Guild Wars 2

No, you do not multiply with a random number, you add a random number.

For each server a Match-rating is competed as following:

Match-rating = Rating + RNG ( – 1 , + 1 ) * 0.45 * Deviation

where you can see Rating and Deviation on
https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/na/wvw

Servers are then ordered by Match-rating and
1,4,7, … get green
2,5,8, … get blue
3,6,9, … get red

So for ET you have a very small chance to get green, namely if EB rolls close to -1 and ET rolls close to 1 and Kaineng roll smaller than -0.1. ET can improve it’s chance by playing good.

Better transfer costs are a step, but still miss the incentive for going on a (at least so far) loosing world. So it’s only once side of the medal to pay more for overstocking, still you need a reason to move to a lower pop world.

Tournaments have clearly shown, people pay to get better rewards, so a lower pop world needs better rewards as well.

Make all transfers free AND install a system that ensures that

individual rewards on a lower populated world are better that individual rewards on an overpopulated world

Gudradain.3892:

Claude, volatility is not the solution and the actual ranking system is the problem.

No server imbalance is the problem.

The ranking and match making work reasonable well, the only problem is there are no balanced alternatives to choose.

Gudradain.3892:

Redistributing the population

Let’s face it. Population imbalance, which bring uncompetitive blow out matches, is one of the biggest problem in WvW. Every days, thousand of players are complaining about it.

There got to be a solution!

Let’s start by looking at non-solution

1. Forced redistribution : It has to come from the players or it will alienate them.

2. Unlimited free transfer : No one like band wagon that destroy communities

Now, my solution! It’s a 3 steps solution : 

1. 100 free transfers per week to the lowest ranking server
2. 100 free transfers per week out of the highest ranking server
3. Half transfer cost if you transfer to a server ranked lower than your current server.

Give it a few weeks and it’s almost guarantee that the population will stabilize across all servers.

The biggest benefits will be for tier 1 and 8. These 2 tiers might consistently have the most balance matches every week.

Will not work, transfer costs alone will not produce balance, people payed up to 2500 gems to increase imbalance.
But in fact they payed to get more individual reward, and this is the only way to reach balance:

Make playing on a underpopulated world individually rewarding above average and playing on an overpopulated world individually rewarding below average

E.g. no WEXP chests on an overpopulated worlds, 1 as usual on a mean populated world, 2 on an underpopulated world.

But make sure: populated means the right thing, e.g. personhours spend in WvW over the weak and not registered PvE/EotM players on the world.

Bridge Preparation

As soon as X (choice at placement of the trap 10-50) persons (player and NPC from all sides) are on a trap prepared bridge the bridge collapses, killing all on it and the bridge needs repair before it can be used again.

Currently very easy in EotM, as several bridges are already destroyable there, would be cool for all bridges WVW as well and for more bridges in EotM as well.

As it can be avoided: do not put that many player together onto the same bridge, killing should not be a problem according https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Invent-a-new-trap/4131251
Maybe a bridge-examination spot, that would reveal bridge prepared (but not the X under which it collapses) or not can use the repair-“F” for un-broken bridges (which aren’t repairable).

Some more bridges in WvW would be nice, but when I though about it, there are already quite a lot of them, you usually just “overlook” them as they aren’t do anything. But this would add strong defense to Mendons and central inner hill- and west-door of main-keep.

Jeknar.6184:

SpehssMehreen.5897:

9 month old thread necroed. gg

One powerful necro indeed…

Probably you can even necro a twice as old thread about this topic. It is the worst problem since WvW switched from daily to weekly matches and ANet is still unwilling to see it as problem.

Only one conclusion possible anymore: if you see it as problem play something else.

3 sides only?

I liked boss-runs in the morning, with 2-10 people it was fun! Now with mega-server you always have 100 people even at 5am, I stopped playing boss-runs.

If you put everyone into these 3 sides in WvW you will get EotM, i.e. anonymous masses (in EU: that are not even able to talk to each other as they speak different languages) running in circles, and I will stop playing GW2 completely till each sides manpower (i.e. complete WvW) is reduced to at least to what is on a single T3-server currently. Which I guess will not need very long.

