Guild Wars 2

(continued)

Taking all of the above into account, I’ve pretty much given up arguing in favor of any solutions that seek to balance the server populations. This is because all such schemes fly directly in the face of how ArenaNet currently monetizes WvW (driving players to higher population servers then profiting from the attendant transfer fees). Until that most fundamental principle changes, we’re stuck with coverage disparities.

That’s why my suggestions are aimed at changing how coverage disparity impacts points awarded rather than changing the coverage disparity itself. The ideal would be to change the coverage disparity; but, as detailed above, that’s a much deeper problem in which ArenaNet would have to take a vastly different approach to WvW to solve. In the meantime, I just want to give the outnumbered players a fighting chance so they don’t feel like their efforts are completely worthless in WvW.

Meanwhile, anyone want to take a stab at suggesting ways to monetize WvW which would achieve the goal of spreading the populations more evenly between servers? Figure that one out and the rest will fall into place.

TL;DR: Follow the money.

I could reasonably assume that IF the professions were relatively balanced and had better tools to exploit that made control and support roles; along with various front line, mid line, and back line roles all viable and necessary, then viable counters to blobs would become viable. Also defense needs to have a viable role. Each profession should be able to provide viable damage, control, and support roles from various lines while in combat that are relatively balanced to each other. Then zerging would likely become inefficient coupled with scoring system and map changes.

On top of revitalizing the professions by fundamentally changing them so that they have niches revolving around various front line, mid line, back line, damage, control, and support roles, along with siege equipment that also fill these roles, then WvW could be revitalized. The professions need to have their auto attacks merged into right clicking on an enemy would proc the auto attack, and the new open skill slot can become a new non-spammable skill. Preferably a skill shot since there are not many present in the game. More skills and traits should be interesting and unique and more should be skill shots. Additionally traits should give a profession and build a unique role to play. Finally there should be less emphasis on number tweaks in the traits. For example, EoTM would become more interesting if CONTROL was a much better combat role.

The scoring system would need to be scraped entirely and/or replaced to limit the superiority of coverage and population.

Additionally the best things about TESO’s AvA is that structures and fortifications must be taken strategically in an order. Camps first, then towers, then you can attack keeps. The system prevents captures if they are taken out of order. Rams cannot be placed down if any other siege equipment is actively attacking the structure. Essentially there is thinking involved. This should be applied in some way to WvW, but the maps would need to be remade so that towers actually provide strategic ways to Siege and DEFEND a Keep. IE if you lose a Tower or two, you will have a hard time defending your keep.

Ultimately, there needs to be a viable come back mechanic for the losing and outnumbered servers and for countering massive blobs. Balanced professions and balanced combat and strategy roles in terms of Damage, Control, and Support, would help make the game more interesting.

buckeyecro.9614:

(..)Then zerging would likely become inefficient coupled with scoring system and map changes.

IMO “zerging” isn’t related to coverage imbalances, or even population size. Smaller population server’s zerg may only muster 20 people, but if you are 5, it’ll look like a “zerg”. Larger servers just do this in 60 v 20 proportions.

Additionally the best things about TESO’s AvA is that structures and fortifications must be taken strategically in an order. Camps first, then towers, then you can attack keeps. The system prevents captures if they are taken out of order.

Arguably, doing things in order, like secure your corner, then take E/W camp, then NE/NW tower then garri makes things easier, though I like the high risk/high reward attempts to “ninja” garri.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

And, sadly, I think coverage will continue to be a problem until ArenaNet can find a method to monetize WvW that doesn’t rely on server transfer fees.

Very interesting – and kinda disheartening – point. I’m not quite sure of the pure capitalistic motivations behind stacked servers, though I wholeheartedly agree with the corollary that if there was an obvious and easy way to link balanced populations to gem purchases, it would happen at the drop of a hat.

Maybe we should ask ANet, how much effort it would be to implement a solution that gives us balanced populations, and then open a kind of “kickstarter” in the gem store, where people just deposit gems into until we have the amount necessary to fund the effort, or make it their worthwhile. Would need some way to link the gems to cash, so you couldn’t just use in-game gold, so maybe make it a real kickstarter, hehehe.

I would hazard a guess that – taken as a whole – WvW players spend less on the trading post for cosmetic and quality-of-life items than their PvE compatriots.

Maybe…? Dunno. PvE players have a much, much, very much easier way of making gold, which allows them to buy gems with gold, reducing the potential for gem purchases. Pure WvW also offers less opportunities to score unique skins, which should mean WvW players would be more open to purchasing skins of the TP.

Also, people would still transfer between servers, not everyone just bandwagons or abandons ship.

BTW, Devon — your mailbox is full.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

And, sadly, I think coverage will continue to be a problem until ArenaNet can find a method to monetize WvW that doesn’t rely on server transfer fees.

That’s why I put gem-registration costs into my AvA proposal
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists/3695388
I am quite sure that WvW has a lot of people that would pay for their alliance to play competitive. Of course that would need a fair acceptable base-scoring for all, and not the off-time domination we currently have. One mayor imbalance problem would at least easily solved: there should be an upper-level of players in an alliance.

Another proposal is to extend the current objective-claiming to a kind of “Guild Fortress”, would make WvW more interesting for pure PvE-Guilds
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/If-you-could-change-the-scoring-mechanic/3552163
and that would also mean gem-selling skins for “Guild Fortresses” and their parts (nicer gates, more flags, the guild name on plates, signposts with guild-objective name, rename the objective on map, statutes with players skin placeable on some places …) would generate some business as well.

Or as I have suggested before, the out numbered buff applies to a sides keep on EB plus a garrison on the BL map. This may mean any side holding the keep or garrison from an enemy server is kicked from it once the side/sides become out numbered and its automatically flipped back and is not contestable until the out numbered side/sides are no longer out numbered.
Might provide a little incentive to the sides constantly out numbered to get back into the game without having to worry about the blob coming along & wiping them off the map whenever they try & recapture their keep/garrison, just as my side are doing at the moment.

This Tournament obviously still shows up all the problems with the PPT system, Server superiority should not be determined by the biggest Zerg who can go round capping stuff off-peak. What’s the point in putting effort in defending and all that during the day when stuff will just get flipped overnight?

Anet does not have a clue how imbalanced WvW populations are between servers as you have seen with how they implemented Pre-Tournament Transfers, so the only option is to change the way PPT is gained, but not by applying players caps on each map. It should be about clever strategy and smart PPT play with all the additional points you can gain from Yaks, sentries and stomps otherwise it just badly balanced Competition – which remains a fact.

WvW is far too casual in many ways, but is that what Anet’s intends it to be?

Why not just introduce a rating system based on current active population as an hotfix until a better scoring system is introduced?

If a side has 2x the pop in a map they should need to cap 2x the objectives to score the same amount of points. (need some adjustments as this is a 3way fight but you get the point)

Night capping like this would be less significant but still have its rewards for servers that actually are competitive enough to keep playing through all the time-frames.

Give it up, guys. They never answer when we bring the problem up. It’s hopeless if they don’t even acknowledge that there is a problem.

Reset night, when numbers were even, when i went to bed we had twice NSP’s points. When I woke up this morning, they were 15k ahead.

It’s just frustrating how skills don’t matter at all and how it’s all about have numbers when other servers don’t and pvd at will without anyone to stop you. Where’s the fun? For both sides?

Look the pic, we have, now, like 20 people on each bl, TOPS. They have blobs of 50+. Just ridiculous.

Please do not mix up two completely different problems of WVW as they need completely different actions to fix.

