Guild Wars 2

Make scoring dynamic(player driven), add in substantially improved rewards(better than anything in PVE), and watch the coverage and server stacking issues disappear and hence cycle back to help fix the scoring issues.

How do you make scoring dynamic? There are lots of possibilities. Make kills worth some points. Make stomp kills worth more points. Make kills with bloodlust worth more points. Make kills with bloodlust, and outnumbered buff worth even more points etc.

Make every dolyak substantially tougher and maybe a bit slower. Make them worth FAR more points, and finally make them move from a camp only when triggered by a human player.

Make all structures more dynamic. Allow players to open the gates(or whatever you want to call it). The structures are thus vulnerable to enemy attack, but score more points when dolyaks or other events happen around said structure. These options are unavailable when the enemy on said map are outnumbered.

Make more dynamic triggered events worth points. Say for example a Centaur raid on all three southern supply camps, if successful and able to return home it would be worth a large amount of points.

Add something like the old orbs back into the game, only instead of giving stat bonuses it gives your server points. But it eats away at whatever structure it is placed inside of, meaning it has to move homes every few minutes.

Create all sort of events and mechanics for scoring that are visible from the map and draw people into objective based fights outside of walls. Open field warfare for points. Create enough of them so that map blobbing is no longer an optimal strategy. To aid this process take waypoints out of all keeps, and perhaps add a 60 second(or whatever) death timer. This will make the maps seem much larger, and moving around will require more strategy.

The current scoring paradigm in WvW is something around 70% of points from holding structures, 30% from kills/dolyaks/sentries. Change this to something like 20% from holding structures, 80% from dynamic player triggered decisions and choices.

Make the better rewards only better when fighting enemy players or enemy triggered events. This is will help create an incentive not to be on a massively stacked server. You would actually get better rewards when fighting larger enemy forces, instead of taking an empty enemy keep.

Hey, we´ve having same discussion over and over…solving 1 single problem in WvW wont solve WvW. So, either think about a major overhaul or dont touch it at all. Iv posted my op about it alrdy (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance/page/24#post4476024).

Also, WvWers are a breed of its own, we are more about battle experience than scoring or pts (doesnt mean we dont care!), so, would be awesome if you could ask the community how to improve battlefield experience instead of scoring. Surely, nobody would advise a siege disabler.

Make a factions WvWvW battlefield, single map and assign Guilds (ye, get rid of servers) to every match to keep it balanced, according to 3 different playtime day-period.
You will get always balanced matchups, and that will end up creating a Guild ladder/ reputation to every period. Every Matchup would always be fresh, new and wouldnt be a pain to last for 1 whole week.

Also, its about time we have GvG introduced. Is it rly that hard? We need gvG tournament and we need GvG Challenge Banner that a guild can lay down in a map and another can accept if they like.

This would actually bring back the sense of this game being called Guild Wars

Sry for the bitterness, but i cant avoid it anymore.

Bubba.5209:

Hey, we´ve having same discussion over and over…solving 1 single problem in WvW wont solve WvW. So, either think about a major overhaul or dont touch it at all. Iv posted my op about it alrdy (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance/page/24#post4476024).

Also, WvWers are a breed of its own, we are more about battle experience than scoring or pts (doesnt mean we dont care!), so, would be awesome if you could ask the community how to improve battlefield experience instead of scoring. Surely, nobody would advise a siege disabler.

Make a factions WvWvW battlefield, single map and assign Guilds (ye, get rid of servers) to every match to keep it balanced, according to 3 different playtime day-period.
You will get always balanced matchups, and that will end up creating a Guild ladder/ reputation to every period. Every Matchup would always be fresh, new and wouldnt be a pain to last for 1 whole week.

Also, its about time we have GvG introduced. Is it rly that hard? We need gvG tournament and we need GvG Challenge Banner that a guild can lay down in a map and another can accept if they like.

This would actually bring back the sense of this game being called Guild Wars

Sry for the bitterness, but i cant avoid it anymore.

GvG is the thing that would give this game the most meaning and players. Considering that Anet developed GvG in the first place why are they so reluctant about it now?
It is as if they are avoiding making a huge commercial success.

If I was the manager of Anet I would put everything on Guild Raids (guild dungeons) and GvG, while making the rest of the team making areas for an expansion. I would also tell the players what is upcoming.

As for WvW the main problem is the server population. Reset that or provide a WvW guesting system.

Samis.1750:

I don’t agree with getting points for capturing structures and not holding them (though giving less points for unupgraded does make sense). If there is no incentive to hold things you will have less fights. Nobody will rush to tier 2 NW tower to defend it, because you are not creating any incentive to hold them. You will end up with the ultimate PvDoor with BG taking TC’s stuff, TC taking JQ’s and JQ taking BG’s.

Samis.1750 was concerned that if we replace PPT with a flat score for capturing structures, then there would be no incentive to hold them. The incentive would be points for defending. But also, how about making it so a world LOSES THE POINTS when it loses control of a structure? The world loses exactly the same amount of points it made when it captured the structure.

Also adding this: every completed upgrade gives warscore points to that world.

24 hour coverage
How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score? Get rid of servers, balance maps, make an individual/guild reward system.

Snowballing
How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match? Get rid of servers, balance maps, make an individual/guild reward system.

Stagnation
How do I feel continuously challenged when my world is ahead? Get rid of servers, challenge guilds based on when they play.
How does my world break the hold that other worlds have on me when I’m behind? Get rid of servers/balance maps, make individual/guild reward system.

For all of these you need to change the scoring system.
I would suggest giving everyone an achievement/title for the server they are currently on for the people that have server pride. Announce it and allow transfers before, for people that had pride in a server they moved from. Scrap PPT. Make a few more maps so you have a random rotation of maps. But starting the EOTM/EB/Borderlands maps are okay, but they should be balanced and similar in the way they work (supply delivery). You can keep the colors and three way fighting setup. Change the rest to a guild based setup. Let guilds go in during the times they want to play. You can open or close maps depending on how many guilds/people are on.

Guilds that capture/hold camps, towers, keeps and other objectives can gain influence/merit (or another currency) based on how long they hold them (to encourage defense), what they take (for people that like offense and zerging) /kills & stomps (for people that like open field/roaming). Then they will also feel like they are not losing anything when they want to log off for the night.

You will need to track the influence/merit gained each week from WVW. You can post this so people know what the top guilds are. When the week is done, assign colors based on position from the previous week. Keep the current score hidden during the week to keep people from gaming the system. When the week ends you can make it a reward for the guild, based off score or participation.

You can also add WVW daily achievement section for personal rewards for helping your guild, boxes with guild commendations, laurels, bonus badges of honor, chance at good loot (ascended/precursor), and occasional wvw exp boosters or metabolic primers.

People would want to play WVW for the rewards. They would want to play WVW for the glory of their guild. They would have balance in the maps. They would have balance in population.

This system would allow you to expand on the marketplace for guild commendation items, as well as the guild influence marketplace for cool tower buffs, siege equipment, traps, buff flags, etc. It would also allow for prestige and bragging rights for guilds on the scoring ladder.