Grym.4295:

Dayra.7405:

PS: as long as you do not give any of your good reason, I can only believe that you are a hacker or grief player that fear exclusion by the community or a wtj that sees a wall around the greener grass.

Reason number 47: socially inept keyboard commandos should NEVER be allowed to decide who may or may not join any given team. Thanks for proving that point…

Still only trolling and no argument. Yeah, I see your worries.

Grym.4295:

Dayra.7405:

that can also reject someone to be in an alliance…

Not signed. EXTREMELY bad idea… for so many reasons I don’t know where to start .

Your Guild may refuse to accept you and can kick you at any time. The owner of your WvW TS can kick and ban you at any time. But no one worries about that. Why? Because it’s rare, happens only with good reasons and the by far most common reason is inactivity. And if it happens it’s not a problem, there are many other guilds and even new ones to found. And remember that in gw2 you can be in several guilds, e.g. at Elona we have several WvW player collection guilds, where WvW-interested people can join (additionally to their normal guild) without many effort (make a + in wvw-chat to get an invitation). So if your normal guild has not much interest to play WvW, but you do, join such a WvW-collection guild that is part of the alliance you like.

I expect that alliances ill be much more interested in gaining people than in excluding people. Additionally I put a two stage process in place, the alliance leader can accept or kick only complete guilds, so for individual player the problem is the same as today: will this guild accept me or my guild leader kick me?
Most alliances will search guilds to get max manpower, and only while at max manpower
they are able to exclude people.

So yeah, they main exclusion will be that of the wtj. The top alliances will be full. But this is urgently needed, especially for tournaments. There is no competition, if winning only means, I spend transfer costs to the winning team.

But I think ANet should introduce a max player limit for any WvW team in any case, it’s the only way to reach balanced matches.

PS: as long as you do not give any of your good reason, I can only believe that you are a hacker or grief player that fear exclusion by the community or a wtj that sees a wall around the greener grass.

Coverage is a different problem A worse one and an always ignored one. I do not have the possibility to count how many people (like to) play at which time, but given that there are more at one time and less at another time, the capacity of matches should adapt to that, e.g. if it turns out that at a specific time 4 times as many people like to play, than at another time, then the map-capacity should be only 25 per side and not 100 during that time. (or… or … see link in my signature)

Then a (overall size limited!) alliance that has to many player in a specific timezone, has them in queue at that time and misses people in other timezones.

Concerning, ANets effort: setting map-capacity is something they always experimented with, so is should be not much effort, extending the guild interface a bit to allow alliance formation and an NPC to register alliances, should be much less effort than they put into the dubious mega-server concept.

I think the main problem is that they still think WvW-players are happy with what they have, only the forum is dominated by a few negative people.

Charles.2871:

If we want a enjoyable wvw experience, then we should’ve picked a better server when we started the game, OR ELSE PAY MORE TO GET BETTER EXPERIENCE. ABSURD.

I think there is a third way: put all your non char bound stuff into the bank, delete all your chars, transfer for free, start new chars.

Ad 1) to play 24/7 WvW you probably need around 5000 – 10000 people. If an alliance start to kick interested people without more reason than being noob they end outmanned and loose. Especially as I proposed a 2 level system, the alliance leader can only kick whole guilds, only guild leader can kick individuals. And guild leaders can already kick you, but I haven’t heard of many guilds that kick people for being noobs.

Ad 2) I would expect maps running on virtual machines (or as different processes on the same machine). And running 5 maps a 100 people is very likely using LESS resources than 1 map with 500 as the (non-linear) interaction are reduced. So I don’t think your speculation about ANets server capacity is true.

Ad 3) in the end only ANet can adequately handle hacker, but an alliance/guild leader that take care can help already.

Ad 4) less problems than the current system of uncontrolled movement causes.

Ad 5) PvE population is called PvE population because it wanna play PvE. It can also play EotM and if you would have read my link, there are some random teams for them in my wvw proposal as well.

