every time a fight commander loses a fight it is somehow Anet’s fault. And every now and again a fight commander will win in spite of Anet.

Short of giving every fight commander a “me win” button, they will always claim that more balancing is required to make the game exactly they way it needs to be for them personally to win. Essentially the are asking Anet to adjust the game to their style of tactics.

The futility of the situation grows daily.

Yet most of the people who played wvw where fights focused players and guilds as the decline of the gamemode has shown. Many of the best fights where off in keeps and towers as you tried to stop the massive blob from taking it or breaking into there keep’s just to pick a fight with whoever was inside. Raiding was one of the if not the biggest part of wvw and would bring 2-3 map queues of people on the bl’s every night to take part in the open field and keep fights. Not catering to the raid guilds that made wvw what it was would be crazy and for many of them raiding was more important then GvG’ing.

Need to just drop any type of scoring because the populations will never be on near equal conditions, which they need to be for competitive scoring. The only servers that were even close to that were maybe the T1/T2 servers at one point when they could queue up all 4 maps for long periods of time.

There are a few other rvr/wvw games that have done it without scoring, Dark age of camelot, planetside, warhammer online, etc. They would of course need to implement something to drive players to play for. Daoc had artifacts for players to capture for bonus stats, planetside had bases to capture for bonuses such as access to certain weapons or vehicles they also used a lattice system so you had to capture certain bases before others which funneled players into fights, warhammer you had to capture keeps and lock down zones in order to work your way into eventually attacking the opposing sides main city.

They cannot control the population unless they go to an eotm system which will allow all sides to draw on a large pool of players into a population capped play area, especially if it’s the rumored factions version which will allow them to draw upon all players without server/side limitations.

Only other thing to do is control scoring, time slice scoring, which would limit time zones to compete with themselves and minimize the effects of night capping.

Xenesis.6389:

Need to just drop any type of scoring because the populations will never be on near equal conditions, which they need to be for competitive scoring. The only servers that were even close to that were maybe the T1/T2 servers at one point when they could queue up all 4 maps for long periods of time.

There are a few other rvr/wvw games that have done it without scoring, Dark age of camelot, planetside, warhammer online, etc. They would of course need to implement something to drive players to play for. Daoc had artifacts for players to capture for bonus stats, planetside had bases to capture for bonuses such as access to certain weapons or vehicles they also used a lattice system so you had to capture certain bases before others which funneled players into fights, warhammer you had to capture keeps and lock down zones in order to work your way into eventually attacking the opposing sides main city.

They cannot control the population unless they go to an eotm system which will allow all sides to draw on a large pool of players into a population capped play area, especially if it’s the rumored factions version which will allow them to draw upon all players without server/side limitations.

Only other thing to do is control scoring, time slice scoring, which would limit time zones to compete with themselves and minimize the effects of night capping.

The alliance/merc model would allow equal populations to go against each other. I don’t know if they should attempt to alliances of 5000 players, but 1500-2000 might be reasonable (something like 4-10 guilds)

Lapiy.7160:

Yet most of the people who played wvw where fights focused players and guilds as the decline of the gamemode has shown. Many of the best fights where off in keeps and towers as you tried to stop the massive blob from taking it or breaking into there keep’s just to pick a fight with whoever was inside. Raiding was one of the if not the biggest part of wvw and would bring 2-3 map queues of people on the bl’s every night to take part in the open field and keep fights. Not catering to the raid guilds that made wvw what it was would be crazy and for many of them raiding was more important then GvG’ing.

I think they should keep PPT AND give the GvG players an arena. I really don’t care for the “it must be one or the other” thinking. Its a bit of a false dilemma.

You could do away with PPT if you changed scoring to PPK and PP upgrades (while the structure is held continuously) and a smaller amount for capture. Upgrades should count most. Points for upgrades alone would give people a reason to defend. (: ] ) Also, points per dolyak delivery.

Reduce over all ppt values, and improve kill value. Similar to the wxp mechanic for players, players who have accomplished more in wvw would be worth more on kill.

The idea needs tweaking, but I feel like it would be a good start. I dunno if the idea was stated prior, I got it from metal gear online.

I like this idea. The more events you were involved in in the map that day (and perhaps the importance of the events), the more value assigned to you as a kill.

Aidal.4901:

Similar to the wxp mechanic for players, players who have accomplished more in wvw would be worth more on kill.

The idea needs tweaking, but I feel like it would be a good start. I dunno if the idea was stated prior, I got it from metal gear online.