Population balance should come with getting rid of servers. Before you log into WVW you can designate your wvw guild for the week. You can change guilds free as long as it’s the same color. To unlock a different color set for wvw costs gems. Then maybe an increasing amount to unlock the 3rd color set of guilds. Then ANet can make their money. People can belong to multiple guilds so you can go to whatever color you want you just have to be representing that guild. Sometimes you might get lucky and all your guilds are one color, sometimes you might have to pay if you really want to wvw with another guild.

I think just changing the structure of WVW would fix a lot of the issues. Maybe open people up to making friends/alliances from other servers. Get a chance to play with more people. Get meaningful rewards for their time and engergy spent. Make being in a guild and working together more meaningful.

tldr: Use a ‘relative’ value for PPT of camp/towers/keeps on enemy territory based upon the % of the current active players on each server, compared to each other.

So this is how that could work:
1. The points for each camp/tower/keep gets increased by x100.
2. At any given time the server tracks the amount of players of each server logged into WvW (this means ALL players of your server, in ALL areas, so an outnumbered buff on one map does not trigger this imbalance saveguard, given you have enough players elsewhere).
3. The server calculates: Server Home / Server Attack * 100% (with a max of 100%, a minimum could also be set)
4. When awarding PPT on the tick, the server uses that % to determine the value of a camp/tower/keep based upon the amount of players on both servers.
‘5’ ‘Home’ = each servers’ corner in EB; each ‘corner’ on opposing BL’s (tower & side camp); Rest of camps/towers/keeps on own server BL.
it might be interesting to put Bay/Hills on home BL belong to ‘home’ of the opposing forces
‘6’ SMC belongs to no one, and always rewards 100%;

add While a bit more complicated to program, this could also be used to set scoring for largely outnumbered servers to >100% or set a base scoring of roughly equal to 75% while outnumbered gives >75upto100% scoring.

ps. Now that scores for points are x100, there is more then enough room to make camps/towers/keep increase in PPT value with consecutive upgrades.

This would make holding your own stuff worth 100% all the time; Holding Enemy Stuff on the tick would reward roughly 100% if the amount of players on each side is equal (or if you are outnumbered). Yet! If you yourself outnumber your opponent, the value of stuff you take on your opposing side is worth considerably less! YET! Taking stuff is still worth it, because now at least your opponent doesn’t get 100% …

Linked to upgrades, this also means that making something paper rewards almost nothing if you outnumber opponent, and upgrading is worth it to squeeze out more points. Would also possibly make it worth holding stuff on the weak 3rd side, while two other servers still have a high attendance.

Personally I think this would entirely change strategy on WvW, it will not reward Coverage imbalance, yet, it does reward a highly defensive strategy if largely outnumbered. The incentive to cap stuff is still there, but now in ‘point denial’ for your opponents, and recapping your stuff is also worth it (you will likely receive more PPT to recap a flipped keep when highly outnumbered, than a attacking force will gain in PPT for holding it, which is the incentive to holding it).

This will keep the options to really take a lead during off hours of your opponents to a minimum, and upgrading opponents stuff is worth it to squeeze out more PPT, and also making it harder for your opponent to recap. I will not deem it to revolutionize WvW, but it seems the most straight forward way to make a slightly more balanced WvW match that relies less heavily on coverage.

taken from this thread I posted some weeks ago:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Combatting-Coverage-relative-scoring/first#post4328942

foregoing reading 7 pages due to time constraints, a pointer and a brainstorm to help WvW along…

First a pointer : I would like to point out that a great number of different (smaller) additions might well be better to solve this issue than adoption a single solution and big change to the scoring. Most noticeably because of having more dials to turn will give more options to tweak the entire system, then just having one… I would even argue that implementing the smaller suggestions first and keeping tabs on their contributions, to then keep a big change like scoring periods as a later additional option is better than going with the big thing first and hoping for a home run…

Possible dials
- Relative PPT as per my previous suggestion, the ‘relativeness’ of this part of the scoring system can be dialled in…

- Kills, Stomps & Bloodlust ; some servers are better fighters than others, the amount of people certainly makes a difference at some point. Having all of them count with Anet being able to analyse them and tweak their value, offers another dial. f/e:
Kill: 5pt
Kill + BL: 10pt
Stomp: 5pt
Stomp + BL: 10pt
Consecutive tiers in BL add another +5 per kill or stomp
(numbers obviously just possible examples, evaluation should determine best values )

- Dynamic Events based upon fights
Apparently the game recognizes group sizes upon attacking a target. Thus it also knows what is attacked. When the game signals roughly equal groups to clash, within certain boundaries (f/e more then 5 but less then double), it could spawn an event in said area ( ?!? unsure if the game platform can spawn an event in a random area? ) . These events could be a number of things, f/e: double points for kills or stomps, it could spawn an area to hold and determine a winner of the fight, extra point for the amount of kills in a certain time in the fighting area, etc… Which event spawns (if any) might also be based upon the sizes of groups clashing, possibly it could even be a different event for each side.

- Add. upgrades to camps, towers & keeps that increase points or PPT
a. Camp upgrade: Every yak that makes it to their end destination adds 1 point.
b. Tower upgrade: Every defensive event completed adds 10 points to your score; this upgrade adds 10points to your PPT.
c. Keep upgrade: Kills around this keep add 2 points to your score; this upgrade adds 20points to your PPT.

- Add upgrades to Sentries
this would be a general side suggestion as well, but it can be accompanied by points
Upgrade go both ways, so there is a defensive and an offensive upgrade tree, the game decides which one tree to offer based upon ownership of the nearby supply camp, any upgrades would ‘flip side’ if the ownership of said camp changes.
a. lvl1 – 10supply, 1 silver – pos. This sentry gives a speed buff whenever a yak passes; neg. this sentry builds a log barrier to halt any yaks passing (and it kills it off)
b. lvl2 – 20 supply, 2 silver – Double the amount of Guards here. (both sides)
c. lvl3 – 30 supply 3 silver – pos. Raise the Guards level; neg. any yak killed by this sentry adds 5 points to your score.

- Players to Drop Supplies in supply stack
If a player is at their max supply, and the supply stack is not full, the [F]-key changes to ‘Drop supplies in this stack’, which would add the player carried supplies to the stack in the camp/tower/keep.

While this seems like a negligible change, and could also be used by attacking big zergs (though the amount of supply is limited by the map amount, and build times are still in effect), this would mostly help the defensive side as upgrades are defensive… And I have noticed that if you are outnumbered, the people around concentrate on defending and keeping supply going, so their defence is aided by the upgrades, being able to run supplies yourself could aid the under populated side.

continued on next post

- Taking structures to give point
Currently I think only holding a structure for the tick gives points, why not also award the actual taking of a structure to award points (it would obviously be some what of a counter balance an upgrade on structures to increase their ppt contribution). Some addition to this could be the amount of points gained relative to the tier of said structure. Wood = 10pt, Stone = 20pt , fortified = 25pt.

While at first it would seem in favour of the overpopulated server or better covered server, that is only the case for the initial capture. If the defending server isn’t strong enough to recapture it leaves the other side to a choice, upgrade for the extra ppt (in which case the defending side will regain those points later on), or keep it wood which gives the defending side an easier capture later on, or during the coverage imbalance (in which case re-flipping back and forth will keep scores tied).