- coverage: even if you field more people you loose, as the scoring favor a few doing PvD in off-time over many fighting for points in prime-time.
- population imbalance such that you are outmanned most of the time.

First is discussed here, second in threads like https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-Enforced-Player-Balance or https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Season-proposal-preventing-bandwagoning or https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Suggestion-How-about-you-make-WvWvW-smaller

Zanshin.5379:

Give it up, guys. They never answer when we bring the problem up. It’s hopeless if they don’t even acknowledge that there is a problem.

Sadly, it would appear you’re right. There may be individual ArenaNet developers who would like to see WvW evolve into something other than PvDoor, coverage wars, karma trains, and mindless auto-attack spamming. ArenaNet the corporation, on the other hand, seems perfectly content to leave WvW in its current state. It’s making them money through transfer fees; so if it ain’t broke, why fix it.

Dayra.7405:

Please do not mix up two completely different problems of WVW as they need completely different actions to fix.

- coverage: even if you field more people you loose, as the scoring favor a few doing PvD in off-time over many fighting for points in prime-time.
- population imbalance such that you are outmanned most of the time.

True, this thread was meant to deal with the issue of off-hour coverage > anything when it comes to scoring PPT.

We do have a solution in here that would address the general population imbalance, too, though. Quick recap -

The big problem is that servers are matched for 24 hours based on a score that’s computed over a 24 hour period. That’s a problem because not everyone plays 24 hours a day. Server populations – maybe outside of T1 – can vary quite a bit over a day. This usually results in your PPT also being different over the course of the day. If your server is all but empty 16 hours of a day, but fields the Mongolian hordes during the other 8, you may end up with an overall score that is similar to a server with a only mid sized, but steady, 24 hour population. When these two get matched up and you play during your server’s dead period, you are not going to have much fun, getting zerged down all the time, and your 8 hours of overwhelming dominance may get similarly bored.

To address this, the 24 hour period should be chopped up into smaller scoring blocks. You still play under your server’s banner, but now during each scoring block, you will be matched against servers that are closest to you in scoring during that time period, which should mean you will fight a roughly equal population.

Fighting equal populations translates into more fun in WvW IMO. Maybe this is a minority viewpoint.

As Mattargul said above, the best way to address the coverage issue is to chop it up into smaller scoring blocks. I also really like the idea, they’ve suggested. I’ve suggested another, split the 24hr PPT into 3 separate PPT scores based on the time of day. Winning the week would involve a server having to win at least 2 out of the 3 PPT scores.

The advantage of this, it makes it absolutely impossible for guilds to transfer to stack a server because their coverage might not mean anything if the server’s other 2 PPT scores lose. This is especially true where servers lack the skill to compete with equal or greater numbers and strictly rely on coverage. It’s not likely they’d transfer to a time slot where coverage is overwhelming based on the que times being astronomical.

I can already see where this method would turn 2 servers upside down in gold league and force them to disperse unless they’d like continually losing. I’m sure we can find other servers in other match-ups where it would force them to disperse as well.

Not everyone may agree, but I think most would that the ideal situation would be to have all servers semi equal in numbers to the point that it really is anybody’s guess who’d win the match up.

The only other option I can think of would be to eliminate PPT ticks all together and only award points for defending, capturing, and killing other players. This also would completely wreck the off hours coverage some servers have. Make it so servers that are outnumbered get double the points for doing any of the above.

DeadlySynz.3471:

As Mattargul said above, the best way to address the coverage issue is to chop it up into smaller scoring blocks. I also really like the idea, they’ve suggested. I’ve suggested another, split the 24hr PPT into 3 separate PPT scores based on the time of day. Winning the week would involve a server having to win at least 2 out of the 3 PPT scores.

The advantage of this, it makes it absolutely impossible for guilds to transfer to stack a server because their coverage might not mean anything if the server’s other 2 PPT scores lose. This is especially true where servers lack the skill to compete with equal or greater numbers and strictly rely on coverage. It’s not likely they’d transfer to a time slot where coverage is overwhelming based on the que times being astronomical.

I can already see where this method would turn 2 servers upside down in gold league and force them to disperse unless they’d like continually losing. I’m sure we can find other servers in other match-ups where it would force them to disperse as well.

Not everyone may agree, but I think most would that the ideal situation would be to have all servers semi equal in numbers to the point that it really is anybody’s guess who’d win the match up.

The only other option I can think of would be to eliminate PPT ticks all together and only award points for defending, capturing, and killing other players. This also would completely wreck the off hours coverage some servers have. Make it so servers that are outnumbered get double the points for doing any of the above.

In previous threads I’ve been an advocate of eliminating PPT altogether. However, I’ve come to the realization that a purely merit-based points system (points are only awarded for capturing, defending, and sending enemy players to defeat) would be very easy to exploit. Before explaining why, I’ll first state the limiters I believe would be needed to counter the potential for exploitation:

• Capturing undefended fortifications awards no points. If it did award points, then the server with the greater coverage would still dominate. Instead of obtaining a runaway score from sweeping the map, capturing everything, and earning points from PPT ticking in the background, they would obtain a runaway score from sweeping the map, capturing everything, and be awarded for each capture; even when they’re just PvDooring down all those capture points.

• PPT would still be earned, but only by upgrading fortifications. The more upgrades completed (not merely ordered), the more PPT generated by a fortification. An un-upgraded fortification earns zero PPT.

Now, let’s examine what happens under a system which awards World Score points merely for capturing an objective with no limiters in place and in which PPT has been completely eliminated.

• Server A – possessing superior coverage – sweeps the map out from under Servers B and C during “off hours”.

• Server A is awarded World Score points for each capture, even when empty and undefended.

• Server A amasses a runaway lead during the “off hours” map sweeps because of this.

• During prime time, Server A hibernates to deny Servers B and C any points from player kills.

• Servers B and C will certainly earn points, too, using the same mechanics. However, lacking the coverage of Server A, they are helpless to stop another map sweep by Server A the following “night” and every “night” thereafter.

• Server A still wins through coverage. We’re right back where we started.

Now let’s examine what happens with the limiters I listed above:

• Server A – possessing superior coverage – sweeps the map out from under Servers B and C during “off hours”.

• Server A is awarded zero World Score points for each capture of an empty and undefended fortification.

• Server A attempts to upgrade their fortifications.

• Servers B and C – though lacking the numbers during their off-hours to lay siege to the towers and keeps captured by Server A – are able to capture supply camps and kill Dolyaks.

(continued)

(continued)

• With disrupted supply lines, Server A’s attempts to upgrade what it has captured stall. Depending on Server B’s and C’s effectiveness (or lack thereof), Server A may earn full PPT from successfully upgrading everything, only marginal PPT from a reduced number of completed upgrades, or zero PPT if denied all supply. Combined with how long upgrades take to complete – even in the presence of ample supply – Server A’s PPT earning potential may be greatly reduced by the actions of Servers B and C.

• Server A is prevented from earning a runaway score.

• During prime time, Server A can not afford to hibernate in an effort to deny Servers B and C any points from player kills or the capture of actively defended fortifications. Even though this would deny Servers B and C points from those sources, Servers B and C can still earn PPT from captured fortifications they upgrade. This will pressure Server A to remain engaged in WvW rather than hiding.