Ad 6) same as for 5), a lot alliances will probably underpopulated, trying to recruit people so there is always space for starters.

You seem to understand something completely different under AvA than I do.
Did I got you right, you think AvA is like EotM? I would call that mega server WvW and I find it bad as well.

But under AvA I understand something completely different, namely that guilds (and maybe also individuals) form an alliance under an alliance leader that can also reject someone to be in an alliance, especially as alliance should be size limited. I.e. alliances should have a max size to avoid winning by numbers only. Here is an example how it could be done https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists/3695388

Advantages over today:

• max size of people in an alliance limits the imbalance by numbers
• alliances cannot be flooded by bandwagoners and can easily handle (e.g. kick, if arguments don’t work) spies, hackers and grief players in their team without need to call ANet for support
• alliances should have an alliance chat (similar to guild chat) potentially visible everywhere in gw2 not just WvW.
• team proudness has more reason than with current worlds! where you have no influence who is in your team.

Look guys: ANet already setup the perfect solution for people that think their current (and forever identical ) match is stale: Server transfer

It has only advantages for everyone:

• you can freely choose the match you want
• ANet earns money to develop the game
• the gold-per gem exchange goes up, meaning less profit for gold-sellers, resulting in less of them

As there was no announcement, match-making will likely the same as before the tournament, e.g. look at https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Need-Anet-to-clarify-Matchup-Variance-Maths for an illustration how it works.

And have a look at https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Matchup-wishlist where Ken announces the match-probabilities usually a day ahead.

yanniell.1236:

Guild Wars in Guild Wars 2? That’s just nonsense. Server Wars is the only think that makes sense in a game called Guild Wars.

Server Wars?

Sorry,. someone must have forgot to tell WvW that the war is over, all servers are united now into the new mega-server.

Stop fighting, be friendly, you are all one united nation now

Great idea, PvD only for victory

NA-prime vs EU-night: Clear PvD victory for NA
NA-night vs EU-day: (or Oceanic-prime vs EU-day), no idea who has more player, EU-Gold are 200+ on weekends/50-150 under the week per server
NA-day vs EU-prime: Clear PvD-victory for EU

As we have 3-way matches the lonely one will win, i.e. if a match has 2 NA vs 1 EU the EU server wins, with 2 EU vs 1 NA the NA server wins. (as the lonely one get easily 695:0:0 during it’s prime, while the other two have to fight for their points during their prime, i.e. only score 350:345:0

We will have total balance after such a league, as everyone will have stopped playing WvW after 9 such weeks

joe.9815:

Also if you make it world xp it becomes keep flip spree

Zerg vs Zerg fights (e.g. a guild group farming random-zergs) usually give more WEXP than “keep flip spree” (or Karma train as it is usually called), at least till the opponents get stale

joe.9815:

1. This hurts casuals and only rewards wvwers.
2. You destory every server but the top one
3. U hurt havoc teams if it based on wexp
Congratz that break wvw even more

1. it is about a WvW league, so it should reward WvWers, PvEer have their living story, EotM, … to get their rewards. I do not really see a reason to give people that are registered (for which reason ever) on a top-server, but never enter WvW, a better WvW-reward than people that fight hard and committed on a low-rank server.
2. I expect the opposite: The servers that are currently at top due to massive overstacking will loose players (as they would have the worser reward per player ratio) other server that play good, but miss population to be better will gain player. (as they have much better rewards per player ratio). What is your claim be based on?
3. WEXP is the only currently existing activity measure. I am sure it can be improved. Ideally there would be a measure that weights conquest trains, fight zergs, defense scouts and havoc teams equally. If you have a proposal to do that …

And yes, Joe.9815, at least your post-history on the forum https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/members/showposts/joe-9815/1 does not qualify you for a WvW-weapon skin. It looks more like that of an achievement hunter that do not like to put effort into a WvW reward, that was a free present so far

Here is a system that would make it better.