I mentioned a while ago on the “5 priorities” thread that the PPT system should be converted into a PPC, or points per capture, system. Completely remove PPT. Award points for capturing and upgrading. Camps will not award points, they will remain significant by providing supply.

This would help solve the night-capping problem. Night-cappers will have an easier time gaining points by capping uncontested objectives and can upgrade them with ease. Then, night-cappers will not be punished for playing during off-hours. This advantage is countered by the ability for servers to gain points through PPK during on-hours.

Calanthe.3857:

You could do away with PPT if you changed scoring to PPK and PP upgrades (while the structure is held continuously) and a smaller amount for capture. Upgrades should count most. Points for upgrades alone would give people a reason to defend. (: ] ) Also, points per dolyak delivery.

There are already points per Dolyak delivery—they account for more points than PPT and PPK combined. Effectively, you can consider those points per upgrade.

If we dropped PPT without changing anything else, the score would not shift dramatically. Servers that held structures would have plenty of Yak points coming in. PPK largely cancels out in even lopsided matches. It would somewhat increase the effect flipping camps had on the overall score but might be too big a shift to the power of roaming.

You need both PPT and PPK. PPT to make territory, structures, and camps valuable and PPK to make fighting (both small and large scale) valuable in the game mode. The main thing is that they need to have equal weight on the outcome of a matchup.

Calanthe.3857:

You could do away with PPT if you changed scoring to PPK and PP upgrades (while the structure is held continuously) and a smaller amount for capture. Upgrades should count most. Points for upgrades alone would give people a reason to defend. (: ] ) Also, points per dolyak delivery.

Points per Capture + Points per Upgrade + Points per Kill would probably be a good system. The differences in capture rates are generally pretty small but having scaled rewards for reaching different tiers creates the need to attack and defend. There would still be a problem with night capping where the upgrades can happen without confrontations. But they could possible calibrate the yak spawn rate to the map population so that fast upgrades would only happen when the maps are active.

There is no reason to do away with yak kills/deliveries or vet kills. That keeps the roamers and small havoc groups happy.

XTD’s idea about increasing the cap reward for the tier of the objective would also put pressure on people to defend objectives. So taking a tier 3 keep and getting upgraded to tier 3 would be worth much more than just flipping a tier 1 keep back and forth.

There are? I’ve been away from WvW a few months and the game about a month, but where was that announced?

I’m not saying removing PPT would totally fix the effects of population imbalance on scoring. I just think it would make WvW more fun and remove boring (and often unfair) passive gains.

Someone needs to update the wiki because I can’t find a page explaining exactly how war score is calculated.

RE: "There are already points per Dolyak delivery—they account for more points than PPT and PPK combined. Effectively, you can consider those points per upgrade.

“If we dropped PPT without changing anything else, the score would not shift dramatically. Servers that held structures would have plenty of Yak points coming in. PPK largely cancels out in even lopsided matches. It would somewhat increase the effect flipping camps had on the overall score but might be too big a shift to the power of roaming.”

There was no announcement about the addition of points per Yak with HoT. There’s no way to see it in-game either unless you keep an eye on the score and the paths of the Yaks on the map. I think the fact that it is so invisible and unintuitive leads to an incorrect perception of WvW and one’s effectiveness in it.

In addition, killing a Yak gives 3 points to the server of the killer. I should also note that if the final objective is not owned, no points are given when the Yak runs back to the camp. Thus, holding SMC is necessary to get any Yak points at all in EBG.

Since PPYak is more of a factor than PPT, I don’t think that removing PPT would get rid of passive gains. It would make it easier to choke point gain in the off-hours since camps/Yaks are easier to flip/kill than structures, though. What do you think of combining your idea with XTD’s idea—that is, removing PPT for tier 0 structures and then adding it back in as the structure upgrades. There would still be potential for PPT but it would be much easier for small groups to tamp it down, even in the off-hours.

Sviel.7493:

There was no announcement about the addition of points per Yak with HoT. There’s no way to see it in-game either unless you keep an eye on the score and the paths of the Yaks on the map. I think the fact that it is so invisible and unintuitive leads to an incorrect perception of WvW and one’s effectiveness in it.

In addition, killing a Yak gives 3 points to the server of the killer. I should also note that if the final objective is not owned, no points are given when the Yak runs back to the camp. Thus, holding SMC is necessary to get any Yak points at all in EBG.