- Defending structures against a considerable force to give points
We can likely all agree that the running out of a tap shouldn’t give any points, but what about orange swords. The game knows how big the zerg is that is attacking, maybe a certain amount (orange swords f/e) could spawn a different ‘defending event’ that does award actual points if it runs out. While a defending side may not be able to hold off that big coverage zerg indefinitely, holding it for the ‘defensive points’ could counter balance points gained for taking a structure.

- Change how claiming works
this will be a separate thread later on, but it does pertain to this topic, hence a small tldr here
Seeing you can not un claim a structure, and buffs run out. Players during off hours are confronted with being unable to claim and buff structures they own, because the guild that currently claimed it, is no longer around. Severely hindering their options on defence. Also, not being able to claim camps due to the ‘rights’ system severely slows down small groups in their efforts, as it isn’t uncommon that only one person in a 3 person (different guilds) group has a +5 buff running, meaning their efforts are halted for 2.5min … seeing guerrilla warfare is all about timing, it favours the big groups which are likely led by a big guild, that easily reaches the claim threshold and isn’t hindered.
For the full suggestion see: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Change-Claiming-Please/first#content

- Increase Guard Levels + Outnumbered buff
One of the plus sides of having a large group (be it due to population or coverage) is that you have more people to do several things. One of the main things to do is cut off supplies. Currently, due to guard ‘cough’ intelligence as well as guard level, is taking those camps by one person. Even a fully upgraded camp can be taken by a few players, this is both due to their AI but also due to their level upgraded (82) remaining as such while the player power has gone up… I were to suggest to rebalance this upgrade, and make guards lvl84 instead, a slight ‘anti bunch up’ increase in their AI could further their resilience against taking a camp with a minimal force.

The outnumbered buff could further help along here, and do the following, increase guard levels to 85, and add 1 extra guards to all structures, and add 2 instead if the ‘order extra guards buff’ is build. Combatting the ease of capture of structures, related to the amount of people that need to commit to it, means that high population/coverage servers have a harder/longer time, meaning more time for the opposing side to respond, plus, it would leave them with less time to take more.

continued on next post

- Have events contribute under certain circumstances
This would likely work best along side a ‘relative scoring system’ as some of the features needed for it would be relative outnumbered status across all maps ( but obviously it could work without relative scoring as well ). But some suggestions might also be viable for just ‘map-outnumbered’.

If a server is truly outnumbered, and not solely on one map, events could appear (or change: current pve like events might apply) that are relatively easy to complete, that could contribute to the scoring of the outnumbered side. Completion of these events from the over-populated side would obviously not contribute to their score. f/e: The kill the bee swarm event for green side in EB could contribute X points to the outnumbered server.

But, more could be done to help out the outnumbered side, f/e:
A. More NPC help, if one is outnumbered for a certain time period, say 10min, a build site appears in the citadel (or somewhere else), named ‘Reinforcement Portal’. Building said portal could add NPC groups to the map, marching between all owned structures. It could increase the amount of guards by say 1 extra.

To counter balance this somewhat, it could need an upkeep of say 50 supplies per 5 minutes. If a server (or map) becomes balanced again (outnumbered disappears) all the NPCs and/or extra guards would disappear, and the structure would slowly degrade over a period of say 15min. If the server/map goes into outnumbered again within that time period the degrade stops and guards and NPCs appear again.

B. Perhaps an outnumbered server/map could have the NPCs on their side contribute to their defence. This would be the Skritt and the Centaur, like the NPCs in EB. Maybe the defending side could have certain events to win them over (and make it much harder to flip them to neutral), or perhaps build them a statue, bring them an item that spawns somewhere in the centre/south.

Maybe after joining the outnumbered side’s cause, they could be upgraded, in level and in numbers.

Perhaps even, if you upgrade them fully, they could spawn tribute events, where they take a certain route to a certain location, and completion of said NPC quest would award points towards the outnumbered server. This would help the outnumbered server out, but also provide targets for the opposing side to hit, giving them other stuff to do then flipping structures.

c. Stimulate ‘Guerrilla style’ warfare for the outnumbered side with a WvW-wide advertised event (only to the outnumbered side) and a reward added to it. These events would cycle every 20min or so. And some are more to keep your enemy occupied so they don’t take your stuff! f/e:

c1. a random currently not owned supply camp is designated for capture, if you capture it you get X points added to your score.

c2. a random not owned southern tower is designated for capture, if you capture it you gain X points added, and/or 2 large NPC forces spawn and are set (in strength) to take both southern camps that supply said tower.

c3. Bloodlust on an opposing side is designated for capture, if you capture it you gain points to your score, and/or a build site appears (say 40supplies, 40silver), which then adds krait to that borderlands, they are hostile to all and occupy all the bloodlust locations with 3 lvl85 veteran krait. Periodically they will send out a krait patrol towards a supply camp and flip them to neutral. Only a wipe out of all krait and a timed destruction of the structure removes the event.

c4. A non owned NPC race somewhere is designated for ‘capture’, if you succeed this race joins your cause, and can’t be flipped to neutral for a certain period of time. Their strength is increased and their activity too.

c5. Even harsher if you are entirely outmanned (this would need a threshold), maybe an NPC could spawn near towers (and/or hills/bay) that allow you to ‘bribe’ the guards. Say 1g. all guards (but those in the lords room) become hostile to all for 15min, and it puts white swords on this structure for the time. They would obviously wreck all siege in range. Even better, 5g revolt! All guards rush to the lords room and start trying to kill the lord, if they succeed the structure flips to neutral (all buffs remain) and all guards & Lord set to ‘hostile to all’.

c6. etc… and so on… more guerrilla style targets with rewards here…

thank you for your time reading all these suggestions, so much more can be done that tops ‘set a period to score’ that all avenues should be pursued. All details obvious f/e.

Snowballing & stagnation

Make the center of gravity at equal score, make it exponentially more difficult to deviate from that center.

Here an example of this principle:
Your homelands and your EB third like to be on your side.
If someone conquers it and does not garrison it adequately the NPCs revolt and turn it back to your side, when there is no visible alive conqueror inside.
So for each point over your third you have to spend more and more garrisons or your conquests have no worth.

Jerus.4350:

PookieDaWombat.6209:

I still hold that all scoring needs to be tied to concrete actions in WvW and not something that is time based. Taking and holding objectives and definitive kills via spike along with yak/supply denial and defense need to be the way to go with scoring.

A basketball or baseball or football game isn’t won by trying to hold onto the ball for the longest amount of time without doing anything. You have to actually get to some kind of goal to get points. Simply earning points by holding or ninja-ing an objective right before a timed tick is just a broken concept.

I get what you’re saying, but I can’t help but point out that time of possession and clock management are absolutely crucial elements of basketball and football. Baseball not so much because that’s a game ended by events not a time (9 innings vs 60 minutes)

I do like the strategy of capping things “for the tick” where you cap it with 4 mins or less on the timer to prevent the possibility of it reflipping befrore the tick. THough overall I’m not a huge fan of PPT however there does need to be a reason to want to hold onto things, without that there’d be no motivation to defending your area, you’d be better off ktraining it through somewhere else, then jumping back to recap and get your points.

The motivation is that protecting your upgraded keep from a prolonged attack is worth more points than protecting or taking a paper keep. My idea puts greater point worth on upgraded structures that are harder to take/“easier” to defend. It might even slow down dome scoring early on in a match up as servers try to figure out the best ways to shore up their defenses before going on offensive attacks.