• Servers B and C – though helpless to stop map sweeps by Server A during their off-peak hours – can still earn PPT if they make the effort to upgrade what they own during their prime time. In conjunction with the ability to deny supply – and, thus, PPT points – to Server A, they can prevent Server A from amassing a runaway score. This isn’t done passively; they must still flip camps, kill Dolyaks, capture objectives (as they’re able), and upgrade their fortifications. At least a counter-play option exists to challenge Server A’s coverage dominance.

• The outcome is not a foregone conclusion. Server A’s superior coverage is not a guaranteed win if Servers B and C make the effort to deny supply to Server A while investing in their own holdings as they’re able. Server A may still win, but it will be a much more closely fought match.

Under this modified system, PPT can still be earned. However, it’s earned as a result of conscious action; ordering upgrades and maintaining supply lines to complete the upgrade. As such, counter-play options exist to prevent the runaway earning of PPT.

Some would argue a counter-play option already exists under the current passive PPT system; simply capture back the tower and keeps of your opponent. However, we know in practice and in the face of coverage disparities this doesn’t work. The outnumbered servers are simply steamrolled by enemy zergs or they’re allowed to capture a tower or keep so the zerg can capture it back 5 minutes later as part of a karma train farming run. Under the current passive PPT scoring system the server with the superior numbers always wins in those scenarios. There is no counter-play.

The outnumbered server that executes a picture-perfect ninja capture of a keep will still lose once the zerg shows up; both the keep and the potential PPT they may have earned from it. Under the system I’ve proposed, the outnumbered server may still lose the keep (or not even manage to capture it in the first place), but an option exists for denying PPT from that keep to the server with the superior numbers. Counter-play.

In the former scenario (the current system), points are passively earned from doing nothing more than outnumbering your opponent and PvDooring the map with no counter-play options available to the outnumbered servers. With the modified system, servers earn points only by actively engaging in conflict with one another; either directly or indirectly (through combat or supply/point denial). Though PPT still exists under this system, the means of acquiring it is through actively upgrading and defending one’s holdings. Though not a pure merit-based system, it’s a system which rewards player interaction more so than the current system of inaction.

PPT evolves from being the method by which the server with superior coverage amasses a largely meritless runaway score, to the method by which the outnumbered servers can threaten that server’s lead and/or deny them points. The server with superior coverage must continue to fight for every point it earns (appropriate in a PvP environment) rather than earn points passively from empty, idle, undefended, and un-upgraded fortifications.

Lastly, the system offers counter-play options, even in the face of coverage disparities. That’s a hallmark of good game design; the skilled actions of a player must matter, must effect a positive change in the game world and be rewarded appropriately. Under the current system, the actions of even the absolute best most godly uber pro WvW player in the world are rendered absolutely pointless when outnumbered. Likewise, simply rolling up into a ball to PvDoor a map is not a reflection of skill and the rewards being given for this action are not a measure of merit.

I had something else typed out but I had since changed my mind because I thought of another idea which I like more lol. It takes your idea of upgraded structures into consideration. This also should eliminate the 2vs1, or at least make it almost useless to do it unless you have a vendetta against a server.

The idea, eliminate PPT ticks all together and only award PPT based on objectives. WvW is part PvE, and nearly all of PvE is based on some sort of objectives to progress so lets have war score awarded based on objectives. Have say a database of say 100 objectives where 5-8 are randomly pulled every hour for servers to complete. Completing an objective awards war score; the harder the objective, the more war score awarded. Every hour the objectives reset and change.

A possible list of objectives could be:

- Capture 5 towers = 500 war score
- Kill anywhere from 100 – 500 enemy players = 100 – 500 war score
- Complete 3 upgrades on any structure / camp = 300 war score
- Have anywhere from 1 – 5 fully upgraded structures = 2000 – 1000 war score
- Successfully defend anywhere from 5 – 10 times = 100 – 500 war score
- Have control of all mercenary camps = 500 war score
- Capture (not be in possession of) a keep or garrison = 2000 war score
- Capture Stonemist = 1000 War score
- Successfully defend Stonemist 5 times = 1000 war score
- Capture a tower from each opposing server; For example, if your red, the objective may read “Capture a blue and green tower” = 1000 war score
- Capture 3 opposing color towers (IE: Capture 3 green towers) = 1500 war score

These are just some ideas to name a few. Each map will have a different set of objectives, meaning if you map hop, your not likely to see the same objectives on another map. Once an objective is complete, it’s done, you can’t lose SM then re-capture it for another 1000 points. Sometimes a server will draw easy objectives, whereas sometimes they will draw more difficult ones. These objectives change every hour.

The advantages (I think) this system has:

- You don’t know what the other server’s objectives are unless you have a spy, so denying them score may not be easy, especially if they create diversions
- Attempting to deny a server points may be a more viable strategy depending on what objectives you have
- 2vs1 would no longer make sense as you have to look out for your own server; especially if the objectives require capturing things from a server your “allied with”
- Off hour coverage may be useless, especially if the objectives require capturing objectives (you already own), or kill players (that don’t exist on the map).
- I think most people generally like working towards something like an objective
- Ultimately, depending on the objectives, it may force zergs to split up to complete them all because blobbing around would not give enough time to complete. It forces strategy, prioritizing and defending.

Or, keep the PPT system but cut the ticks by 75% and institute the system above.

TL;DR, make war score objective based or at least mainly objective based. It could eliminate a lot of current problems we see in WvW

Far too many of these suggestions punish servers that have players coming into WvW and reward servers that don’t. If you think this is a fix, you are blind. This will only lead to people yelling at others to log out of WvW so they can get whatever incentive it is you are providing.

Players are making suggestions to literally ruin the game just so they think they have a better chance of coming out on top. The introduction of Bloodlust was the absolute best thing ANet could do to promote organized fighting over mindless blobbing. It rewards small organized groups, but not disproportionately to large organized groups. A large group of players that are not organized are not going to be successfully spiking opponents they run into, even if they manage to kill them.

As I see it, WvW functions mostly as it is supposed to. Off-hours coverage is a community problem in a community competition. Blobbing is easily beaten by more organized groups. Players that want smaller scale fights that are imbalanced play on low tier servers. People that want huge fights play on the top few servers. People that want balanced small fights avoid WvW completely. It makes sense to me.

I think the only “solution” wvw needs is a seperate GvG gametype like GW1, with organized small-medium sized groups. After that is introduced, the smaller servers should be lumped into larger servers. This would make it possible for everyone to have balanced small, medium, and large scale fights – just in different game modes.

BAITness.1083:

Far too many of these suggestions punish servers that have players coming into WvW and reward servers that don’t. If you think this is a fix, you are blind. This will only lead to people yelling at others to log out of WvW so they can get whatever incentive it is you are providing.

Players are making suggestions to literally ruin the game just so they think they have a better chance of coming out on top. The introduction of Bloodlust was the absolute best thing ANet could do to promote organized fighting over mindless blobbing. It rewards small organized groups, but not disproportionately to large organized groups. A large group of players that are not organized are not going to be successfully spiking opponents they run into, even if they manage to kill them.

As I see it, WvW functions mostly as it is supposed to. Off-hours coverage is a community problem in a community competition. Blobbing is easily beaten by more organized groups. Players that want smaller scale fights that are imbalanced play on low tier servers. People that want huge fights play on the top few servers. People that want balanced small fights avoid WvW completely. It makes sense to me.

I think the only “solution” wvw needs is a seperate GvG gametype like GW1, with organized small-medium sized groups. After that is introduced, the smaller servers should be lumped into larger servers. This would make it possible for everyone to have balanced small, medium, and large scale fights – just in different game modes.

