Showing Posts For MaLeVoLenT.8129:

What Happened To Tarnished Coast?

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

TC and many other servers suffered from glicko manipulation by Arena Net to an attempt to improve WvW, it locked TC into Tier 1 where they couldn’t sustain. This caused a mass wave of guilds to leave TC including CERN to take up homes else where.

I dont have any advice as to where to go. GO where you have friends and go to a server that supports your timezone.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

WvW and PvP Ascended Armor Upgrades

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Great change Arena Net I like this.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Gliding and Territories in WvW

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

There were a lot of people who asked for this, just like there were alot of people who asked for a larger map and we got DBL. Players dont always know what they’d enjoy. Simple as that. We should probably test it before all the hate mail.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

The Gear

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

You can survive in Exotic gear just fine.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

T3 Wooden Wall bug or hack?

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

It’s a bug that happens sometimes. I haven’t seen it happen it awhile. If you notice there are two walls. One wall has no data behind it and thats the wall you cant hit blocking you from the wall you can hit.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Why does WvW feel bad?

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

“So this is a question that has a million answers depending on who you ask but in one way or another I think all people can agree that post-HoT WvW feels bad compared to pre-HoT, this is coming from someone that still enjoys WvW. Thinking about it for a while, I think I have been able to work out some of my feelings about WvW and I’m going to try and express my thoughts on what I’m going to call keep fights.”

For me HoT made it worse but it was already bad. WvW simply has no meaning or purpose and the rewards aren’t on par with any other game mode. All the WvW maps were broken before HoT even released. ABL and EBG both had mechanics that I wouldn’t deem healthy competitive or fun. Especially ABL.

“The Ideal Win/Loss Ratio”
On a server scale, I can agree. Losing too many times kills communities when WvW is a game based off population. Losing too many times overall as a server is mostly a reflection of population, imbalance and match-making. When I say losing I’m referring to PPT and score not fighting BTW. Although fighting can have the same effect on an individual. One must also look inward as to why they are losing. With the dynamic of WvW, losing can be largely out of your hands.

“Keep Fights: Pre-HoT vs Post-HoT”
Keep encounters should promote fighting. Keep encounters during primetime should be at an optimal state and right now it’s far from that. By design a fully upgraded keep is intended for three way engagements and this breaks down due to population imbalances and the use of things like tactivators, indestructible wall buffs, emergency waypoints and the scaling of lords. One of the biggest things that break keeps in this current year is the abuse of supply lines and how easy it is to gather supply for a defence.

“Bannering lords”
I actually liked bannering a lord, because it was tactical and made it so you could respond in time. But as said countless times in 2017 you’re lucky to even get to the lords room with all the keep defences.

Overall, I think ArenaNet is clearly not listening to us and I don’t think they care about WvW. That’s how I feel about the state of WvW regardless of what they say. They have these stipulations on the community and if we disagree I feel like it’s just too bad for us. They aren’t willing to change their terrible designs. So sadly I think these threads garner no change and they probably skip over half of it even though the community of WvW clearly agrees with most points posted.

The biggest reason WvW feels so bad is because WvW has no meaning, no purpose and no drive to achieve winning what so ever. I don’t know how many times this needs to be said before they get it. When there is no drive to play competitively, all mechanics start to break down.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

[Question][ANET] Guild Wars 2 Logo

in Community Creations

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Hello Arena Net, I would like to make a guild website and use the GW2 logo, but I want to change the colors to fit the website. Can I do that without disturbing any copy right laws if I give Arena Net full credit for the images and its work?

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Any API update for WvW Skirmishing?

in API Development

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

So I noticed victory points were added to wvw/matches endpoint but not wvw/matches/scores is there a reason for this? Also isn’t the warscore a pointless thing to have considering its victory points being fed into glicko2. Are we going to get victory points tied into scores within the API?

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

(edited by MaLeVoLenT.8129)

Match up threads not permitted on this forum

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Removal of Match up threads was a grave mistake. Since the removal of the match up threads the toxicity level grew exponentially to the point where I fear that the toxicity clouds Arena Nets views on the wants and needs of the games community.