Scoring periods aren’t going to fix anything but night capping. In my opinion, this is taking the easy way out.

When population imbalance (AKA Zerg size) is to blame for this whole thing, you either fix the imbalance, or you debuff zergs for running together in such a small area.

Think of it this way.. Huge armies in real life don’t move quickly, they are bogged down by any number of things.

But in GW2, zergs can catch roamers who don’t use stealth. What normal army can catch a scout?

I just don’t think we are targeting the right things here in this discussion.

Exedore.6320:

The scoring block system makes the coverage problem worse, not better!

First, it tells players that if their server doesn’t come close to winning during a block, to not even bother because their effort doesn’t matter. That directs more people to edge of the mists or other parts of the game. The goal is to make WvW more enticing.

Just hide the score / hide the tick timer.

Right now the score tells losing servers that the intubation is hopeless and things snowball.

nekretaal.6485:

Just hide the score / hide the tick timer.

Right now the score tells losing servers that the intubation is hopeless and things snowball.

Unless you can also hide the map, you aren’t going to be able to hide how things are going for a server. When I want to know how things are going for my server, the first thing I look at is a live map of WvW, which I can even do outside of the game. My server’s home BL is mostly the enemy’s color and we have very little on EBG, it’s pretty clear that things are going badly.

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Here’s a proposal I pieced together from several ideas posted by forum users:
(exactly one year ago! o_O)

http://youtu.be/qHcO6Xo8eJ8

John Corpening.9847:

Hey Guys,
I’d like to kick of a discussion on scoring in WvW.

Here is a summary of what you guys have brought up in our previous discussions:

• 24 hour coverage
  • How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score?

• Diminishing returns (partial solution).
  The more you take, the weaker each of your objectives (in terms of guards, perhaps supply you get etc. Make it so that when you have lots of things, it is very hard to keep any of them – logic is that the supply is shared among all the objectives therefore weaker walls and doors, not enough food for many guards etc.
  Important: Remove white swords (perhaps only when you outnumber the opponent). These are the bane of all small-groups and are one of the main reasons servers get away with blobbing so much.
  This means that worlds who dominate and capture everything then risk losing their most precious objectives to ninja teams.

[edit] I believe this is the right direction, with a tweak. Only remove white swords for whoever is leading the scores at any one time. Done.

John Corpening.9847:

• Snowballing
  • How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match?

• Diminishing returns.
  The more you hold, the less points for each thing you get. Obviously your total always goes up when you hold more stuff but the difference between holding all-but-one and all of the objectives should be miniscule. Disincentivise holding everything, give no champ bags or loot when you have significantly more people or when your score is significantly higher than the place below you – why do you deserve those things for easy-(blob)-mode?

• Tertiary event.
  Some deus-ex event which is triggered somehow (can’t be something players can calculate such as score disparity). The event makes life hard for the winning team, and could perhaps be triggered multiple times, making life harder and harder each time.
  If you think the whining is loud about siege disruptors, wait until they get a load of this!

From a little idea i had 5 months ago: which was a brief description as i was in a rush.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Seasons-Best-Tournament-System/first#post3968068

No PPT
Pretty much similar to what Arghore.8340 came up with above^^.

Points for Stomps: value of the Stomps is determined on on the structures you own and have upgraded.

No Points for initial cap:

No Points for stomps on 1st Tier: Value for Stomps only increase after your 1st Tier, giving major incentive to upgrade and defend everything you cap, no matter what time of day it is, or how small the structure is, and attack and take back everything that your enemy has.

I could go ahead and make up some figures like for instance:
T2 Tower = 1 Per Stomp (PS)
T3 Tower = 2 PS

Camps Half the Value per Tier
Keeps Double the Value Per Tier
Stonemist Tripple the Value Tier

Calculate the above ^^ by the amount of structures you hold at the required Tier levels and divide them by x amount for a more manageable Points Per Stomp

Bloodlust stays the same in regards to the buffs but does not qualify any value against stomps.

Im sure you can work out better figures than me but using that as an example.

What will this achieve?

Since WvW is a game mode within a game it will never be completely balanced. However, there will be no tick to be gained unfairly against a server through night capping. They will still be able to PvD (if that’s what their enjoyment is), but it will have no direct impact on the score.
Yes they can turn upgraded structures to paper reducing our ability to score, and yes they can upgrade their structure increasing their ability to score, but they cannot score if they don’t have anyone to stomp.

This in time should make people think twice about transferring to a server/time zone/region which doesn’t cater for their time zone. This in time should balance out the ratings more evenly, not so much by numbers but mainly by coverage, solving 2 of our primary issues atm, which scoring system and coverage. Currently as it stands majority of the people who end up PvDing a server in the same Tier as them have come from a specific region/server to do exactly that, which is a major reason of the imbalances in coverage.

I should imagine in time they will realise, that their PvDing is having little direct impact on the score at hand, and most would transfer themselves, possibly to the other servers within their tier to balance the tier out themselves, so they would be a benefit, and have something to compete against.

In addition to this you could introduce handicap measures, as others have mentioned. Allowing smaller numbers a better chance to compete with greater numbers, perhaps not offensively but more to the point of if the if you are against an enemy player that is outmanned and not on your own BL any supplies used by workers for upgrades are reduced by a %, *(in other words workers carry 5 supplies instead of 10 while upgrading or dolyaks carry half the amount etc), making it that much harder for you to outman a server in their own BL and upgrade everything in 1 night.

1: add body block to break blobbing

2: supply camps should work as the ruins. Hold them for upgrading and capture to downgrade. There are 6 camps on a border. Cap 1 for walls, second for oils, 3rd gates, 4th cannon, 5th iron walls, 6th full upgrade (or something like this)

3: maximalize the number of sieges in an objective. 9ac 2 trebs, 2 catas and 3 ballistas in a normal tower is insane and boring. No good fights.

4: less ppt and points for killing (and extra points for stomping if you have bloodlust) now the best way to win is avoid fights, cap, siege and slow down enemy. There is no reason to fight.

One more thing you can do Arena net is add lists, like most kills, highest damage, most heal, most scout points were you have 5 lists, 1 is from you login to you logout, 1 week from reset to reset, 1month, 1year 1 lifetime.

So you press a key and get to se list off top 10 “now” it count from the player login to map until he logs out, and there you can check all 3 servers, all different lists, also select class, that is something that players would have something to fight for them self.

Everyone want to se them self as nr1.

First off let me say that I am still in favor of scoring periods that break a day up into multiple events. Weekly points would be totaled at the end of each 4 hour period but map ownership/siege and everything else are retained, just points are assigned per placements and then PPT is reset. (See above posting for more details).

Having played through all the tiers T1 down to T8 I see this as a reasonable way to prevent a given time period from amassing so much PPT that the other sides can not catch back up during the periods that they have coverage. I also still believe that holding an objective should award points over time, it should make a difference that you were the one to last hold something even if they other side is calling it a night. If people put in extra time they should be rewarded for that, I just don’t want it to become a runaway.