My suggestion doesnt, it’s aimed eliminating coverage issues while promoting smaller groups when needed. Far more strategy, an a small 10 man group could make a world of difference as opposed to a map blob.

BAITness.1083:

Far too many of these suggestions punish servers that have players coming into WvW and reward servers that don’t. If you think this is a fix, you are blind. This will only lead to people yelling at others to log out of WvW so they can get whatever incentive it is you are providing.

If there is never coming enough you loose, nothing more to say.
Rebalancing WvW pop (or shutting down servers) is the only thing that helps there.

But nevertheless coverage is a problem! 30:10:10 generates far more score difference than 300:100:100. And that is (or at least should be) the target of the proposals in this thread.

BAITness.1083:

Players are making suggestions to literally ruin the game

Player suggestions will never do more than a brainstorming for ANet. The only ones that ruin or improve the game are therefore ANet.

BAITness.1083:

Far too many of these suggestions punish servers that have players coming into WvW and reward servers that don’t. If you think this is a fix, you are blind. This will only lead to people yelling at others to log out of WvW so they can get whatever incentive it is you are providing.

No. One proposed solution is to separate the 24 hour period into distinct chunks that are then scored and matched up independently. The scoring method stays the same. However many people you have in WvW contribute to PPT for the time block they are in, determining who they will fight against next. Same as right now. Only difference is you will be vastly less likely to be fighting outnumbered.

I think the only “solution” wvw needs is a seperate GvG gametype like GW1, with organized small-medium sized groups. After that is introduced, the smaller servers should be lumped into larger servers. This would make it possible for everyone to have balanced small, medium, and large scale fights – just in different game modes.

This solution doesn’t address that some servers are running 100s deep during certain hours, while they can still be matched up against servers that are nearly empty during those same hours due to scoring being accumulated over 24 hours.

The only way to actually nerf coverage would be to take all the wvw populations and re-shuffle them evenly across all the servers & lock down server transfers at that point.

But no one really wants that.

Raf.1078:

The only way to actually nerf coverage would be to take all the wvw populations and re-shuffle them evenly across all the servers & lock down server transfers at that point.

But no one really wants that.

Well, even then you’d still have issues with people leaving the game, or just dropping out of WvW.

Whatever solution we get would have to account for populations fluctuating, even for legit reasons, not just people chasing the bandwagon.

Mattargul.9235:

Raf.1078:

The only way to actually nerf coverage would be to take all the wvw populations and re-shuffle them evenly across all the servers & lock down server transfers at that point.

But no one really wants that.

Well, even then you’d still have issues with people leaving the game, or just dropping out of WvW.

Whatever solution we get would have to account for populations fluctuating, even for legit reasons, not just people chasing the bandwagon.

The solution is obviously a technology that would create instances dynamically as needed, leaving the population on every instance always even. Too bad ANet doesn’t have such technology…

Scale the number of capturable objectives with players by make superfluous lords invulnerable. (E.g. total all sides: <100 only camps, <200 camps and towers, >200 everything capturable). Invulnerable objectives do not count for scoring. That technologies even ANet has :-)

So seems like we have three competing ideas here. One: Merge servers/combine servers somehow. Two: Scoring changes. Three: Time zone gated matches.

Let’s take them one at a time.

1. Server merges/combinations. There are a couple of reasons why this is not the best way to go. For one, people hate it. They don’t want to be forced to move servers or play on a particular server or play for a “color”.

Secondly, it doesn’t really address unbalanced coverage for all servers. The reason is that there are way more people playing WvW across all servers during “prime time”. There are simply not enough people playing during the “off hours” to match up with the number of people playing during “prime time”. No matter how many servers there are, either you’re going to have massive queues during prime time or you’re going to have some servers with sparse population during “off hours”.

2. Scoring changes. I would be ok with some scoring changes. And it would help mitigate the feeling of getting crushed. But it doesn’t actually do anything about unbalanced matches, it just gives the illusion that the match is more balanced because the score is closer.

The score may be closer but all your stuff will still get lost when you go to sleep. And you will still get run over by massive zergs when the population is unbalanced. And both of these things are what people complain about.

Giving people objectives that are accomplishable could be possible but that would be too PvE like I think for WvW’ers. Kraag’s points about the scoring allowing the outnumbered to actually do something to help, i.e. deny upgrades, is probably the best that can be achieved with scoring changes. However, hopefully a closer score would encourage people to keep coming into the game later in the week.

3. Time zone gated matches. I believe this is the best solution. The main reason is that it actually does create more balanced matches – for all time zones.

Split the day into three or four time slices. Then match servers against similarly populated servers for each time slice. (Glicko ratings will be calculated separately for each time slice.). Play weeklong matches still so its not a bunch of mini matches.

No one is forced to play at a certain time or on a certain server – both remain the player’s choice. There will be more balanced matches for everyone. You’ll be fighting against more even numbers. And the match is saved in the state it is in at the end of the time slice – so you aren’t going to wake up to find all your stuff capped and your hard work in vain.

Heck, I believe even Devon’s suggestion was better than the current situation. It would at least allow people to strategize and fight really hard for a particular “mini-match” that they wouldn’t normally win.

Unfortunately, Devon’s failure to acknowledge the full time slices suggestion and/or scoring changes lead me to believe that neither is technically possible for them to do.

Johje Holan.4607:

(…)
Unfortunately, Devon’s failure to acknowledge the full time slices suggestion and/or scoring changes lead me to believe that neither is technically possible for them to do.

I’m not sure this last proposal was offered like that during the EotM CDI. In that CDI, it was discussed and acknowledged by Devon, to have WvW scoring/matching on shorter timescales instead of a whole week, without other changes, which was downvoted.

I don’t think it was discussed to have separate time slices that would be individually matched up based on their own glicko score.

Johje Holan.4607:

3. Time zone gated matches. I believe this is the best solution. The main reason is that it actually does create more balanced matches – for all time zones.

Time-zone matches do not work for the following 3 reasons:
1. Assumes that there is some reliable metric that can be calculated to determine a server’s strength in each of these slices.
2. Assumes that even if we could calculate that metric, all match-ups would somehow magically be even, when they were not before.
3. Does not account for the increased complexity burden on the players, and the servers.

After reading most of the wall of text by the OP. I have to say no thanks. I have a feeling the OP comes from a server that loses dew to off peak dominance by other servers. As is sick of it. I can under stand the frustration of it all. But is part of the game. And I don’t see why people who work odd hours should not be able to help
There server. And as for the change in the cycles. Again I can help but feel this is to stop your server being rolled in the off peak. A server that is strong for a few hours a day should not be rewarded for it. If a sever is strong for 70% of the day but gets rolled for 30% of it. It should not be pushed in to a different match up because of it.

I’m sorry OP. As good and well thought out as your idea is. I just can’t shake the feeling that this is all to do with you being fed up with your hard work you do during peak meaning nothing for the other 16 hours in the day.

Johje Holan.4607:

1. Server merges/combinations. There are a couple of reasons why this is not the best way to go. For one, people hate it. They don’t want to be forced to move servers or play on a particular server or play for a “color”.

Secondly, it doesn’t really address unbalanced coverage for all servers. The reason is that there are way more people playing WvW across all servers during “prime time”. There are simply not enough people playing during the “off hours” to match up with the number of people playing during “prime time”. No matter how many servers there are, either you’re going to have massive queues during prime time or you’re going to have some servers with sparse population during “off hours”.