Since PPYak is more of a factor than PPT, I don’t think that removing PPT would get rid of passive gains. It would make it easier to choke point gain in the off-hours since camps/Yaks are easier to flip/kill than structures, though. What do you think of combining your idea with XTD’s idea—that is, removing PPT for tier 0 structures and then adding it back in as the structure upgrades. There would still be potential for PPT but it would be much easier for small groups to tamp it down, even in the off-hours.

Removing PPT kind of defeats the purpose of defending or upgrading, if anything removing PPT would encourage not defending or upgrading (essentially would become EoTM) to feed less points in this case, the only way my suggestion would work is in combination with PPT. Its not meant to fix all the issues with scoring, backcapping and nightcapping, but I do believe its a more fairer scoring system that encourages active play. The rest, well thats up to the players themselves.

There has to be some kind of incentive driving players and I dont mean the pvp aspect thats a given. I havent played other games that were mentioned that lack such a system so I cant comment. I understand the importance of PPT for a server, even if I dont care about it anymore. If it were replaced with something better, that could be a refreshing change of pace and make things more interesting.

Event driven scoring based on WEXP:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Design-Basically-a-PvE-Race

WvW depends way too much on glicko ratings for matchmaking, otherwise it’s pointless, good thing EU hasnt got locked in tiers.

WvW should revolve around fights.

- Holding objectives doesn’t award points.
- Instead, holding objectives will grant points and bonuses when your party/squad defeats an enemy.
- So the more objectives you hold, the more points your server gets per kill, and the more personal rewards you get when you or a party member makes a kill.

With this system, holding objectives is still important, but at the same time you’re encouraged to fight, both personally and as a server.

TorquedSoul.8097:

I personally don’t think that eliminating all forms of territorial scoring in WvW is possible.

But I have heard quite a few comments about ditching it and I’m curious what you would replace it with.

Points per Cap may eliminate the disproportionate advantage of off hours capping, but doesn’t change the fact that those that like to PvD will still have the advantage. The score difference may not be as pronounce but the advantage would be.

Dumping for PPK doesn’t work as PPK is a function of activity not skill. So the more active servers will simply have more kills.

Using KDR doesn’t work either as it really doesn’t scale and will generally encourage score oriented forces to take positions where they can get the most defensive advantage (i.e bunker/siege up.)

Those are the three that I have considered, what are your thoughts?

PPT is fine. Just give points for kills. Something like 0.5 points per kill. This way in NA servers you won’t be finding fights-tier servers in 2-4 and tier 1 refusing to come out of their keeps. The current system encourages paying EU/Asia players to come onto NA servers and being PvE-centric. This of course is the complete opposite of what people think when they think WvWvW.

Ogre.3124:

TorquedSoul.8097:

I personally don’t think that eliminating all forms of territorial scoring in WvW is possible.

But I have heard quite a few comments about ditching it and I’m curious what you would replace it with.

Points per Cap may eliminate the disproportionate advantage of off hours capping, but doesn’t change the fact that those that like to PvD will still have the advantage. The score difference may not be as pronounce but the advantage would be.

Dumping for PPK doesn’t work as PPK is a function of activity not skill. So the more active servers will simply have more kills.

Using KDR doesn’t work either as it really doesn’t scale and will generally encourage score oriented forces to take positions where they can get the most defensive advantage (i.e bunker/siege up.)

Those are the three that I have considered, what are your thoughts?

PPT is fine. Just give points for kills. Something like 0.5 points per kill. This way in NA servers you won’t be finding fights-tier servers in 2-4 and tier 1 refusing to come out of their keeps. The current system encourages paying EU/Asia players to come onto NA servers and being PvE-centric. This of course is the complete opposite of what people think when they think WvWvW.

There is already Points per kill (PPK) enabled in case you haven’t noticed.

Aezyr.5304:

Ogre.3124:

TorquedSoul.8097:

I personally don’t think that eliminating all forms of territorial scoring in WvW is possible.

But I have heard quite a few comments about ditching it and I’m curious what you would replace it with.

Points per Cap may eliminate the disproportionate advantage of off hours capping, but doesn’t change the fact that those that like to PvD will still have the advantage. The score difference may not be as pronounce but the advantage would be.

Dumping for PPK doesn’t work as PPK is a function of activity not skill. So the more active servers will simply have more kills.

Using KDR doesn’t work either as it really doesn’t scale and will generally encourage score oriented forces to take positions where they can get the most defensive advantage (i.e bunker/siege up.)

Those are the three that I have considered, what are your thoughts?