Snowballing & Stagnation

Once a side starts to pull to far ahead a server will often lose people since they start to feel that their actions will not change the outcome of the match and therefore why try. Now at the same time you might also see snowballing because two servers might be focusing a single one. In a three team fight this was intended to occur, but at times it will be #1 teaming up with 2 or 3 versus 2 & 3 grouping up on 1. In order to encourage people to target the leader I would award bonus points on capture of the #1’s servers objectives. This buff would trigger only in the event that the point difference in #1 to #3 is a over a certain margin. The reason I suggest on take versus other events is that in order to reduce stagnation on the winning side you want them to be challenged and reducing their PPT will keep the matches closer and give them plenty to do, else they will lose their lead. I would also reward a smaller point boost for taking #1’s Sentries and Yaks during this boost since it would slow down their war effort and encourage people to focus the leader.

Now if you want to further extend this concept if the point difference between 1 & 3 is even higher than the first threshold a second threshold would kick in for the #3 server awarding them extra points for kills. This would be in addition to the above but would award them points as long as they are coming out to fight even if they can’t hold objectives themselves. I am picturing this is as more traditional blowout matches and would be a rare event to at least grant a bonus to a server where the rest of their side has thrown in the towel, in an ideal world I would grant them more coin/loot incentives as well. Risk=reward.

Thoughts?

I posted this a few times in the other thread. Sadly they are big changes that we probably wouldn’t see for awhile.

They should create some way to deal with hacking/cheating.
They should make defense equally as rewarding as offense.
They should remove PPT, in place of capture, defense and player deaths points.
They should cripple the downed state (lower health significantly).
They should make AoE siege scale, along with NPC’s during defense events against outnumbered. (determined buff)
They should force neutral states to objectives if not refreshed.

If they address those, you’d see tactics change, you’d have more interesting battles, more even match-ups, people would spread around more and not blob v blob all day long. You’d see servers winning not based mostly on participation, but on skill and strategy.

McWolfy.5924:

3: maximalize the number of sieges in an objective. 9ac 2 trebs, 2 catas and 3 ballistas in a normal tower is insane and boring. No good fights.

Only boring if you expect to be able to capture things in 5 minutes or less. I can build 5 or more trebuchets in a single tower, not because I normally expect all 5 will be used during an attack but because a smart and patient enemy can quickly destroy several of them and the extras provide backups. There are some towers and keeps that are very vulnerable to siege scraping with a ballista or trebuchet. The existing limits are fine.

I’ve really no idea if this have already been mentionned, but it seems to me that down state REALLY need to be slightly changed, at least in numeric inferiority situations.

What could be do :

for example prevent players who are largely outnumbering a small group of fighter to rally if they are in downstate when they kill a ennemy. They could still be rallied by banners or people resing them but this can balance a lot some unequal fights.

Svarty.8019:

Important: Remove white swords (perhaps only when you outnumber the opponent). These are the bane of all small-groups and are one of the main reasons servers get away with blobbing so much.
This means that worlds who dominate and capture everything then risk losing their most precious objectives to ninja teams.

The problem with removing them entirely is that seriously undermanned servers that lack the resources to cover their map with scouts rely on the white swords to k ow where they are under attack and a dominant server is in a better position to have dedicated scouts.

What might work and achieve what you want is to remove them from a defender on a Borderland if the attacker is Outnumbered and remove the 30 second delay if the defender is Outnumbered. The potential problem with that is that there is currently no way to know when your opponent is Outnumbered, so the loss of swords could be a surprise, and it would create a tipping point where one more attacker could cause the sword delay to disappear for their server, though getting the Outmaned buff is already a big warning that a large attacking force is on your Borderland.

Svarty.8019:

• Diminishing returns.
  The more you hold, the less points for each thing you get. Obviously your total always goes up when you hold more stuff but the difference between holding all-but-one and all of the objectives should be miniscule. Disincentivise holding everything, give no champ bags or loot when you have significantly more people or when your score is significantly higher than the place below you – why do you deserve those things for easy-(blob)-mode?

Earlier in the discussion, I proposed a diminishing returns system based on overall points, but it could be done with PPT, too. The nice thing about looking at the points is that it avoids the problem of how to count population for handicapping and diminishing returns, if they never diminish to 0, never fully erase the benefit of wining or showing up to fight for either side. It’s never a better idea for a defender to abandon a map a and sit out the fights and it’s never a better idea for an attacker to stop attacking.

I currently think some sort of diminishing returns strategy based on overall points or maybe PPT is probably the best way to address runaway scores and give underdogs a chance without warping the incentives to play or being easily gamed by the players.

Something that doesn’t really change the current scoring system, but will alter the difficulty of taking objectives would be to establish a few degrees of “outmanned”.

One would be local (maybe range 2400) other would be map-wide. Outmanned could cause upgrade of NPCs, elite guards instead of veterans, or even champion guards based on how many attackers are present compared to defenders.

I think it would be a nice change to make the three borderland maps different from each other. Kinda freshen up wvw a bit.

Stagnation. If you fight the same opponents for months at a time, WvW is stagnant. Without rebalancing the Servers and without any incentive to move to a lower tier server, the WvW community will always move towards the top servers.

The reason for this is many, but mainly due to two reasons, the desire to be on a winning server, and the desire for fights.

Without coverage, you cannot get fights. the only way to get coverage for all servers would be to merge the European servers and the American servers. the European servers lack coverage when the American servers have it, and vice versa.

I know the arguments against it: Language barriers. Truth be told, on the American servers, we already have lots of Europeans playing, and language has never been an issue on them. We have Brazilians, Spanish speaking, Korean, Japanese, Filipinos, etc.
The Europeans log off around 10-11pm Server time, about the time the American servers start playing. The Americans log off around 6 am server time. while the Europeans start logging back on. with the Asian countries filling in.

Server lag. Most of the Europeans that play on American servers don’t suffer any server lag, so this is pretty much bogus.

Tie the top European servers with the bottom American servers, and vice versa with varying degrees in between. you create quasi metaservers or alliances that will do much to balance coverage, balance play, and in the end balance the servers because now you will have servers constantly moving up and down the tiers and able to compete against each other.

Last, the outmanned notice doesn’t mean much when armor is repaired for free anyways. It definitely needs to be buffed to aid the outmanned borderland

PPT
if you remove PPT entirely, there is no winners, and no losers. Your server gets rewards based on total points earned. make the points simple like this example:
1 point: Camp or tower taken, bloodlust capped or stopped
2 points: Tower defended, keep Waypointed
3 points: Keep or SMC taken
4 points: Keep defended
5 points: SMC defended
At the end of the match, you can receive tokens based on your overall score for your server, which you can spend on rewards (ascended rings, infusions, weapons etc.) make the weapons at the citadel reliant on these tokens AND Badges of honor (not gold)
The amount of tokens could also be adjusted based on time played in WvW, say 1 hour equals 5% received, 20 hours 100%.