Not at all. You would simply need a list of maps that adjusts dynamically to the number of players playing at any given time. Depending on the design queues are potentially a non-issue in an alliance based system and will never prevent you from being able to play WvW (although they may prevent access to a specific map in the map pool). The only assumption is that a.net is capable of implementing the system.

The first reason you give is actually somewhat more descriptive of the situation we find ourselves in, it’s just not a very good one, mainly because it’s mostly based on people’s assumption about what a “color” is in EotM. It is, however, true that a.net may be unwilling to consider an alliance solution because of the “server pride” argument (a term that I believe is actually a misnomer). I still believe they should though.

But I’ll agree that, given the situation we’re in, time slices are probably the best bet for a solution that at least gets us somewhat closer to balanced matchups. That, or a variant of the guesting system.

BrotherBelial.3094:

After reading most of the wall of text by the OP(…)

Don’t give up, keep reading.

Kodaka.1960:

Johje Holan.4607:

3. Time zone gated matches. I believe this is the best solution. The main reason is that it actually does create more balanced matches – for all time zones.

Time-zone matches do not work for the following 3 reasons:
1. Assumes that there is some reliable metric that can be calculated to determine a server’s strength in each of these slices.

The assumption is that PPT is a reasonable measure of population/server strength. It can be calculated for small slices of time just as well as for 24 hours. This metric over 6 hours will be a much, much better predictor for the actual strengt of that server during that 6 hour period than the 24 hour score. It will be much better than averaging out a score over 24 hours when everyone agrees that population can vary wildly over that time.

2. Assumes that even if we could calculate that metric, all match-ups would somehow magically be even, when they were not before.

Slicing the 24 hour day into smaller slices, especially if these can be aligned with “prime times”, will yield matches with more even populations for the majority of the players.

3. Does not account for the increased complexity burden on the players, and the servers.

Burden on players? Pretty much, none. You play the same way you play now, at your current time for your current server, just that you would be matched up against a server that can achieve the same score during those hours you play, which likely means that they have the same-ish number of people.

Burden on servers? Yes. Some more computations, shuffling of matches. It’s not trivial and won’t be done in an afternoon, but it’s not like we’re putting someone on the moon here.

ManaCraft.5630:

Johje Holan.4607:

1. Server merges/combinations. There are a couple of reasons why this is not the best way to go. For one, people hate it. They don’t want to be forced to move servers or play on a particular server or play for a “color”.

Secondly, it doesn’t really address unbalanced coverage for all servers. The reason is that there are way more people playing WvW across all servers during “prime time”. There are simply not enough people playing during the “off hours” to match up with the number of people playing during “prime time”. No matter how many servers there are, either you’re going to have massive queues during prime time or you’re going to have some servers with sparse population during “off hours”.

Not at all. You would simply need a list of maps that adjusts dynamically to the number of players playing at any given time. Depending on the design queues are potentially a non-issue in an alliance based system and will never prevent you from being able to play WvW (although they may prevent access to a specific map in the map pool). The only assumption is that a.net is capable of implementing the system.

The first reason you give is actually somewhat more descriptive of the situation we find ourselves in, it’s just not a very good one, mainly because it’s mostly based on people’s assumption about what a “color” is in EotM. It is, however, true that a.net may be unwilling to consider an alliance solution because of the “server pride” argument (a term that I believe is actually a misnomer). I still believe they should though.

But I’ll agree that, given the situation we’re in, time slices are probably the best bet for a solution that at least gets us somewhat closer to balanced matchups. That, or a variant of the guesting system.

Yes, they are capable, it’s the megaserver tech. All we need to fix this issue is an alliance-based system and the megaserver’s dynamically instances. GW2 has enough lore for a good story about why 3 diferent alliances are fighting. It would also make much more sense than the current different worlds(?) fighting.

And about proud, i’m confident that people would soon have alliance proud, and it would make much more sense with all the lore behind the war between the alliances and the objectives of each one.

Oh, and don’t even get me started on the excited fun fights 24/7, thanks to the megaserver’s tech. No more uneven matches, no more population unbalanced issue. Just fun fights.

A man can dream.

Mattargul.9235:

Kodaka.1960:

Johje Holan.4607:

3. Time zone gated matches. I believe this is the best solution. The main reason is that it actually does create more balanced matches – for all time zones.

Time-zone matches do not work for the following 3 reasons:
1. Assumes that there is some reliable metric that can be calculated to determine a server’s strength in each of these slices.

The assumption is that PPT is a reasonable measure of population/server strength. It can be calculated for small slices of time just as well as for 24 hours. This metric over 6 hours will be a much, much better predictor for the actual strengt of that server during that 6 hour period than the 24 hour score. It will be much better than averaging out a score over 24 hours when everyone agrees that population can vary wildly over that time.

I’m not clear on this part. What PPT are we using? The PPT from the previous 6 hours? The PPT from the same time period of the previous day? Both of these measures have their own issues, since they try to predict the strength of a server on a future date.

2. Assumes that even if we could calculate that metric, all match-ups would somehow magically be even, when they were not before.

Slicing the 24 hour day into smaller slices, especially if these can be aligned with “prime times”, will yield matches with more even populations for the majority of the players.

There’s simply no evidence for this. In most cases, a server will have more players at all times, or less players at all times.

yanniell.1236:

Yes, they are capable, it’s the megaserver tech.

Well, kind of. But you would have to offer players the choice of which map (instance) they want to play on, and whom they play with – just as is currently the case. The megaserver tech isn’t sufficient in and of itself. If the system cannot preserve existing communities, to the extent that they wish to be preserved, it is effectively stillborn.

Yes, it needs to be capable of doing that, which I think it is. From the site:

With the megaserver system, players won’t be separated into different copies of the same map based on the world they selected on character creation. Instead, you will simply arrive in a map and be assigned to the version of that map that makes the most sense for you as selected by the megaserver system we’ve developed. This new system takes your party, guild, language, home world, and other factors into account to match you to a version of the map you’re entering. This will increase the odds that you’ll see the same people more often and play with people of similar interests.

Johje Holan.4607:

2. Scoring changes. I would be ok with some scoring changes. And it would help mitigate the feeling of getting crushed. But it doesn’t actually do anything about unbalanced matches, it just gives the illusion that the match is more balanced because the score is closer.

The score may be closer but all your stuff will still get lost when you go to sleep. And you will still get run over by massive zergs when the population is unbalanced. And both of these things are what people complain about.

I think it goes deeper than simply losing all your stuff when you go to sleep. In a previous post I had posited the question, “If a server who night capped all the towers and keeps on the map did not earn any points from that action, would players feel as chagrined as they do now?”. Though largely a rhetorical question, I would hazard a guess the majority of answers would be, “No.”

Yes, it sucks to see all one’s hard work turned to ash during those periods a player isn’t logged in to defend their holdings. I think the real issue, though, is less how that action punishes the players who’s work is being undone and more how it rewards one’s opponent. Even more to the point, there’s currently no means of countering this situation. This renders a player’s efforts meaningless; which is one of the worst things a game can do to a player.

It has to do with the psychology of gaming. Games are a means of entertainment and recreation. They’re also a form of wish fulfillment or escapism. In the real world, we’re often faced with situations over which we’re powerless to effect any change; where even doing the “right” thing is often punished, to speak nothing of being rewarded.

The game world is a place we come to vicariously live out the ideal where doing the “right” thing results in a reward. When, instead, the game world too closely mirrors the real world (doing the “right” thing is not rewarded and is even punished), this leads to anxiety, disappointment, and frustration; the very emotions we’re trying to escape from in the game space.

