Showing Posts For Yonline.8946:
Come to think about it, I think the correct term is handicapping. Just like in golf, the weak players get a nice handicap so they can still compete and have fun in a tournament. Not exactly the same here but I wonder if tiers can be rejigged to reflect the lowest “handicap” at the top of the list. But on the otherhand, that may favour too much elitism.
I see how equalizing the scores would make moving up and down tiers hard. I was kind of thinking in the grand scheme of things the zerg favoring high population servers would congregate in T1 and the the guerrilla style servers that like fighting greater odds would congregate in T4, with T2-3 being a mix of both. And then you can disregard gliko altogether and have any server fight any server (with some linking balance). Likely wishful thinking though.
Imperdiago: Population would be a straight forward calculation of how many players are logged into WvW from that server (across all maps) in that 5 minute interval. No need for any fancy mechanics for multiple accounts, time of day, active time periods, proportion of sea players, overstacked servers where all the players are hibernating, etc… If you (Server A) are currently playing and outnumbering Server B 2:1, you simply will not be scoring as much points against Server B whom you are clobbering. But if Server C is 1:1 to you in terms of players currently on, you score equal points against it if you choose to focus your attentions there. Preferably the amount of AFK’ers won’t be that huge to make a difference, but it could be a problem.
I don’t think this scoring change will actually stop zerging or overstacking because those that like zergs will still have fun zerging and crushing peons, they just won’t get as much points doing so to underrepresented servers. You will still need numbers to take objectives and win zerg battles. Therefore, I can’t see elite groups yelling at people to get out of a zerg. I suppose some elite group may yell that there are too many scouts on the map and to join the zerg instead, but I doubt it.
Xenesis: 1:1 scaling of points to population would actually make it too difficult for the most populous server, because as I said, a server with twice the population as another still rarely sends twice as many people in battle. In the end, we want the scoring to still favor the server that should win (due to active playing population) while still being competitive in score.
I completely agree that I don’t think we will get any balance of population and coverage in the servers, but this method of bonus points will encourage fighting against higher populated or covered servers so that everyone still has fun, regardless of how lopsided a tier battle may be.
I think your idea active bonus points for 3rd place etc.. is an option that can be added on top of this automatic balancing as something that will make comebacks more exciting, because I can see how catching up from a point deficit can be difficult (for both populated and underpopulated servers) with this population per tick balancing.
With all the suggestions going on about how to improve WvW scoring, I was thinking that this simple fix would be the most straightforward way of addressing multiple problems.
At each tick, make the total PPT earned from both objectives and kills proportional to the server population that the objective/player killed belongs to.
For example: Say towers are worth 1 PPT. Server A takes or owns one of server B’s towers. But, Server A has 2 times the population of Server B during this tick interval. So Server A only earns 0.5 PPT that tick.
Say if the out-manned Server B managed to take a Server A tower, while having only half its population during the tick interval. Server B will then earn 2 PPT for that tick.
Owning your own towers are worth the standard base amount of PPT and player kills vary proportionally in a similar manner.
So why would this be helpful?
Nightcapping: Servers out-manning during night intervals just earn less PPT for any opposing server objectives they take due to low enemy server population. They still can have fun k-training, but it just won’t affect the score as much. Brave defenders likewise will get bonus PPT for kills or tower caps against the nightcappers.
Stacked servers: Overpopulated servers won’t earn as much points wiping out opposing server borderlands. Likewise, additional PPT is earned by the opposing servers on attacking the high population server, so double teaming is more likely (which is a plus or a minus, depending on your point of view). Usually the 2nd place team tries to wipe out the 3rd place team in these situations for more PPT, but with this proportional PPT adjustment, the 2nd place team really does not get many points for stomping the 3rd place team so it may encourage attacking the stacked server again.
Zergbusting and Fighting: Low population servers gain bonus points for killing high population servers and give away fewer points on dying, so this may encourage more valiant zerg busting or desperate defenses.
Imploding, Hibernating, Bandwagonning, population in stability: Population is calculated per tick, so these really don’t matter. Your server implodes, big deal, you start earning more points.
So this simple change should help balance the scoring accordingly, without affecting how people enjoy the game. You can k-train, zerg bust, roam, zerg the same as normal without feeling one playstyle outweighs another. Fine tuning to the proportional scoring is of course required. A server with twice the population of another should not score half as much since every situation will not be an automatic 2 on 1. Scoring somewhere around 1.5 for half the population and 2 for a third of the population may be more accurate. And proportional monetary/wvw rewards for defeating higher population servers during the tick interval may be helpful as well.
I haven’t really posted anything on these forums before but with the recent Megaserver implementation being so game breaking, I felt I have to chime in as well.
First off, I appreciate the effort the GW crew has put into this update. However, with so many new features they tried to jam in and experiment with, some things were bound to go wrong. And one such problem was forcing the Megaserver on everyone and all the changes that such a concept brought with it.
Now, the Megaserver did help a few select areas in the game, namely leveling and map completion. However, it, as many people have commented, it has destroyed server communities, wrecked traveling and waypointing, made guild mission organization impossible, made WvW and guild recruiting not only impossible but in some cases outright hostile, and made champ and event farming utterly annoying.
I used to marvel at how much there was to do in GW2 and how I felt that I could accomplish so much in a little span of time with the dailies and the boss events. I loved coming to my server’s aid on WvW calls. Now, for the first time in a long while, I just kind of logged on and sat there doing nothing. All major events were locked on perma-completion, major boss events every 15 min were zerged out. I cut down a few trees then logged out. There is actually less incentive to do anything now.
At any rate, the solution is simple. Make the Megaserver optional. If you want to map complete or explore a new area with more people, activate your megaserver. If you are new to the game, or want to help newbies, by all means active your megaserver. If you don’t have the population to do an event you want, jump to the megaserver. But in all other cases, you should just be able to stay in your home server or guest as a default option. In other words, the megaserver should be just like a optional overflow server.