I never played an MMO without a toxic community. I believe Arena Net just should have moderated better than instead of cutting out match up threads and having the WvW community resort to other means. In my opinion this is poor management and terrible.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

What is the map cap 4 EB/Alpine/Desert BL's?

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

I think the map caps vary and I believe they don’t stay the same. I’m not sure how they vary, but perhaps active population in that current match up effects it. Regardless, Ive seen it differ depending on time and match up.

One of the most interest things I’ve witnessed was at the point where BG opened up and received a bunch of guilds. I assume here they were well above the threshold. ANyway, what I noticed was that I had the outmanned buff on the borderlands whenever I was in a match up with BG during NA prime time even with 50 players in my squad.

Now I estimate, based off my experiences and it seemed like at this time the map cap had to be around 80 players. Yet, I’ve seen scenarios where the map cap looked to be 60 players.

So perhaps the map cap is also set by threshold that takes into account a bunch of variables. Maybe this includes match up and active population as well as server stability and what resources are able to be used. One thing to note, is that in actuality we are all on the same server, just different instances of the virtual server.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

(edited by MaLeVoLenT.8129)

AN Please Manually lower TC and JQ Gicko

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Its too late for an adjustment and the only server you named that should be adjusted is TC.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

The Guild frustrations of WvW

in Looking for...

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

I’m entertained.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

QoL Request: Mega Server Obsidian Sanctum

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

I 100% back this idea. It’s a good one.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

The Guild frustrations of WvW

in Looking for...

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

TW was there for 4 months of time. Something about getting Jade Quarry to Tier 1 which they wanted and they did then left.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

The Guild frustrations of WvW

in Looking for...

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Better than Tier 1.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Winner goes up Loser goes down 1 tier system.

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Here is the thing with 1 up 1 down. It doesn’t change population balance. However, it stops stagnant tiers. It would have indeed allowed someone like TC to escape Tier 1. A rotation does keep people on servers and stops bandwagoning and mass transfers because of the tier itself.

However because it doesn’t change imbalance, using it for the sake of balance shouldn’t happen. I agree that 1 up 1 down is better than 5 ,4 , 3. I also agree that if Arena Net can’t properly use Glicko, they should dump it for a more simple solution and apply their focus to balance instead.

The issue with the polls as we all know, is that they give so little information based on it and we’re not game designers nor can we all agree. In a game like Guild Wars 2, the hardcore player that drives the WvW scene is the minority to the casual player that logs on for any given reason. To leave these decisions up to the mass is dangerous. Especially given the fact, that in this live beta each change permanently effects every single server and community even if it’s reverted.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Yaks Bend

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

To clarify further this is the first week we are using this new algorithm. So some of the complaints that are being brought up were problems with the old algorithm.

We use play hours to determine the size. Rank gains is tracked for comparison purposes since they usually follow a similar curve, but isn’t actually used to determine the world size.

We have simulated other algorithms to measure world size and ultimately found that player hours gave us more accurate results because we are mostly comparing active WvW play. The past algorithms weighed more heavily on individual players, so we ended up with situations where JQ was ‘Full’ because they had a lot of players, just not necessarily ones that played as much as Blackgate.

Thanks for the explanation.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Yaks Bend

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Yak’s Bend is among the highest worlds in terms of play hours and ranks gained, which is the primary metric we use to determine which worlds we lock each week.

By Ranks, you mean you monitor how many WvW ranks are gained and use that to determine population status? Isn’t that a bad idea.

What if a said community just simply uses boosters in WvW and they do nothing besides objective hunting just by nature. Because they enjoy the PPT work even when there are no enemies around. Thus, they could potentially get the most optimal gains from PPT thus increasing their ranks per hour?

So for instance, 1 server lets say this server is full of fighter guilds. This said server could be well populated. To the point where it has coverage 24/7. But the entire server culture revolves around fighting. They will ignore your structures. Because they don’t care or perhaps they are so stacked that they have the majority of structures Tier 3 and nothing flips within their tier. Because nothing flips and no one cares about structures wouldn’t their Rank gains per that said week be less.

What does rank gains have to do with active population?

I can sit in EoTM and Ktrain structures to get to diamond rank. I can take the same principle and apply it to an imbalanced tier.