How to correct this? There’s no system that can stop coverage disparities in an equitable manner and still maintain a server’s identity and continuity of purpose against the same opponents for an entire week. Instead, the correction lies in addressing the core of the problem; an opponent being awarded more points for less effort (PvDooring the map in “off” hours due to coverage disparities and earning runaway PPT).

It sucks to have all your stuff capped during a period when your server is grossly outnumbered. However, I think outnumbered players accept they will lose all their holdings during their “off” hours. What’s unacceptable is the double whammy of the opposing server earning the same PPT for 5 minutes of “work” to capture a keep that took 6 hours to upgrade. It’s an invalidation of one’s time and effort. The lack of any viable counter then leads to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness on the part of the outnumbered server; the worst set of conditions a game can impose on its players.

If, instead, the server with the greater coverage was required to put in an equal amount of time, effort, and expense to upgrade a fortification to earn PPT from completed upgrades, this would be viewed as a more equitable rewards system by the outnumbered server. Add the potential to counter this PPT gain, and the outnumbered server would then feel like their efforts matter and that the outcome of the match is not a foregone conclusion.

Note, too, this works both ways. The term “outnumbered” is agnostic and not absolute; the server outnumbered at 5 AM may well be outnumbering their opponents at 5 PM. Thus, all servers in a match benefit equally from these changes. The server outnumbered at 5 AM is going to lose everything to their opponent with the greater coverage. That sucks, but they can at least make an effort with their skeleton crew of players to deny their opponent supply and the points that come from upgrading fortifications. At 5 PM, when they’ve capped everything back and are outnumbering their enemy, the opposing server can attempt to do the same in return.

Everyone has the same opportunities for earning points and/or denying points to their opponent regardless of coverage disparities. PPT is then a more accurate representation of the play and counter-play between servers rather than a measure of who has the biggest blob and the greatest coverage.

Players’ actions then become more important than who has the most numbers on the map at any given time. Which is kind of the point of playing a game; your actions as a player effect desirable outcomes and are rewarded. This is as close to “fair” or “balanced” as WvW is going to get so long as the server system remains in effect and ArenaNet uses transfer fees to monetize it.

yanniell.1236:

Yes, it needs to be capable of doing that, which I think it is.

No, that’s the system choosing for you. It doesn’t matter how informed that choice is, you’re still fundamentally better off letting the players make decisions for themselves. There’s just no advantage to having the system do it on your behalf. There are, however, plenty of potential pitfalls.

Dayra.7405:

Andrew Clear.1750:

Plus there are 24 time zones in the world. Even trying to just use the NA ones for NA still leaves huge gaps in coverage (remember, Alaska, and Hawaii have their own time zones as well). Do we leave out the time zones of our soldiers stationed over sea? Those time zones are the same as our much maligned SEA / OCX players. Also, what about all our citizens that are overseas as teachers? What about South America? Brazil even has different time zones (or zone) than America.

I respect all the players in each time zone, and if we get beat cause one time zone has more coverage than ours, so be it.

Did you saw a reference to timezones?

Many people play in a match => many points
A few play in a match => few points
is how it should be!

And not how it currently is: The fewer play they higher the score.

Then why play if a lot of people aren’t playing? What is the motivation? What about servers like IoJ who do not have the NA to compete with most servers, but their off hours helps them be competitive. That used to be how SoS was.

I’m tired of NA Prime (or EU prime) players thinking they are special and that their contributions mean more than anybody else’s.

So, with this proposal, anyone facing CD in NA prime would have their contribution nerfed. Seems like NA prime players wouldn’t be happy with that.

But, you would still have more people than CD, and would gain more points, even with the nerf proposed. And then, CD will take over in the morning, and gain more points than your server (cause they have a lot more SEA than most servers).

Coverage is a strategy, and you just need to prepare for it. If you are facing servers with better coverage, then you will either fall in rankings, or be stuck at the bottom of a tier that you shouldn’t be in.

I’m on SBI. After the season is over we get to look forward to being a T3ish (closer to T4) server, stuck in T3, facing a T2 server (either Mag, HoD, DB, whichever gets stuck in the match that week) and FA, who was a T2 and dropped to T3 due to their guilds bolting ship cause they didn’t think they would’ve had a fight (clearly they were wrong, HoD has numbers).

We don’t have the coverage, and we know it. But you don’t see us coming on here complaining about coverage wars.

Facing IoJ is fun, because we understand our coverage disparity, and so does IoJ. SBI has to build a lead in NA in order to win the match, and IoJ has to build one in OCX/SEA in order to win. They even had to do that dance with NSP for awhile and YB.

So, coverage wars can be exciting, and strategic.

ManaCraft.5630:

yanniell.1236:

Yes, it needs to be capable of doing that, which I think it is.

No, that’s the system choosing for you. It doesn’t matter how informed that choice is, you’re still fundamentally better off letting the players make decisions for themselves. There’s just no advantage to having the system do it on your behalf. There are, however, plenty of potential pitfalls.

But if the system is putting you in the same instance as your guildies, parties, friends and people who have the most in common with you, what else would we want? In a 3 alliance system, i think that is good enough. But I’m not in anyway saying that it’s perfect nor that there isn’t room for improvement.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

I think it goes deeper than simply losing all your stuff when you go to sleep. In a previous post I had posited the question, “If a server who night capped all the towers and keeps on the map did not earn any points from that action, would players feel as chagrined as they do now?”. Though largely a rhetorical question, I would hazard a guess the majority of answers would be, “No.”

My quesion is this. The servers that face CD, would those servers be willing to receive no points for NA prime time capping all the towers and keeps? CD has about as many players in their NA during the week as the servers they face have in OCX/SEA. But, CD has more in OCX/SEA than those other servers. So, should CD get spanked in NA and get no points in overnight capping just so we can please the people in this forum, who think they work harder than other people? By everyone’s standards, a CD vs anyone with strong NA coverage and weak SEA coverage, would be decided only by stomp points, because no PPT would be calculated at all. And, no, people in this forum cannot argue this point, your NA prime status doesn’t make you superior.

Why should servers like DB and SoS be punished for having good OCX/SEA coverage? They have a lot of people on at that time, and people are saying that their points shouldn’t be tallied. Those same people are the ones who play NA against SoS, and normally have better NA coverage, so they want to win by not allowing SoS to have their night coverage counted.

I don’t see people who play in the overnight hours coming on here and saying NA coverage needs to be nerfed.

This topic is about as pointless as talks on wage equality. No one wants that, and no one truly wants PPT Coverage equality.

A scoring that always give equal points to all servers is meaningless, that’s true.
And I never support nor did I proposed such a scoring.

But many people are bored by the current situation of: more PvD in off-time gives an unbeatable score advantage.

Better would: many effort give many points and little effort give little points.

It looks like a lot people seem to like most rewards for no effort, nevertheless it’s wrong.

Andrew Clear.1750:

My quesion is this…

You may have taken my rhetorical question out of context. Nowhere am I arguing that any servers’ points should be nerfed. I absolutely do NOT subscribe to any system which devalues the points earning potential of a server (whether it be population based, time based, etc.).

Instead, what I’m proposing is the points a server earns is based on equal reward for equal effort and which can be countered by an opponent . In very concrete terms, THIS is what I’m in support of:

• Stomp an opponent, earn a World Score point.

• Capture a supply camp, tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle which is actively defended by real players, earn World Score points. The larger the objective and the more upgrades it has, the more World Score points earned.

• Build an upgrade to completion, earn PPT from the objective at which the upgrade was completed. The more upgrades built, the more PPT earned. Build no upgrades, earn no PPT.