• Put all servers in one big league ( more server less repetition and ties)
• Make league matches two sided. Merge EU-server down to 24, or both NA and EU down to 18 server, dividable by 2 & 3 such both 2-sided league matches as well as three sided normal (out-side tournament) matches are possible.
• assign rewards to the servers based on placement, and distribute the server-rewards to the players on this server based on commitment in WvW, e.g. WvW (not EotM) WEXP earned during the league, I.e. Do not reward bandwaggoners, and do not punish commit players for many bandwaggoners on the server.
• make transfers to all servers very cheap (100 gems or so)
• show I transfer dialog: average rewards per player, e.g. Even if A is 1st at moment, and B is last, mean rewards per player on B are likely higher than on A, simply because A has many times as many player.

Such a league would make sense as

1. it helps to balance WvW (with the reward steps between ranks you can direct intended balance)
2. bandwaggoners that never entered WvW are not getting the same reward than player that really help to achieve a rank
3. it finishes the 1st and 3rd attack the 2nd which was very strong during the league, as well as the fixed alliance in NA-gold.

As only account bound WEXP (and a 2nd season) has changed, still the same the last time someone asked:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/New-Things-You-d-Like-to-See-in-WvW/3624056

Balance will never be the result of players choice.
History has clearly shown, that the opposite is true.
Player may stay even if outnumbered, but if they decide to move the large majority move to the winner side, increasing imbalance.

There are only two possible ways to reach more balance:

• A hard cap set by ANet on the maximal number of players allowed to enter wvw for a side, i.e. It is just not possible to have above average numbers.
• very strong individual rewards for being on an under populated world, e.g. all individual rewards ( drops, WEXP, Exp, karma, gold, tournament tickets …) are halved if you are on an over-stacked world (more than 10% above average) and doubled if you are on an under-stacked world (less than 10% below average).

Vanthian.9267:

Fact is that a lot of people in real life work a hell of a lot harder in one day than most high paid T. V. Stars or “Pro Athletes” in their entire life and don’t even get close to being paid 0.00001% of their salary.

But why should you spend your free time a game that sucks the same way?

Not really surprising that the most overstocked WvW server does not want more people in WvW

• would mean more queue for them
• would mean more people on the opponent side, enabling them to beat BG

But if you would read more carefully, I proposed a competition between WvW players, and as soon as PvE player notice, that they hardly belong to the better 50% in these WvW activities, such that they get nothing for their effort, they stay away.

And I proposed one that sets different foci every week, with the intention to vary the goals of WvW a bit each weak. E.g. if SM defense is selected trebbing SM, would be a strategy where the players from the other server get ahead in their achievements, not you. In a week where both dolly escort & dolly kill are selected there will be heavy small-scale battle for Dollies.

So I think with such an idea we can get:

• slightly different foci each week
• individual competition e.g. to be the best NA/EU-wide dolly slapper of the week
• achievements comparable with PvE

Not from me, I see EotM already as over rewarded, make your own proposal for EotM rewards, mine are meant to be doable in classical WvW only (or do you really want to have all these defense achievement hunters in EotM, a EotM tower could look like a Kodash keep then)

I proposed to make an individual competition out of your “daily routine”

What else weapon skins?

Or why did so many people do the season achievements such that ANet is believing that it was a success?

Competitive achievements are a different story than check-mark achievements as well and last but not least, some rewards for doing the unwanted WvW-jobs like dolly escort, siege refresh, scouting aren’t a bad thing as well.

And of course achievements you aren’t interested in are easier to ignore than the massive balance destroying player moves due to seasons.

Do we really need seasons twice a year to get more people interested in WVW?
Does it really interest people? Is it positive for WvW or negative as all seasons so far enfored stronger server imbalances. As WvW is based on a scoring function that measures nothing elase than how many off-time player a server has these leagues aren’t a competition in any sense anyway.

The most positive point of the seasons are the achievements that come with them.
But do we need seasons to have better achievements?

I think just better achievements would do WvW better than leagues. But some competition is nice as wellso lets have competitive achievements.