Lets look at another scenario.
A server with not as much coverage, but they PPT the hardest. As a matter of fact, this server could be drastically outmanned to the point where all they can do is PPT capture what they can get thus being ranks per hour “optimal”. They are back cappers for lack of better terms or perhaps their population isn’t even as dedicated so they have people who would look towards the exp and WvW gains and rewards over the actual act of playing WvW. They would gain more ranks per hour than the stacked fighter server not caring about any objective because there is no need to.

As a matter of fact, the lesser servers cant even defend. So they have to capture objectives and keep moving for the majority of their play time.

In these instances you’re saying the lesser populated PPT server could be hindered by their constant flow of ranks while the fighter server wouldn’t, even though they are indeed bigger and don’t have to take objectives to win. Therefore while they could have a high KDR and very great coverage based off this metric alone it wouldn’t appear that way.

There have been countless times where server were locked for long periods or opened that shouldn’t have ever been locked or opened. This rank metric puts it in perspective for me. I think this is what’s wrong here.

2 weeks ago TC and JQ shouldn’t have been locked.
3 weeks ago till now Yaks Bend shouldn’t have been locked.
4 months ago BG shouldn’t have opened.

MAG was in Tier 1 for months while recruiting tons of players as a fighter community awhile being high and very high status in Tier 1 as big as BG who was locked and this shouldn’t have been the case.

these metrics and numbers don’t actually tell you the levels of activity or the population of our communities.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Yaks Bend

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Yaks Bend building siege isn’t why they’re locked of course. If that were the case they’d be locking a lot more server other than them.

you guys are funny but im being serious

Pfft no one takes you seriously after you started roleplaying as ultron.
:D

dont say ultron before I relapse

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Yaks Bend

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Yaks Bend building siege isn’t why they’re locked of course. If that were the case they’d be locking a lot more server other than them.

you guys are funny but im being serious

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

If u have 2 links, shouldnt be in t1

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

linked servers arent the only way to achieve a rotation.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

If u have 2 links, shouldnt be in t1

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

More numbers != better player experience

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Five, Four, Three, Relink, Imbalance, Go!

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

nothing came even remotely close to getting rid of players in WVW and getting them to quit the game entirely and completely, then the so called alliance artificially rolling YB through the tiers.

Not even HOT exodus, not stab changes, not skill balance, nothing got more people to quit this game then that. In fact, all the other stuff combined together, is maybe equal to this one single thing that got players to quit, uninstall and never return.

You’re giving them too much credit.

That had a minor affect compared to what happened with HoT, which affected every single server in the game and effectively left wvw for dead for six months. The stab changes alone changed the entire combat scene which I’m sure made a lot of players quit leading up to HoT release.

The alliance only moved YB from t2 to t1 which was already on that course, they just sped up the timeline to get there. I’m not going to say people didn’t quit, but I’m sure players mostly moved, especially the fight guilds down a tier.

No, I’m pretty spot on.

When the allaince roleld through tiers we had a group of 15-20 players in entire WVW for about 4 months after at prime time. That is not per map, but entire WVW. I was running with these groups and present for the entire thing.

When the HOT thing happened we were down to at least queuing a single map at reset (EBG) + 2 havoc squads elsewhere. I was also running with these groups / guilds and present for the entire thing.

So no, the HOT thing didnt come even remotely close, neither did any of the other stuff I mentioned. In fact, I again stand by my statement, that the entirety of all the other stuff combined, did not equal the player loss that these guys generated. And I stand by it yet again, as finally now, a couple of these players here and there are coming back, just finally, now, but only few.

What you’re saying is that we had an effect on the game state greater than the expansion itself. You are wrong. However, if that’s the case then you should back me when I say the mechanics of the game allow this to happen. In fact, it could happen again.

For those who are wishing death upon my communities and communities alike remember that we are all connected and all it takes is for someone to move again and systematically cause yet another bandwagon and place you and your community in a bad position itself.