This is what I’m NOT in support of:

• Earning PPT continuously over time for the one-time action of having captured an empty and undefended objective by PvDooring.

I fully support rewarding a server for its efforts. However, I’m a firm believer in rewards matching that effort:

• A server captures a keep from an enemy who zealously defends it? That server is rewarded for its efforts (as well as the server who defended the keep).

• A server captures an empty keep where their effort amounts to virtually zero? No reward.

• A server spends the coins to buy an upgrade and then devotes half an hour to ensure Dolyaks safely deliver supply to the keep to build the upgrade? That server is rewarded with PPT from that keep (but PPT that scales with the number of upgrades purchased).

• A server doesn’t bother upgrading any of their holdings? No investment, no PPT reward.

Under the system I’m proposing, servers are rewarded for their actions (capturing, defending, completing upgrades, stomping), not their inactions (passive accumulation of PPT from undefended and un-upgraded fortifications).

No server is being denied points. Servers which engage in “overnight” capping will still have the potential to earn points. The difference is they will have to actively earn the points rather than passively earn the points. This will come from attacking fortifications that are actively defended, stomping real players, and/or completing upgrades at fortifications.

The only source of points that would be eliminated under this proposal is earning PPT from simply sitting on undefended and un-upgraded supply camps, towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle. If a server wants to earn PPT from those fortifications, it will have to upgrade them. This represents an active investment which is then rewarded. It also allows for an enemy server to challenge that action by preventing supply from reaching the objective being upgraded. This allows for and rewards counter-play; something currently missing from the WvW equation.

Of all the proposals put forth:

• It’s the simplest to implement. There would be far less coding required as compared to cutting up the match into time slices, calculating populations at certain times of the day, etc. It uses the scoring system currently in existence with only minor modifications.

• It doesn’t eliminate the current server system nor break up established communities to which many players are still very much attached.

• It recognizes that the contribution of all players across all time zones should be equal. It doesn’t favor one region or time zone over another. The point earning potential at time X is equal to the point earning potential at time Y.

• It addresses the coverage issue by giving players on outnumbered servers the opportunity to prevent their opponent earning runaway PPT.

• It rewards servers for their actions rather than their inactions.

• It recognizes the economic reality that ArenaNet profits from driving players to high population servers then charging them transfer fees. It doesn’t seek to change this system (a much more complex undertaking); it simply accepts it for what it is while modifying the scoring system such that coverage no longer equals IWIN.

yanniell.1236:

But if the system is putting you in the same instance as your guildies, parties, friends and people who have the most in common with you, what else would we want?

It doesn’t matter – I can do that myself, and with far greater accuracy than any system a.net cares to implement. There are plenty of situations where the system is likely to make the wrong guess due to conflicting priorities, and not allowing players to distribute the way they please makes strategical deployment of forces impossible anyway.

More importantly though, the whole reason why I want to put players in charge of their own experience is that if you don’t, you end up with EotM all over again. In a format where you are assigned to a random alliance in a random instance with random teammates, communities have no basis for existence. Allowing players to organize as they please is a key component to maintaining and developing player communities. Even if the system is only semi-random, there’s just no compelling reason why players should forfeit their right to choose for themselves. The higher the degree of randomness in the system, the more vacuous the sense of community becomes. And that matters a lot for a format like WvW, because it’s all about having a banner to rally behind. Consequently I consider a system with the least amount of random factors in it (i.e. none) to be straight up better.

But I’ll grant you that implementing the megaserver system in EotM could actually be a very interesting experiment!

The biggest issue (to me) isn’t so much PPT or “losing” the week. Outside of trying to beat a rival server in a close points race, points aren’t really a big deal as long as my server can do some fun/good work on a map – fights, taking keeps, leet stratz, whatever.

What really matters is the keep/tower/camp upgrade system. It sucks for a server to “win” a time slot only to have everything flipped or paper vs fully upgraded enemy locations. This is tiring to commanders that then have to defend paper, people who upgrade camps and escort yaks, and makes it so you have to do far more work to get things done when you have even numbers. So not only do you lose out on PPT all day, you lose stuff you fought hard to upgrade and then have to fix it up every night after night. I think this burns people out and instead of fun fights and sieges, it’s just work and detracts from how fun the game ought to be. If the design favors numbers over tactics (not that they are mutually exclusive) for PPT, okay, fine. But I think supply/upgrades are a concern.

Some suggestions floating around in my head…
-Taking back your keeps/garri gives bonus points.
-Upgrading towers/keeps/garri gives bonus points.
-Upgrades to EB keep/garri are ‘saved’. Or you add one final expensive upgrade that allows this. something along these lines.

ManaCraft.5630:

yanniell.1236:

But if the system is putting you in the same instance as your guildies, parties, friends and people who have the most in common with you, what else would we want?

It doesn’t matter – I can do that myself, and with far greater accuracy than any system a.net cares to implement. There are plenty of situations where the system is likely to make the wrong guess due to conflicting priorities, and not allowing players to distribute the way they please makes strategical deployment of forces impossible anyway.

More importantly though, the whole reason why I want to put players in charge of their own experience is that if you don’t, you end up with EotM all over again. In a format where you are assigned to a random alliance in a random instance with random teammates, communities have no basis for existence. Allowing players to organize as they please is a key component to maintaining and developing player communities. Even if the system is only semi-random, there’s just no compelling reason why players should forfeit their right to choose for themselves. The higher the degree of randomness in the system, the more vacuous the sense of community becomes. And that matters a lot for a format like WvW, because it’s all about having a banner to rally behind. Consequently I consider a system with the least amount of random factors in it (i.e. none) to be straight up better.

But I’ll grant you that implementing the megaserver system in EotM could actually be a very interesting experiment!

Alliances would not be random. You would choose an alliance and stick with it, as we currently do with home servers. If you want to change your alliance, you would pay gems, the same as we do now to change home servers.

Every time you enter any of the 4 WvW maps, you would be put in the same instance that your friends, guildies and parties are. I’m reallly failing in see the difference from what we currently have, except that the numbers of the 3 alliances on the map would be even and the matches would be actually fun.

Andrew Clear.1750:

Dayra.7405:

Andrew Clear.1750:

Plus there are 24 time zones in the world. Even trying to just use the NA ones for NA still leaves huge gaps in coverage (remember, Alaska, and Hawaii have their own time zones as well). Do we leave out the time zones of our soldiers stationed over sea? Those time zones are the same as our much maligned SEA / OCX players. Also, what about all our citizens that are overseas as teachers? What about South America? Brazil even has different time zones (or zone) than America.

I respect all the players in each time zone, and if we get beat cause one time zone has more coverage than ours, so be it.

Did you saw a reference to timezones?

Many people play in a match => many points
A few play in a match => few points
is how it should be!

And not how it currently is: The fewer play they higher the score.

Then why play if a lot of people aren’t playing? What is the motivation? What about servers like IoJ who do not have the NA to compete with most servers, but their off hours helps them be competitive. That used to be how SoS was.

I’m tired of NA Prime (or EU prime) players thinking they are special and that their contributions mean more than anybody else’s.

So, with this proposal, anyone facing CD in NA prime would have their contribution nerfed. Seems like NA prime players wouldn’t be happy with that.

But, you would still have more people than CD, and would gain more points, even with the nerf proposed. And then, CD will take over in the morning, and gain more points than your server (cause they have a lot more SEA than most servers).