Assign small groups to area to defend and conquer and make dynamic event only for them. = Divide the zergs and make it more like an army of small forces.
In this case the zerg cannot take points of taking or defending something…
The fights will be more fun and tactic based.
When you go to large scale battle you will have to choose what is your part of that battle and where you will strike, how to take your objective and make path for other group that defending you at the time you finish the objective.
Boost the rewards of defending points.
Make that divided groups in some cases cant fight each other (depends of the objective for which fighting for).
Make a “Squad leader” to pick the objectives of the war.
To decide:
To help another group or go for the next camp. To attack 2 groups fighting for objectives from behind the site…
And bring balance for server population.
Example:
Im in group of 5 ppl and im a Squad leader. On the map we have 2 more groups of 5 ppl for my team.
I have to decide: To attack a nearly camp with my group or to help the group who tries to take the tower.
Have my group time for both or we need to go for the tower?
I can take the camp but if the third group don’t defend the group that go for the tower and 2 or 1 enemy team’s group go to defend that tower we may lose the battle for that point.
I can go to defend the group attacking the tower if i finish the camp fast or quit the camp.
For large scale battles:
The groups are allowed to participate like this:
Objectives :
T1 = 1 group of 5 ppl for each world
T2 = 2 to 3 groups of 5 ppl for each world
T 3 = 3 to 4 groups of 5 ppl for each world
T 4 = 4 = 5 groups of 5 ppl for each world
For major tears Every group to take points have a assignment to do.
Roamer can fight with only one group at the time.
More than 3 roamers can’t fight with one group at the time.
When roamer attack point he go to group state and need to find 4 more ppl or he’ll fight like group (outnumbered).
Roamers and all groups can defend or attack ruins and Supply caravans.
Supply caravan is T1.
Battlefield – field without objectives besides “win the open field battle”.
In one battle on the battle field without any objective can fight 3 to 4 groups.
When the cap of the objective or for battlefield is reached only groups participating in event or the battle can fight only each other, another group that comes cant fight with them.
Roamers can participate on battlefield in number of 5 for each world.
When the battle of 1 field is over or the Group of five is done another group can take the place of the dead.
When to battle’s appear on the same battlefield the survivors can take place of the dead of each battle.
The same for 2 or more battles in one, two or more Battlefields.
Something like that.
This idea is based on extreamly dynamic events and new sistem of area participation in WvW.
And every group have they goal in the battle.
1 defending the siege team. One infiltrating enemies supply camps near or lure them to bye time for attacking group… so many possibilities and tactics.
In this case i think the points to remain the same.
Any suggestions?

About:
24 hour coverage
How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score?

Merge servers that are in the different time zones maybe. Hum or disable events for worlds that are over 50% more than others two:
Case 1:
Blue 2 players, Green 2 players = 4 players from 2 worlds
Red have 7 players = no events, no points, cant capture anything in the area that have no enemy players..

The other problem:
Case 2:
Disable events for worlds that are over 65-70% more than one:
Blue have 10 players, Green have 10 players
Red have 17 players = no events, no points, cant capture anything in the area that have no enemy players..
In this case the maps of WvW are divided to areas, we currently have the names of the points of interest, its areas, only need to divide them.
The fun in WvW is in the Strategy and fighting Another players.
You can decrease points earning at off time to 50%… or equivalent of Case 1 and Case 2 decrease points earning to 50%.
Alternatively:
Case1
Blue 2 players, Green 2 players = 4 players from 2 worlds
Red have 7 players = – 50%/60%/70% of earning points for the world.
Make it scale depends of the people above the threshold.

Case 1 and Case 2 are based to my vision of future WvW above ^^.

Caliburn.1845:

Make scoring dynamic(player driven), add in substantially improved rewards(better than anything in PVE), and watch the coverage and server stacking issues disappear and hence cycle back to help fix the scoring issues.

How do you make scoring dynamic? There are lots of possibilities. Make kills worth some points. Make stomp kills worth more points. Make kills with bloodlust worth more points. Make kills with bloodlust, and outnumbered buff worth even more points etc.

Make every dolyak substantially tougher and maybe a bit slower. Make them worth FAR more points, and finally make them move from a camp only when triggered by a human player.

Make all structures more dynamic. Allow players to open the gates(or whatever you want to call it). The structures are thus vulnerable to enemy attack, but score more points when dolyaks or other events happen around said structure. These options are unavailable when the enemy on said map are outnumbered.

Make more dynamic triggered events worth points. Say for example a Centaur raid on all three southern supply camps, if successful and able to return home it would be worth a large amount of points.

Add something like the old orbs back into the game, only instead of giving stat bonuses it gives your server points. But it eats away at whatever structure it is placed inside of, meaning it has to move homes every few minutes.

Create all sort of events and mechanics for scoring that are visible from the map and draw people into objective based fights outside of walls. Open field warfare for points. Create enough of them so that map blobbing is no longer an optimal strategy. To aid this process take waypoints out of all keeps, and perhaps add a 60 second(or whatever) death timer. This will make the maps seem much larger, and moving around will require more strategy.

The current scoring paradigm in WvW is something around 70% of points from holding structures, 30% from kills/dolyaks/sentries. Change this to something like 20% from holding structures, 80% from dynamic player triggered decisions and choices.

Make the better rewards only better when fighting enemy players or enemy triggered events. This is will help create an incentive not to be on a massively stacked server. You would actually get better rewards when fighting larger enemy forces, instead of taking an empty enemy keep.

I would like to play this game. Tell it’s name pls

Braindrops.6428:

Caliburn.1845:

Make scoring dynamic(player driven), add in substantially improved rewards(better than anything in PVE), and watch the coverage and server stacking issues disappear and hence cycle back to help fix the scoring issues.

How do you make scoring dynamic? There are lots of possibilities. Make kills worth some points. Make stomp kills worth more points. Make kills with bloodlust worth more points. Make kills with bloodlust, and outnumbered buff worth even more points etc.

Make every dolyak substantially tougher and maybe a bit slower. Make them worth FAR more points, and finally make them move from a camp only when triggered by a human player.

Make all structures more dynamic. Allow players to open the gates(or whatever you want to call it). The structures are thus vulnerable to enemy attack, but score more points when dolyaks or other events happen around said structure. These options are unavailable when the enemy on said map are outnumbered.

Make more dynamic triggered events worth points. Say for example a Centaur raid on all three southern supply camps, if successful and able to return home it would be worth a large amount of points.

Add something like the old orbs back into the game, only instead of giving stat bonuses it gives your server points. But it eats away at whatever structure it is placed inside of, meaning it has to move homes every few minutes.

Create all sort of events and mechanics for scoring that are visible from the map and draw people into objective based fights outside of walls. Open field warfare for points. Create enough of them so that map blobbing is no longer an optimal strategy. To aid this process take waypoints out of all keeps, and perhaps add a 60 second(or whatever) death timer. This will make the maps seem much larger, and moving around will require more strategy.

The current scoring paradigm in WvW is something around 70% of points from holding structures, 30% from kills/dolyaks/sentries. Change this to something like 20% from holding structures, 80% from dynamic player triggered decisions and choices.

Make the better rewards only better when fighting enemy players or enemy triggered events. This is will help create an incentive not to be on a massively stacked server. You would actually get better rewards when fighting larger enemy forces, instead of taking an empty enemy keep.

I would like to play this game. Tell it’s name pls

Ok we give more points to the smaller groups IF they can win fight against blob…
Its one big “IF” and when the group die from the blob … What they need to sit down 60 seconds to respawn?
For me that is not a answer….
For the :
“The current scoring paradigm in WvW is something around 70% of points from holding structures, 30% from kills/dolyak/sentries. Change this to something like 20% from holding structures, 80% from dynamic player triggered decisions and choices.”
Noone will defend anything….
I think we don’t need new EotM!