You see it’s actually easier to create something like this in 2017 and every 2 months it’s happen due to the re evaluation anyway.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Yaks Bend

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

(Not a Match-Up Thread)

Question for Arena Net? Why is Yaks Bend locked. Why has it been locked for this long. I’m not on Yaks Bend. But in all honesty there is a serious problem with the server status reevaluations done every Monday.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Matchup Threads

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Furthermore, the moderation of these forums is awful. Closing down so many topics and pushing the games community to other forms of communication that Arena Net doesn’t even look at. The dismissal of Match-Up threads gave birth to GW2wvw.net which became toxic and viral but this is what happens when you don’t give your community a proper platform to discuss their experiences.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Matchup Threads

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

It’s kittened and community fracturing that they even decide to not have match up threads when the game itself creates the environment we have. One of Arena Nets worst decisions was the removal of the match-up threads and this at large placed them way out of touch with the WvW community in general.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Five, Four, Three, Relink, Imbalance, Go!

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Mal, for the special low price of 35K I can help solve all of your problems.

:thinking:

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Five, Four, Three, Relink, Imbalance, Go!

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Normal games have factions and alliances on a server that battle competitively. Guild Wars places servers that fluctuate as servers should in a battle of Coverage. By design, balance would be hard to achieve considering Servers have a threshold and not a hard cap also by design. Its like GW2 WvW is missing an entire category of balance.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Five, Four, Three, Relink, Imbalance, Go!

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

what can you ultimately do? even without 543, you cant stop people from transferring servers without cutting into anets bottom line. if you could somehow prove that the gains would be greater then the loss from server transfer fees, then maybe. how do you even go about proving that though? how do you measure what a “balanced” (has yet to be defined in the context of a more or less perfectly equal population system) wvw would look like and how would one profit from it?

ArenaNets profits from transfers aren’t high enough for them to consider this optimal. Its largely the players that think otherwise.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Five, Four, Three, Relink, Imbalance, Go!

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Its not the fault of the players for playing a game. The mechanics of the game are broken and enable the players to take advantage of broken mechanics. This is ArenaNets doing and not the fault of the player for playing the game as its expected to be played. Video games have rules and restraints used to create balance and an competitive environment and here in GuildWars 2 our mechanics enable the players to break balance.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Five, Four, Three, Relink, Imbalance, Go!

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Digikid. OnS is currently on TC still. We all have responsibility in our current situation and we are only in this situation because of the mechanics that allow us to be here. The mechanics have to change first and foremost because the players just play the mechanics as they see fit. What you’re saying here does nothing but try to discredit what it is I’m saying even though we are all connected in this system. Even though what I’ve done in the past was a direct result of the problems I was faced with in the mechanics designed by the game.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Five, Four, Three, Relink, Imbalance, Go!

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

5,4,3 is a terrible scoring mechanic and it’s done nothing but create walls that shouldn’t be there. Example Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tarnished Coast has been gaining Glicko rating because of 5,4,3 although TC has been losing players and guilds steadily because of Tier 1 and their inability to produce the coverage of that Tier.

The difference between 5,4,3 and 3,2,1 is the amount of points awarded that gets plugged into the glicko.

Furthermore the scoring gives way to coverage imbalance. Thus, you can’t keep tinkering with the score because it’s directly effecting the health of our communities without fixing balance first.

The imbalance is obvious and it will continue to worsen. The rating every week will continue to float TC and because of this, TC will lose all its players because they are dealing with impossible odds.

This relink, Arena Net gave both JQ and TC 2 guest links, which does nothing but increase the odds of them potentially rising to Tier 1 by giving them a few disorganized pug communities while allowing the servers to get bandwagon to from their guest servers.

In fact JQ and TCs links don’t provide them coverage to deal with Tier 1 and doesn’t change their scenario.

Why is Tier 1 being avoided like the plague? Why does Tier 1 inevitably kill off server coverage and communities?

It’s because a few relink cycles ago, even after countless warnings to Arena Net about the opening up of servers, they choose to open Blackgate. Opening Blackgate created a mass wave of transfers enabling BG to stack beyond the point of the threshold allowed and well beyond the point of any other server. To combat this, servers then tried to buy guilds or stack to the level of BG. There is only one server who was able to pull that off and that’s MAG.

MAG pulled it off like no other. MAG didn’t just buy guilds, but they placed a mentality around themselves which even gained them individual players and a mass of pugs or militia forces from the servers around. Systematically creating something a bit worse than BG itself on a server that was once “high” status.