Coverage is a strategy, and you just need to prepare for it. If you are facing servers with better coverage, then you will either fall in rankings, or be stuck at the bottom of a tier that you shouldn’t be in.

I’m on SBI. After the season is over we get to look forward to being a T3ish (closer to T4) server, stuck in T3, facing a T2 server (either Mag, HoD, DB, whichever gets stuck in the match that week) and FA, who was a T2 and dropped to T3 due to their guilds bolting ship cause they didn’t think they would’ve had a fight (clearly they were wrong, HoD has numbers).

We don’t have the coverage, and we know it. But you don’t see us coming on here complaining about coverage wars.

Facing IoJ is fun, because we understand our coverage disparity, and so does IoJ. SBI has to build a lead in NA in order to win the match, and IoJ has to build one in OCX/SEA in order to win. They even had to do that dance with NSP for awhile and YB.

So, coverage wars can be exciting, and strategic.

First time I ever heard someone say coverage wars are exciting. Are you sure you’re not just being contrary? You can’t possibly have enjoyed our blowout matches as much as our close matches?

I say our because I’m on SBI too and I’ve been in here complaining about the coverage wars for a long time. Its not about people thinking their time zone is special or their contributions should mean more. And its not server specific.

For me, its mainly because it makes the game boring and not as fun as it could be. I actually think it is the most boring to be the server that has the dominant coverage at a certain time. Nothing is more boring than PvD. I would much rather face servers above our rank than below it.

The reason the IoJ-CD-SBI match is fun is that the coverage imbalance is not completely out of wack. Plus, its been the weekend where people can play odd hours that they can’t during the week. And the thing is, a system such as Kraags scoring changes may not affect closer matches that much.

I’m still hoping for time sliced matches but I’m warming more and more to Kraags type of scoring system. One of the things it might do that I think would be a great positive is that it may prevent a loss of morale for a server who gets down in score and then just gives up. It happens to all servers. You always hear about ‘the need to break them" or “the need to destroy their morale”. I’ve never understood that – because then you have no one to fight against.

It would be interesting if Anet could run a simulation of the effects of a change in scoring. I wonder when it would have the greatest effect? And when it might not matter that much.

yanniell.1236:

Every time you enter any of the 4 WvW maps, you would be put in the same instance that your friends, guildies and parties are. I’m reallly failing in see the difference from what we currently have, except that the numbers of the 3 alliances on the map would be even and the matches would be actually fun.

It’s the difference between 1) being able to choose the map you want to play on and 2) potentially ending up on the wrong map without being able to do anything about it. I’m not really sure how else to explain it to you. You’re making a sacrifice with nothing to show for it, plain and simple.

If you want to understand why the difference is so significant, I suggest you go to the general discussion forum and read some of the recent feedback posts on the megaserver system. You’ll quickly find out why choice is so important to players.

neonreaper.4805:

What really matters is the keep/tower/camp upgrade system. It sucks for a server to “win” a time slot only to have everything flipped or paper vs fully upgraded enemy locations. This is tiring to commanders that then have to defend paper, people who upgrade camps and escort yaks, and makes it so you have to do far more work to get things done when you have even numbers. So not only do you lose out on PPT all day, you lose stuff you fought hard to upgrade and then have to fix it up every night after night. I think this burns people out and instead of fun fights and sieges, it’s just work and detracts from how fun the game ought to be. If the design favors numbers over tactics (not that they are mutually exclusive) for PPT, okay, fine. But I think supply/upgrades are a concern.

Some suggestions floating around in my head…
-Taking back your keeps/garri gives bonus points.
-Upgrading towers/keeps/garri gives bonus points.
-Upgrades to EB keep/garri are ‘saved’. Or you add one final expensive upgrade that allows this. something along these lines.

I certainly sympathize with the lack of fun factor when WvW turns into work re-upgrading what was lost overnight. I think your suggestions are intriguing.

-Taking back your keeps/garri gives bonus points.

Would give an even greater incentive for a server to cap back it’s original territory.

-Upgrading towers/keeps/garri gives bonus points.

I’m proposing PPT remain intact, but is only earned once upgrades have been completed (the more upgrades, the more PPT). I can certainly see rewarding a server a set amount of World Score points once the upgrade is built in addition to the PPT it will now earn. Provides an even greater incentive to upgrade.

-Upgrades to EB keep/garri are ‘saved’. Or you add one final expensive upgrade that allows this. something along these lines.

This is an interesting one. My concerns, however, are two-fold:

1) The demoralizing effect of spending hours to capture an upgraded opponent’s keep/garri only to see it instantly re-upgraded once they capture it back.

One form of strategy is to commit to the protracted siege of an upgraded fortification for the express purpose of returning it to “paper”. This makes all subsequent sieges at that fortification that much easier if you can capture it before it’s re-upgraded again. This suggestion would eliminate that option.

2) Instantly restoring all upgrades from a saved state results in passive earning of PPT with no effort or investment. Yes, the original investment when the upgrades were first built exists. However, that only has to be done once. Thereafter, it’s a “freebie” every time the keep or garrison is lost then recaptured. I’d rather avoid “freebies” (the passive awarding of PPT in the absence of much effort or investment) for all the reasons I’ve stated earlier.

The compromise I’d offer is this:

• Upgrades can only be restored at a server’s home fortifications; never an opponent’s. For example, the Blue Server can restore upgrades at their garrison on Blue Borderlands but can never restore upgrades at the garrison on Red Borderlands (even if Blue Server had previously built upgrades there following a successful capture).

• Speaking to the Quartermaster will present players with an option to restore previous upgrades.

• The upgrades so restored must be done in order. You can’t jump straight to “Fortified”, for example; you must first restore “Reinforced Walls” followed by “Reinforced Door” before you’d be given the option to restore the “Fortified” upgrade.

• Each restored upgrade will cost the same amount of coins as if ordering it for the first time (we still need gold sinks).

• Each restored upgrade will cost 1/10th the supply as the original upgrade. This supply comes from players depositing supply with the Quartermaster rather than from the internal supply depot. Once the required amount has been deposited, the upgrade is restored. All players can deposit supply with the Quartermaster for this purpose; it’s not limited to just the player who ordered the restoration.

• There may be additional costs incurred when restoring upgrades; badges of honor, karma, etc.

Even with the compromise above, I’m still reluctant to support the idea in the context of the changes to the PPT scoring system I’m proposing. With those changes, the option exists to prevent a server from earning PPT by denying them supply to complete upgrades.

With both your original idea and my compromise above, a server is given a loophole whereby they can jump straight to restoring all their lost upgrades with no way to stop this by an opposing server. We’re then back to passive PPT with no counter-play option. If it’s limited to just the home borderland garrison and the Eternal Battlegrounds keep, maybe this wouldn’t be so bad, though.

ManaCraft.5630:

yanniell.1236:

Every time you enter any of the 4 WvW maps, you would be put in the same instance that your friends, guildies and parties are. I’m reallly failing in see the difference from what we currently have, except that the numbers of the 3 alliances on the map would be even and the matches would be actually fun.

It’s the difference between 1) being able to choose the map you want to play on and 2) potentially ending up on the wrong map without being able to do anything about it. I’m not really sure how else to explain it to you. You’re making a sacrifice with nothing to show for it, plain and simple.

If the megaserver system is not 100% functional yet (i.e putting players on wrong instances, not with his guildmates, parties, etc), it’s just a matter of fixing it. It’s a really new system, and it’s expected some problems.

And how fun even matches 24/7 is “nothing to show for it”? It’s just everything WvW was supposed to be.