PPT is fine. Just give points for kills. Something like 0.5 points per kill. This way in NA servers you won’t be finding fights-tier servers in 2-4 and tier 1 refusing to come out of their keeps. The current system encourages paying EU/Asia players to come onto NA servers and being PvE-centric. This of course is the complete opposite of what people think when they think WvWvW.

There is already Points per kill (PPK) enabled in case you haven’t noticed.

Have not noticed because that’s simply not true. The only server points you get are from holding PvE objectives at the end of the countdown timer.

Ogre.3124:

Aezyr.5304:

Ogre.3124:

TorquedSoul.8097:

I personally don’t think that eliminating all forms of territorial scoring in WvW is possible.

But I have heard quite a few comments about ditching it and I’m curious what you would replace it with.

Points per Cap may eliminate the disproportionate advantage of off hours capping, but doesn’t change the fact that those that like to PvD will still have the advantage. The score difference may not be as pronounce but the advantage would be.

Dumping for PPK doesn’t work as PPK is a function of activity not skill. So the more active servers will simply have more kills.

Using KDR doesn’t work either as it really doesn’t scale and will generally encourage score oriented forces to take positions where they can get the most defensive advantage (i.e bunker/siege up.)

Those are the three that I have considered, what are your thoughts?

PPT is fine. Just give points for kills. Something like 0.5 points per kill. This way in NA servers you won’t be finding fights-tier servers in 2-4 and tier 1 refusing to come out of their keeps. The current system encourages paying EU/Asia players to come onto NA servers and being PvE-centric. This of course is the complete opposite of what people think when they think WvWvW.

There is already Points per kill (PPK) enabled in case you haven’t noticed.

Have not noticed because that’s simply not true. The only server points you get are from holding PvE objectives at the end of the countdown timer.

“Points per Kill

Each enemy player killed in WvW now grants 1 point of War Score to your team.
This change was made in order to allow players who focus primarily on killing enemy players to contribute more to the team’s overall success.
Points are awarded for kills and stomps equally.
Any team who has tagged the kill will get a point. For example, if the red and blue teams have both tagged a green player, and the green player dies, both the red team and the blue team will get 1 point."

From the patch notes Jan 26

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/January_2016

You can also see it ticking if there is a large battle.

Aezyr.5304:

Ogre.3124:

Aezyr.5304:

Ogre.3124:

TorquedSoul.8097:

I personally don’t think that eliminating all forms of territorial scoring in WvW is possible.

But I have heard quite a few comments about ditching it and I’m curious what you would replace it with.

Points per Cap may eliminate the disproportionate advantage of off hours capping, but doesn’t change the fact that those that like to PvD will still have the advantage. The score difference may not be as pronounce but the advantage would be.

Dumping for PPK doesn’t work as PPK is a function of activity not skill. So the more active servers will simply have more kills.

Using KDR doesn’t work either as it really doesn’t scale and will generally encourage score oriented forces to take positions where they can get the most defensive advantage (i.e bunker/siege up.)

Those are the three that I have considered, what are your thoughts?

PPT is fine. Just give points for kills. Something like 0.5 points per kill. This way in NA servers you won’t be finding fights-tier servers in 2-4 and tier 1 refusing to come out of their keeps. The current system encourages paying EU/Asia players to come onto NA servers and being PvE-centric. This of course is the complete opposite of what people think when they think WvWvW.

There is already Points per kill (PPK) enabled in case you haven’t noticed.

Have not noticed because that’s simply not true. The only server points you get are from holding PvE objectives at the end of the countdown timer.

“Points per Kill

Each enemy player killed in WvW now grants 1 point of War Score to your team.
This change was made in order to allow players who focus primarily on killing enemy players to contribute more to the team’s overall success.
Points are awarded for kills and stomps equally.
Any team who has tagged the kill will get a point. For example, if the red and blue teams have both tagged a green player, and the green player dies, both the red team and the blue team will get 1 point."

From the patch notes Jan 26

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/January_2016

You can also see it ticking if there is a large battle.

I stand corrected. Thanks

In addition you get points for killing dolyaks and sentries. So there are indeed other sources for the war score. Before PPK enabled it was around 30% points not from tick.
I don’t know the current share but I would guess it will be around 40%.

PPK gives about 5% of points in highest tier and less then 1% on lower tiers.

Aidal.4901:

Reduce over all ppt values, and improve kill value. Similar to the wxp mechanic for players, players who have accomplished more in wvw would be worth more on kill.

The idea needs tweaking, but I feel like it would be a good start. I dunno if the idea was stated prior, I got it from metal gear online.