Now here we have two servers that can only compete with each other, while the third wheel suffers from massive demoralization and player attrition. Because of this the WvW meta for organized forces and pugs alike is to simply avoid Tier. In fact, even BG and MAGs guilds don’t like the atmosphere and some of them even feel as if they’re being forced to leave. Any T2 server that receives the “death roll” of Tier 1 is put on a count down timer before they themselves start to lose pieces of their community. 5, 4, 3 and the stigma of Tier 1 itself makes it so that even if that server losses badly or tanks they could still end up being stuck in Tier 1 for the foreseeable future. In Tier 2, no one wants Tier 1. Its something people avoid at large and because of this, there is no effort to create a rotation or balance or bail the third string out before it dies and losses all its coverage for fighting in a tier it shouldn’t be in.

Scoring at large doesn’t matter for winning. There is no competitive nature to see who is the victor. Winning in Guild Wars 2 is pointless. So why focus on the scoring when all it does it enable imbalance. Why consistently fiddle with the scoring and not be bothered with the balancing of servers when the only reason the servers care about scoring at large is because it decides the fate of their server and their tier.

To fix this WvW you need to start with the problems that have a cascading effect on other dynamics of the game first. You can’t fix scoring if there is hardly a competition. You can’t fix or “play test” scoring if no one is generally caring about it. Fixing and adjusting scoring, when there is little reason to care beyond that of your servers tier makes way for manipulation especially when the objective is not to rise in the Tiers but to avoid a said tier because of the imbalance presented in it.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

(edited by MaLeVoLenT.8129)

HEADS UP: API (were) temporarily disabled

in API Development

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

I heard you are accepting tacos to fix the problem?

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

New Scoring System

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

WvW encourages 2v1s. This is intended, and you guys need to get over the fact that it’s intended. However, what 2,1,1 aims to address is 2v1ing the right target and not the weakest opponent which is the case now.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

1 point for 2nd and 3rd

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Servers with the weakest coverage don’t even need to turn up now to be rewarded. Smart move

What? Servers that don’t show up now still get points awarded in 3,2,1. This makes zero sense.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

New Scoring System

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Yes, Scoring will not fix population imbalances. In regards, to FA and SBI against 1 of the “Big 4” they simply have no chance. It appears JQ is the weaker of the 4 and still neither server has a chance.

Deja vu?

The “Big 4” used to be BG, JQ,TC with SoS sort of the weaker of the 4.

And after many tries, population again settles into this pattern.

Maybe after players figured out the top servers, many of them find more purposeful play at the top and the migration to the top occurs until the top is a mystery.

Maybe one way to make WvW balanced is to make each servers’ strength a mystery a the beginning of each match, like playing cards where no one knows what cards others have.

This might not happen because Anet has a business interest in advertising the winners as a way to motivate transfers and new accounts.

The big 4 represents 4 servers that are Tier 1 competitive. There was never a time where there was a big 4 of BG/JQ/TC and SoS. When the match up was BG/JQ/TC, we had a locked tier where there was only a possibility of a big 3 and if 1 of the 3 fell, then they wouldn’t be T1 competitive anymore. This is how TC took SoR’s place in Tier 1 and how Yaks Bend took TC’s place in Tier 1.

Having multiple servers able to withstand the heat in Tier 1 means there is a rotation. Yes after many tries the population settles again, however that’s not the case anymore. The population never settles because we have server-links and 2 month reevaluations.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

New Scoring System

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Yes, Scoring will not fix population imbalances. In regards, to FA and SBI against 1 of the “Big 4” they simply have no chance. It appears JQ is the weaker of the 4 and still neither server has a chance. Population imbalances has to be fixed just as the scoring system. Then after that, the WvW maps need to reflect the changes made to population and scoring. After that, we can start to talk about rewards and tournaments.

Just as scoring breaks down when no one cares to win, competitive match ups break down due to imbalance of coverage. To fix WvW, you have to fix multiple aspects that all effect each other.

