Guild Wars 2

Tongku.5326:

I would like to see some scoring adjustments as follows without nerfing the current objective rewards, just give other ways a considerable boost so that the total average becomes more balanced instead of being so PPT lopsided.

1. Make PPK worth more so that fighting guilds, roamers, gankers etc. can have a bigger impact on the total score, currently the whole paradigm is still extremely shifted towards PPT (score points being awarded for unattended, undefended objectives, thus awarded for inactive, rather then active gameplay).

2. Make PPC and PPD (the initial capture and defense points) worth a bit more. This would go towards promoting a more active rather then inactive gameplay, and would do so evenly across all servers and timezones.

3. Add to points total from earning reward tracks. I noticed that reward tracks themselves come very quickly during a combination of player kills and objective captures/defenses and come slow during slow times, or when focused on only single playstyle, such as player fighting only, or k-training. Because of difference in the pacing, adding to total score from reward tracks would automatically be “self-balanced” and nice to have.

4. Provide score point bonusses based on “outmanned” buff, perhaps impliment a “local outmanned” buff etc. for scoring purposses. This would go a very long ways to help with population imbalanced matches.

1. Let’s not forget this is a war game – the objectives are… the objective. No pun intended. If you want kills to count more, play PvP. If you want to play a game based on strategy, where scouting, defending, and sieging objectives is how you win, play WvW. As for “inactive gameplay” rewards, I think something could be done to lessen the effect of ppt during severely low WvW population times (based strictly on map population, not time of day).

2. Agreed. But careful about rewarding defensive points, cause that could mean anytime swords come up on an objective, the end result is points for the defending team (even if there was no fight/conflict).

3. Am I understanding you correctly? You want rewards tracks to somehow add to war score? I don’t really understand how this concept would work.

4. Sounds interesting. Why not just allow the team with the outmanned buff to get a slightly larger point reward for objective capping?

I like both the ideas and I hope they both receive attention eventually. However, I’m not sure if some of the Scoring Improvements will be implemented properly. When you say “night capping” does this take into account your time zone or the servers time zone when you capture something? I’d assume it’s the server time zone or perhaps even server peak time? So then will this discourage, for example Asia/EU time zone players from playing on US heavy servers? Is that a good thing? If those players are drawn away from those servers, then night capping will ultimately become more of an objective even if it is weakened.

I wonder if perhaps adjusting the WvW ticks based on the overall WvW population would work though. For example if the map allows 80 players per team (idk the real number), that would make for a max of 960 players across 4 maps. At that level, all objectives would tick at 100% their normal tick. A tower would tick 10 points, for example. If the total population dropped to, say 50%, a tower might give 8 points. If the total population dropped further to 25%, a tower might give 6 points. Of course, these numbers are rough, as is the idea. This way, though, it doesn’t matter what time of day it is. As long as you have people to attack/defend objectives, the objectives would be more worth having.

I see the value in the idea. Of course there would have to be a minimum to allow for people to join. 20 or so. And there would have to be a level of differential tolerance to be fair. For example, having 5 extra players wouldn’t throw off the fight completely to one side.

I can tell you why Anet may not like this idea though. Because it would reduce the total number of players in WvW, which would increase gripe from the Queued players. And the only way to fix the gripe would be to open multiple instances of each borderland and weigh the score of each map based on total population – and that just seems like a lot of extra work for development.

Brown Fang Thump.9482:

What I’d like most in WvW are rewards scaled to opposition faced. For example, if a solo player engages 3 enemies and wins, that player’s loot should be greater than that of one of the 3 enemies if they win.

I think a single player who can capturer a map objective such as a camp or tower should be rewarded more than a player who is simply following a zerg of 30+ players who can’t help but win against undefended objectives. This kind of reward system would encourage players to approach the territory capture aspect of the game with more strategy without completely ruining the zerg experience for those who enjoy that sort of thing.

As an aside, I love that this type of feedback is being used to improve the game. Of course, I think the poll should be in the game (as they were during beta), where the maximum number of players can vote. There is a large population of players who don’t watch the forums; but, are interested in helping improve the game.

Sounds good. I hate zerg-surfing, but my WvW rank reflects it all too clearly. Having about one third the rank of a player who only plays WvW when their is a zerg to run with.

An in-game feedback system seems like one of those “too good to be true” type ideas. No matter how nice it would be, it simply won’t happen. Although, I do wish for it.

For all of those still concerned about this (with whom I strongly identify), there is a post from last year in which Anet addressed this issue.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/Toypocalypse-and-Parties/

You can read it for yourself, but my understanding of it is that they changed the code intentionally in order to stabilize PvP and other instanced activities. Which to me sounds a lot like saying “We couldn’t find any other way to stabilize the gameplay without disallowing party joins for all of these activities”. So my question is, do they intend to make a workaround for this? Can Toypocalypse perhaps be reworked to act as a dungeon instead? After all, there are plenty of instanced activities which do allow party joining.

Dear Anet,
I will absolutely NOT play Toypocalypse until I can play it with my friends! After all, why would I join a guild/community if not to enjoy the game with them? This really bums me out. =(

Sincerely,
Customer

I kill necros with minions all the time cause I know they won’t protect their master! Bring on the minions, I’ll backstab you all day!

You spelt “doable” wrong. Good points though.

This has happened to me on my thief at least 3 times. Twice in Kessex Hills while moving between events and at least once while simply running around lion’s arch, I think it may have been while picking up a snowball. I could move around using Infiltrator’s Arrow, but still stuck. Only way I could find to get unstuck is to exit to character selection and relog.