TL;DR NPCs and bonus PPT for the losing side to regain the gap.

First thing you need to ask is why are Commander Siegerazer requiring 10 players to activate? (Shouldn’t it just happen after x minutes?) Why do Commander Siegerazer only work on the first objective (when your team is significantly behind in points)? Why is it only towers and not nearby sentries/supply camps as well?

What does Borderland Bloodlust accomplish? It makes the winning team stronger and the weaker team even weaker. Shouldn’t it be the other way around where you get more stomp PPT for the less stat bonuses you have? Shouldn’t outmanned buff give higher stats instead?

Where are the borderland WvW orb mechanics? (Make it an escort mission if you have to) If the orb mechanic event succeeds, several Commander Siegerazers appear and attempt taking stuff on that map all at once and not some other bonus mechanic.

Can players be scaled (similar to mobs) when opposed by several other players (see outmanned buff but at varying degrees based on severity)?

Use guild/alliances/campaigns and remove this concept of “World”. We all know it is zerg v zerg anyway. Make the zerg numbers balanced by limiting new players into that map when outmanned is appearing for the winning side. Shorten the length of matches (make weekends different than weekdays).

Get rid of or severely limit siege disable use grenades. This unnecessarily further imbalances population differences/PPT.

Make siege supply costs cheaper for the losing side (outmanned buff).

I still fail to understand scoring periods, Does coverage still not dominate with this set up? Even if less so.

Players with outnumbered buff who are attacking a camp/tower/keep don’t create white swords on the map.

Ok tell me what experience you have from Blobbing? You play or you only run and hit…
You have strategy for every battle or you go and only spam skills …
All of the Boons are based fo 5 ppl team .. How you buff the blob: 5 ppl, and more 5, and more 5, … How do you use the combo field mechanics. Area boons are carpet to 5 ppl only …. How the roaming ppl survives encounter with Blob… Where is the fun of killing 1 man against 40… Where is the play in that case…
The main ide is to have multiple parties of 5 ppl, not blobbing in pack of 50 ….
2 ppl can beat 5 but 4 cant beat 10 ….
I was playing in Blob everybody is… but now i have no desire to play EotM and i’m running solo or with 5 ppl team.
I have more experience and fun till the Blob appears at the horizon….
I can go to my Blob, but i have no identity in such mass of bodys and thats make me mindless zombie. Blobbing is not the way we should play WvW.
In real world 1 army that blobbing around are doomed to die…
But in real world 1 hit can kill you…
WvW is for strategy battles based on cooperative play not for mindless rolling around the map.
If you want to play and have fun and level your skills in PvP play it smart play it like it should it be .
Then is no need to fix something… Yes make changes for defenders, buffs and some regulation of points earned in Off Time and thats all. Make WvW have more prizes than EotM. If i want karma train i’ll go to Frostgorge sound….
Or remake the whole WvW to be based of many groups of 5 ppl.
There you will see Pro Players and Guilds having some strategy and most important having more fun.

Banzie.5248:

I still fail to understand scoring periods, Does coverage still not dominate with this set up? Even if less so.

In scoring periods coverage win the period, but only the 1 period and therefore does not dominate. Today if a side is un-opposed in a timezone they can earn enough points to make the other time zones meaningless even if they all have coverage. They can pull far ahead enough in points that the other sides can not even catch up. Scoring periods grant equal weight to all time zones. A landslide win in one timezone has the same value as a win by 1 point in another. Now if the side with coverage wins all the periods there is nothing to do about it anyway, but at least that special night force that has no opposition doesn’t earn more points then 3 nights worth of prime time fighting does. Therefore people are still rewarded for winning that timezone but they are not granted extra weight in the weekly score for not being opposed.

Xillllix.3485:

Bubba.5209:

Hey, we´ve having same discussion over and over…solving 1 single problem in WvW wont solve WvW. So, either think about a major overhaul or dont touch it at all. Iv posted my op about it alrdy (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance/page/24#post4476024).

Also, WvWers are a breed of its own, we are more about battle experience than scoring or pts (doesnt mean we dont care!), so, would be awesome if you could ask the community how to improve battlefield experience instead of scoring. Surely, nobody would advise a siege disabler.

Make a factions WvWvW battlefield, single map and assign Guilds (ye, get rid of servers) to every match to keep it balanced, according to 3 different playtime day-period.
You will get always balanced matchups, and that will end up creating a Guild ladder/ reputation to every period. Every Matchup would always be fresh, new and wouldnt be a pain to last for 1 whole week.

Also, its about time we have GvG introduced. Is it rly that hard? We need gvG tournament and we need GvG Challenge Banner that a guild can lay down in a map and another can accept if they like.

This would actually bring back the sense of this game being called Guild Wars

Sry for the bitterness, but i cant avoid it anymore.

GvG is the thing that would give this game the most meaning and players. Considering that Anet developed GvG in the first place why are they so reluctant about it now?
It is as if they are avoiding making a huge commercial success.

If I was the manager of Anet I would put everything on Guild Raids (guild dungeons) and GvG, while making the rest of the team making areas for an expansion. I would also tell the players what is upcoming.

As for WvW the main problem is the server population. Reset that or provide a WvW guesting system.

Hi, as a gw1 player from launch- and a gw2 WvW player and community leader from Jade Quarry – since launch…. The focus should be on BRINGING players back to the game… There are a few thousand players who I can think of on the old gw1 team quitter forums who could buy/return to this game and make wvw more competitive again… That being said bringing in a NEW game mode similar to GvG in gw1 or a completely new concept of gw1 GvG would bring back more players than you can ever think of this balancing out wvw in one fell swoop… The scoring system is fine the way it is. Your trying to fix something that is not broken… What is broken is the amount of players leaving this game due to the ignoring of GvG and more importantly ignoring of WvW…

I don’t mean to sound bitter/upset because I truly enjoy playing wvw and which is why I’ve been playing it from launch on the same server…. But I will say it once again, to fix this problem you need to fix the right thing. The amount of top notch gamers out there waiting for Anet to recognize GvG (not gw2 style gvg… Which is fun but a legit gvg game mode with ladders+ guild halls… )Would make this game stop dying and bring back THOUSANDS of players.

TLDR;
To fix this problem you need to bring PLAYERS WHO QUIT THE GAME. BACK. This can be easily done with creating a GvG game mode… I hope you realize how many population/ppt imbalance this could fix…..

<3 Stoney

The real issue with the game is a lack of focus on guild play. They started to address this with the ability for guilds to spawn world bosses (some higher level PvE guild play), but as of yet there’s nothing really like that for those of us who like killing other players. PvP is a good time waster, but that whole system is so broken that you can only play a few rounds before you get sick of the same condi thieves/turret engis/PU Mesmers/Hambow wars/pew pew rangers/medi guards/etc. Guild Halls, a diverse GvG system with leader boards would be a welcome addition, provided that they don’t completely ignore the GvG mode that has been created by the community; if they wanted to completely do away with it or replace, they should’ve done that a year ago. But building in a system for it would be awesome; instanced OS as a guild upgrade? So you could control who comes in and curb trolling? There’s plenty they could do that would be an improvement. But I do have to state this: LEAVE GvG IN THE WvW GEAR FORMAT. None of this “standardized” junk from PvP. There is zero creativity in sPvP/tPvP for exactly that reason.