“If Anet won’t balance population and scoring doesn’t fix things, is some sort of supply handicap next?”
Arena Net is trying to fix population balance. Whether they’re successful in their attempts however is another story. Supply caters to one with the most coverage, because the one with the most coverage typically has the most objectives utilized as supply drops. Perhaps 2,1,1 will drain on the effects of some of that but the only thing that will balance out supply gains in my opinion is population balance to counter any one server holding too much of WvW over long periods of time.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

New Scoring System

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Tier 2: TC/FA/SBI
3,2,1
TC: 167
FA: 99
SBI: 70

2,1,1
TC: 111
FA: 57
SBI: 56

This match up TC is the king maker and FA and SBI is battling over second. Because FA and SBI battles over second, if TC slightly focuses one greater than the other, they are realistically deciding the fate of that server. In fact, rating says they should be focusing SBI because SBI is 6th position and has the greater chance of effecting TC ratings largely. The meta by nature of disapproval of Desert BL means there is overall less pressure on that map. FA, has DBL and regardless of if they have the numbers to protect the map against the forces that map hop, it’s normally full capped or easily PvDoored. This means due to coverage and aside from EBG, the most active map is probably SBI BL. Again all this is invoking SBI being under pressure hence the score within the 3,2,1 system.

Both FA and SBI are very close in coverage and competition and without first place deciding their fates by focus, both FA and SBI’s scores would be closer and SBI wouldn’t be utilized as a rating cushion for TC. But instead, FA and SBI would be competing for 2nd place by determining who could take it away from TC under the 2,1,1 scheme.

in a 2,1,1 scheme TC wouldnt be focusing anyone. In fact, TC would be under siege which means it would be easier to flip TC’s waypoints and upgraded structures given the fact that they’re worth more and the only gain in total VP is first place.

Now, lastly people keep bringing up the fact that no one cares about score now a days. Which is true. The lower and lower you go in tiers the less people care. Ideally Arena Net has to give us a reason to care and fight competitively over scores. If that reason does not exists then any mechanic Arena Net designs around scoring will break down this remains true as well for their map designs. However, for Arena Net to properly work on the competitiveness of WvW, they have to work on scoring and keeping the scores competitive as well as coverage. Thus, scoring changes are very necessary and 2,1,1 is in the right direction for keeping match -ups competitive.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

New Scoring System

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

@Tiny, I’m simply referring to scoring. Let’s use this week in T1 and last week.
In Tier 1 BG and MAG and JQ’s positions are already decided. The match isn’t going to change position wise. The score right now on MOS says:

BG 130
MAG 113
JQ 81

If the scoring system was 2, 1, 1 the scores would read,
BG 80
MAG 76
JQ 60

Would it be easier to have to scores be the number of wins,

BG 26
MAG 22
JQ 6

for

BG 26 = 80 – 54
MAG 22 = 76 – 54
JQ 6 = 60 – 54

by taking away 54, the number of skirmishes, where the winner gets 1 and the others 0, instead of 2-1-1?

Then JQ should not be in that grouping?
Just getting by in 2ed places every now and then should not keep you in that group of wvw. Keep in mind that the problem with being at the top you can only go down but if your not at the time then ppl can go up. So this new point system may not work well for the top worlds but it will work for all the lower worlds very well.
(Wvw is far more then just the T1 group and T1 is very different from all the others so only using it as the example is a very flawed argument.)

You can use the very same argument no matter what tier you’re in. Even in Tier 2 where it’s a blow out and the sense to care about PPT isnt that great.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

New Scoring System

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

if their considering this and 1,0,0 then they should probably open back up the idea of 1 up 1 down.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

New Scoring System

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

The only problem I see with 1,0,0 over 2,1,1 is that you give a chance for the total VP score of any 1 server to be 0 and VP is fed into your servers glicko rating. Depending on how and where it’s fed this could end up meaning a division or multiplication of 0 which would mean they’d have to change the formula to fit the tallying of wins over losses.

If VP wasn’t being fed into a servers rating then Id see no difference in the 2,1,1 versus 1,0,0 schemes. It all comes down to how this will reflect your rating considering the difference between the two schemes would remain the same.