Kind of still playing on this, the current wvw awards inactivity just as much as activity (to an extent) even if overall PPT values were lowered, there would still be a bit of a problem with night capping, I won’t mess with that though, not yet.

Open to changes, my idea is simply take the wxp mechanic, where players increase in wxp value as they “do things” and apply it toward the point system. If someone has been going around flipping camps and tearing up other players, his value would increase applying a sort of bounty that would be given to the team that brings him down

On the flipside someone fresh out of spawn (or respawn) would be worth little to nothing, but still worth applying pressure to to avoid potential ppt gain, this would come at the cost of increasing your own bounty, again its just an idea, but I figured giving more incentive for activity might be a good start.

X T D.6458:

The problem is not so much about PPT being a part of WvW, its that the scoring system is outdated and does not reflect the dynamic nature of wvw. Things like backcapping, nightcapping, ktraining etc w/e you want to call it ruins a lot of effort people make towards generating points for their server and simply leaves a bad taste in players mouths for this type of gameplay choosing instead to just go for fights and not care about PPT or scores.

There should also be some kind of PPC system. We have all been in that situation, where you spend an hour taking a fully upgraded keep defended by a blob, and just happened to cap it right after the tick, and 5 minutes later…its gone, and you got nothing for it. At least with PPC, which should also reflect the upgrade scoring system I mentioned, every time you capture something you can contribute to your server.

I agree with that but not with that:

X T D.6458:

One of the problems with the current scoring system is that it is imbalanced, why is a paper keep worth the same as a fully upgraded keep? I have proposed several times that this needs to be reworked by making scoring reflect the upgrade of the objective, the more upgraded it is the more points its worth.

For example
t1 keep-10 PPT
t2 keep- 15 PPT
t3 keep- 25 PPT

I would change the (in this post) first two points before changing the third as we’re still not really certain how the upgrades will work in the end.
So, take an outnumbered server who’s unable to defeat the enemy blob but can cap most of their structures back nonetheless – they would get less points for their efforts while the bigger group can safely either let their structures upgrade (because all the outnumbered server can do is trying to hold/backcap their stuff) or have someone who is doing that for them.
I really think having a dynamic “PPT” depending on how many players on each side would be the best idea – with the bigger group still having a slight advantage.

ETA: I’m still not really sure about changing the “Tick” – have to think about that a bit more – you have a point and that is what is often forgotten by anet, I think – we don’t go to a keep and cap it, it often takes us hours of work for which we aren’t rewarded – just to “wvw players get better rewards than they think” – doesn’t mean I want better rewards but that those who complain they get too little have a point as theory is something different than reality. (And wvw something different than EotM).
ETA²: I actually think that this very case is neglectable – it’s 35 points different max, it doesn’t happen that often and defending a structure still is easier than capping it if you intend to. Still “for hours without doing anything else” is valid and should at least be recognized.

Rather than reward players for flipping an objective and PPT for holding one, I suggest the game engine creates specific objectives or tasks every 15 minutes. At each interval, the game engine would create specific objectives for each faction based on current populations and their dominance. The objective system would stretch a server to take, defend and guard multiple objectives meaning coordination would be more important than zerging. It would also allow a less populated server compete with a larger one by giving them easier and fewer objectives for the same points. Most importantly the objectives would be shared among the servers which would increase the levels of conflict between them.

I’d make the following changes:
-PPT is only active in EB, make it tick over every hour instead of every 15 minutes and make it so upgraded Towers and Keeps are worth more to encourage holding things.
-Buff PPK a bit to make fighting servers more viable for scoring.
-Make it so that losing your Towers and Keeps in your Borderlands removes points from your server (more points per tier) to encourage defending your home Border and attacking enemy ones to lower their score. Recapping adds points back but only the equivalent of a paper Tower or Keep so losing a T2 or T3 position hurts a lot more (say you lose 10 points for a T1 Tower and 30 points for a T3 Tower, recapping would add 10 points regardless of what Tier it was when you lost it).

With fewer points from PPT with the removal of Borderlands PPT means losing a zerg fight or a Tower or Keep on your home border actually has consequences.

This also means servers that are great at defense would be able to keep their scores from dropping and servers with fighting guilds can gain points through killing enemy zergs and pug zergs can contribute by lowering the enemy score by capping their Borderlands or any mix of the three.

You’d sometimes need to make a choice of defending your Borderland and prevent points from dropping at the risk of losing your EB area and your PPT dropping.