I feel like scoring is mostly fine as it is.

Maybe halve the time on Righteous Indignation, halve the time between ticks and adjust camp/tower/keep/castle PPT to match. This would speed things up a little bit (it can be really boring waiting to cap things for the tick) and make capturing objectives more rewarding, as you’re more likely to gain that extra PPT.

John Corpening.9847:

Great start guys! There are a lot of good ideas already.

• Add score for kills

John

Hi, I know this is for more hardcore WvWers but like to add my voice as a casual.

PKing scoring points troubles me. WvW is scary enough for new and casual players. I think that scoring for PK could bring even more disbalance by making all the newbies/ casuals feel like a burden in WvW..

Hear me out, right now when I jump into WvW and play for a couple of hours I feel like I’m at least helping out maybe its just a small thing, but I can feel that I’m making a difference and if I die, well then re spawn and get back in there and help my server…. Now every time I die (and for casuals thats very common) I’m going to be a burden to my server… I’m not helping anymore…. I’ve actually become a problem =S

I can understand this not being a problem in servers where most WvWers are hardcore, but on servers where WvW population is mixed, where WvW guilds go to PvE and try to recruit “militia” for an objective this will have a big impact on WvW and its enjoyment.

There are other stuff that set red flags about Pking for points such as servers camping outside of spawn points (which again will not affect hardcore WvWers but will make the newbies/casual go away) but the main issue for me would be felling like a burden instead of helping out.

Stomps should not be considered for points unless the points can be calculated from the down, itself. Certain servers are becoming notorious for Alt-f4’ing upon downing. This past week about 7/10 players on average I have killed are logging to prevent stomps.

The Alt-F4 thing upon being downed might be easily solved by introducing a simple penalty: anyone crashing/logging out/disconnecting while in a downed state in wvw subtracts a point from the server score :P

Olterin Fire.5960:

The Alt-F4 thing upon being downed might be easily solved by introducing a simple penalty: anyone crashing/logging out/disconnecting while in a downed state in wvw subtracts a point from the server score :P

If someone is disconnected from the game their toon stays in game for a period of time after they DC. Run into some areas with bad cell coverage and nothing worse then by the time you can reconnect you wake up dead. Also seen it happen on guildies, they DC and until they log back in they are just standing there. If you want to handle the avoiding a spike thing, change alt-F4 to act like a DC/crash and they remain for period after the issue or until they log back in.

They could just remove the down state altogether. A kill is a kill. Solves:

Alt-F4 issue
Rally issue
Zerg rezzing issue
Rage quitting issue
Casuals not liking getting stomped issue

Perfect.

many times people assume that turning wvw into a large scale version of spvp will improve the quality of wvw and be "fairer’.

Good luck with that, I doubt we will attract more players with changes along those lines.

You may be right though so I suggest splitting wvw into a ppt mode and a ppk mode and amending the number of servers in either to suit demand, when it realises.

I think the developers of this game is still lost in their own little world. These points changing structure unless taken into effect the players in each map, it won’t even make any sense. Points must be awarded higher for those outmanned. And if server A has 2x more than server B in any given map, then server B’s kills, captures, whatever they are needs to be doubled up. Either you do that or perhaps remove outmanned altogether. If 3 servers are paired and the lowest population is in server C with 15 players in that map, then server A & B can only get 15 in and the rest goes to a queue. If you do this, I bet the game gets balanced much quicker.

Johje Holan.4607:

They could just remove the down state altogether. A kill is a kill. Solves:

Alt-F4 issue
Rally issue
Zerg rezzing issue
Rage quitting issue
Casuals not liking getting stomped issue

Perfect.

Only for WvW!…. In this game we haven’t pure healer….
If they add Healer/Support Class ok
It have rumors that will be made Raid dungeons
If it is true , ok make the kill …. Kill.
It will be more fun if we havent any Blobs… If well be more small groups …

I am 100% ok with removing down state from WvW only. It is a neat aspect to the game but in WvW it is just an annoyance more than anything. Plus, trying to res an ally in combat generally gets the person doing the rezzing killed because the game refuses to allow you to break rezzing often. It also almost never allows you to dodge away or break from stomping if you get ambushed while doing so.

Too many pains with zero benefits, I’d say.

Anybody else got a solution to these?

• 24 hour coverage
  • How do we make play time in off hours valuable without blowing out the score?
• Snowballing
  • How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match?
• Stagnation
  • How do I feel continuously challenged when my world is ahead?
  • How does my world break the hold that other worlds have on me when I’m behind?

• Snowballing
  • How do we give worlds a fighting chance throughout the duration of the match?
  • One idea: punish/hinder whoever is leading at any one time. This can take many forms;
  • here is one: The leader gets half (arbitrary number, someone else can do the mathematics here) as many PPT as the other two sides. This keeps the scores closer.
  • Another method: The leader gets half as much supply from all sources.
  • Another method: The leader has fewer hitpoints on walls and doors.
    These are merely examples, there are myriad options.

WOW…Alot of fun stuff being talked about here.

I agree with alot of it..except for those that say everything is fine.

Scaling PPT Based on Challenge…Awesome.
So…modifying PPT total added to score based on the ratio of each server wvw population. The more you outnumber the enemy servers the less PPT you make. makes sense even in reality. Getting a PPT Capture bonus for taking upgraded structures..good idea…its a one-time thing, incentivices challenge and decreases karma train tendancy. PPT for kills, outnumbered kills, PPT only for outnumbered servers…ect all incentivises warfare and continuing to push even when the chips are down. I love it. Some EOTM elements added, that give outnumbered serves an easier time taking back stuff such as super powerful NPCs or home keep buffs are great ideas. Anything that can incentivise demoralized/outnumbered players and bring em back to the fight is awesome…Why can players get Rewards based on their score contributions, scaled by match difficulty (pop ratios) and placing? Removing the downed state I think is unneccessary (but I generally play an Elementalist) but Im biased. Lotta ele haters out there. Alt-F4ing as a form of scoring by denying enemy points should simply be turned around as someone mentioned (Alt-f4 in downed state = points for opposing servers)If there is rallying issue, I would just remove the rallying, doesnt make sense anyway. Alot of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS which is awesome. Simple mathematical solutions like score scaling is REALLY easy to do. I might be excited to play WvW again if alot of these things take effect. Gotta play to the appeal of the losing servers if you wanna keep WvW alive.

Pagan Highlander.5948:

PPT
if you remove PPT entirely, there is no winners, and no losers. Your server gets rewards based on total points earned. make the points simple like this example:
1 point: Camp or tower taken, bloodlust capped or stopped
2 points: Tower defended, keep Waypointed
3 points: Keep or SMC taken
4 points: Keep defended
5 points: SMC defended
At the end of the match, you can receive tokens based on your overall score for your server, which you can spend on rewards (ascended rings, infusions, weapons etc.) make the weapons at the citadel reliant on these tokens AND Badges of honor (not gold)
The amount of tokens could also be adjusted based on time played in WvW, say 1 hour equals 5% received, 20 hours 100%.

^This = Karma Train