The only reason I’d change it to 1,0,0 would be largely aesthetic or easier to understand.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

New Scoring System

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

@Tiny, I’m simply referring to scoring. Let’s use this week in T1 and last week.
In Tier 1 BG and MAG and JQ’s positions are already decided. The match isn’t going to change position wise. The score right now on MOS says:

BG 130
MAG 113
JQ 81

If the scoring system was 2, 1, 1 the scores would read,
BG 80
MAG 76
JQ 60

You see 3,2,1 means BG can force MAG into third with a 2v1 making BG able to decide the match by giving JQ second place, and all they have to do is back cap for it. It places such a far gap in-between scores when 1 server can gain 2 points over third place. This means by mid-week or by Monday, the match-up is thus snowballed and now a fight for second place. This enables first place to dictate second place by forcing a 2v1 as the strongest server. This has always been the case with match-ups snow-balling and 2v1s. Where the power is held with the top server or the one with the most coverage, whereas it should be the two lower servers invoking the 2v1.

If MAG wanted to gain grounds against BG this match up, it would require about 50 hours of MAG in first place and BG in second in skirmishes or 20 hours of BG in third and MAG in second. With no buffer time. Meaning MAG would need 25 straight wins over BG or the duration of time is increased till their scores even out.

If the system instead was 2,1,1 then it would require 8 hours of BG in 2nd or third to close the gap for MAG. That’s a huge difference and makes the matches more competitive. If it were 2,1,1 it would mean JQ could take first in a skirmish and BG and MAG’s duration to competitiveness would remain the same.

In fact last two Tier 1 match ups of BG/MAG/TC, TC utilized this and made out with large gains when otherwise that wouldn’t have been the case.

3 weeks ago on a Monday TC was able to have a 1 skirmish VP lead over BG, simply due to right form of 2v1 where you focus the greater threat. Both TC and MAG hit BG mostly and while it was not coordinated, it was effective and because of this the match kept going and the activity of all three servers increased because it became competitive. It was only competitive because of NOT coordinated 2v1 on BG. Once BG hard targeted TC on a Monday, they were able to gain 2 points on TC, making it so that TC could only reach for second place. This meant by Wednesday TC would then have to switch focus to not come in last place making MAG the end target of both servers thus giving BG the win. You can see where the match up became more competitive because for a duration of time, there wasn’t a king maker.

Blackgate countered this by playing king maker which forced TC to lose 2 points per skirmish to whomever took first place. They did this focusing TC, on their home map for 2 days where TC and MAG wouldn’t be able to 2v1 the biggest server due to MAG’s nature of avoiding the map.

Remember the maps and it’s key objectives are set up for 2v1s and 3way battles.

Remember that Arena Net has tied Victory Points to server rating:

“Regarding how Glicko will be updated at the end of a skirmish-based match. The same inputs and outputs will be used as usual, except that total Victory Points from the week’s match will be fed in as the score for each team, instead of the week’s total War Score.”

Thus, this sinking TC’s rating when otherwise they would have been competitive on a 2nd place level, TC was forced into 4th place overall.

Furthermore, If it were 2,1,1, Blackgate wouldn’t be able to force 3rd place to 4th and for this current match up, JQ wouldn’t be in the negative by that much and JQ and MAG could keep the match up entertaining by fighting over first which isn’t the case now as both server’s positions will not change moving forward.

I can literally give 100s of examples as to why 2,1,1 is a good idea moving forward and how 3,2,1 forces the misuse of 2v1s onto the server with the least coverage as opposed to the server with the greatest coverage.

I can also use Tier 2s current match-up as a perfect example.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

New Scoring System

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

2,1,1 takes out the king maker element. Where first place dictates 2nd place by focusing.
Instead first place will be the target and 3rd place wont have to compete with 2nd for first.
WvW is meant for 2v1s you guys need to quit your complaining. Perhaps learn the game a bit.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

New Scoring System

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

2,1,1 is better than 3,2,1.

This makes everyone compete for first place instead of settling for second.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Upcoming Changes to Skills

in PvP

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

“Pain Absorption: This ability now breaks stun.”
You didnt place PvP only next to this. LOL.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Get rid of Desert BL

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

I defend the map everyday. I believe you’re trying to hard too push your claims but no one is buying it man.

What claim? That the map sucks and most people hate it? That’s a fact.

The claim that, the map is too easy to attack. The claim that no one defends the map. These are false and fallacies.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Tonic exploit is cheating

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Are you implying that the tonic makes reflect damage and blocks not work?

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Get rid of Desert BL

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

I defend the map everyday. I believe you’re trying to hard too push your claims but no one is buying it man.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Get rid of Desert BL

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

Desert BL gives an advantage to the home team not a disadvantage. Using this week in Tier 1 to state your claim isn’t right. Map politics in the current match make it so TC can’t hold the map because BG pressures it when TC has very little numbers.

Bloodlust is actually a pretty big deal even that 1 point. Because thats 1 point per stomp up to 5 people and killing someone grants 1 point anyway. Thus this is a total of 10 points. In a skirmish that last 2 hours then end scores look around 3k to 5k thus a single person with 5 people and netting 10 per kill is a pretty big thing that can determine skirmishes.

One issue with every BL map that we have is that they’re all mechanically broken. Alpine was designed around the orb and since the removal I feel like the map meta has degraded and became very stale. The Desert map has an entire center that takes up a large portion of the map that’s simply useless.

I also believe the keep lords are to hard to kill on Desert STILL, simply because how defensive the keeps are on the map and their special abilities added with things like EWPs make it very hard to assault and take any T3 keep on that map thats defended by large numbers.

I find the Desert BL fights better to be honest. The issue is certain servers tend to avoid the map and because of this even the people who voted for the map avoid it because there is no one to find out on it. This week in Tier 1 is a prime example of that, MAG avoids the map like the plague and it’s largely a battleground for TC and BG.

the lords are ez to kill. I can solo the whole freaking bl with ease. air and fire keep can be trebbed from sec and swc. Don’t think you can counter that without a yolo push. The only advantage home team has is how fast structures upgrade or if enemy team hates the map and doesn’t go to it(mostly the case accept for BG). You can literally take a few small man groups and cap the entire bl before anyone can even respond m8. Does anyone wanna do that? hell no. well BG does, that’s it.

The lords are not easy to kill when they are defended. Your examples talk about soloing a map, that means the map isn’t being defended. That means the lord isn’t scaled either. Hence the easiness. Yet, the lords are way harder to kill by mechanics than that of the alpine borderlands. The hardest keep lord to kill by far is the Earth keep lord. The defenders of Earth keep has a greater advantage than the keep lord on Alpine Garrison.

Furthermore comparing Earth keep to Garrison, you’d find that the portals and shrines make it easier for re spawns to gather. The chokes surrounding the keep lord also make it easier to defend and the rock walls can protect the EWP respawns where as the Garrison keep lord is just a tank and spank, the Earth keep lord requires tactics when properly defended. Your example of soloing a desert map isn’t a good example as to how attackers have the advantage.

Air keep trebs from South-east camp can be countered without going next to them. I’ve seen it done many times. Most noticeably is the guild [JOY] currently on BG, they are renown with siege placement and counters.

Fire keep South west camp trebs can also be countered without rushing them.

Yet, still even if you couldn’t counter these things, from inside the the keep, there are ways to counter a long siege with trebs from the outside. Now to compare the Alpine map, there are places you can long siege that cant be countered from inside the keep very easily. One famous spot that’s hard to counter, is the trebs to hit inner Bay in south west camp, which is similar to the trebs on South-east camp that can hit inner air keep wall.

The only way to counter Bay camp trebs, is by building a treb on the outer wall that can be easily hazed.

Another example is North East tower on ABL. You can treb garrison and sit comfortably from the tower. In fact, the best way to counter these trebs is either leaving garrison and going to the camp below or even below the tower, or rushing the tower yourself. In fact, the towers are one of the biggest complaints about Desert BL, because they provide no benefit for the attackers other than PPT gains. Thus it empowers the defenders because they simply do not have to worry about them. Yet, on ABL if an enemy sits in your north tower, they have the ability to cut off your supply and siege your garrison easier.

Again tactically speaking you can’t use SEC and SWC on DBL as an example as to why DBL should be removed when all maps have ways of sieging keeps/towers that arent counter able without leaving your own keep or tower.

A huge example of this is SMC trebs on third floor can paper every single near by tower.

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev

Last Cars Running

in WvW

Posted by: MaLeVoLenT.8129

MaLeVoLenT.8129

I feel like I must be insane to have played and lead a guild in this game for so loooong. But GW2 is my bae!

~The Mad Court~ [OnS]Onslaught GM
Malevolent Omen -Guardian
Mad King Mal -Rev