Here are idea for such achievements. Each week (i.e. for each match), the system selects randomly 5-10 achievements from the list below, these achievements are equal for all server:

• Sum of delivered supplies by successful Dolly escort events.
• Sum intercepted supplies by successful Dolly kill events (Dolly’s are standing goalless in the camp do not count)
• Sum of successfully defended supplies at Camp defense events
• Sum of the successfully conquered supplies at Camp conquest events (Before the reduction by upgrade reset, i.e. full 250ziger stock = 250 pts)
• Sum of successfully defended supplies at Tower Defense events (Count the remaining supplies at the end of the event)
• Sum of the successfully conquered supplies at Tower conquest events
• Sum of successfully defended supplies at keep defense events
• Sum of the successfully conquered supplies at keep conquest events
• Sum of successfully defended supplies at Stome Mist defense events
• Sum of the successfully conquered supplies at Stone Mist conquest events
• Participation in successful mercenary defeat events
• Participation in successful mercenary acquisition events
• Participation in successful events of conquest of guards
• Siege Refresh Sum of the minutes since last siege refresh (if the timer is down to 45min at the moment you refresh, you get credited 15 min).
• Sum of the remaining refresh minutes when destroying enemy siege
• Sum of spended gold for objective upgrades

This is determined per match for all players the end of the match

• There are 2 achievement points for each of the (10) categories where you among the top 50% of the players.
• 2 more achievement points, if you belong to the top 33% of players.
• 1 additional achievement points if you made it into the top 100.

Also all ranks you reached in the 10 categories are summed up (lowest sum is best) into an overal contribution achievement

• for being in the top 50% gets 10 pts,
• top 33% further 10 points, and
• top 100 further 5 points

The top 100 players of the overal contribution are also pubklished in the leader board in the new category WVW contribution https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/.

A very active WvW player can thus get per week of up to 75 achievements points, but in mean it is around 20 achievement point per player
This corresponds to approximately what you can achieve on average per week through the bi-weekly living story.

Evalia.7103:

It stands as a no-brainer to me that Gold league participants should get more than Bronze league participants. In that you are right, and ArenaNet is wrong, who thinks that bronze #1(top 19 server) is better than gold #9(top 9 server) and deserves better rewards.

“Better Server”?
Only in the one aspect measured by ANets scoring function: Many more people during off-time.

Nothing else is relevant for winning WvW, boring, but still the case after nearly 2 years of evidence.

“deserves better (individual) rewards”?
As long as this merit is based on the unbeatable winning strategy of:

• make a first guess on the free-transfer servers, who will be stacked enough to win.
• stay way from EotM and WvW untill a winner is clear,
• spend some gems to go there if your first guess was wrong
• disturbe this worlds WvW-efforts as fewest as possible, by farming the meta in eotm,
  which is really harder than expected, as you are always green, and red and blue, are that few people, that quite often there is no non-green objective to farm left over.
• claim, that you are the best since ever (which is true you found and followed a clear winning strategy)

you really deserve the best individual rewards possible

VOLTCIEAGE.3029:

But then what is the sense of tournament if everyone get same rewards ?

Be happy that they did not followed my proposal of commitment based rewards
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Give-Bonuses-to-Gold-Silver-League-Servers/3920804

I never have a full bag in WvW and as Necro I have a class that collects a lot of bags in zerg fights, so some organizational tips may help

Have a look at my bags

The first is a normal bag to collect items to salvage them.

An oiled bag auto collect thorns & co, I don’t need to see them and there are not that many different types and they stack up to 250, so auto-selling them once a day at the NPC (or on map-switch to spawn) is sufficient.

A craftsman’s bag auto collect materials, I do not need to see them as well, I do not sell them immediately, but with “Deposit all Collectables” I send them to my bank regularly.

Another normal bag for stuff ( that is not sellable, so it does not appear at NPC/Trape post) that I want at my finger tip.

And an invisible bag for stuff that is sellable (but does not appear as it is in a invisible bag) that I want at my finger tips.

Viola, I am able to do all inventory business I need to to while auto-running behind the commander. Including selling rare weapons at the trading post.

If you sell them you make a mistake.

Salvage them

• it’s faster
• the materials worth much more then the items (or the other way around: the items only have a value in the trading post due to the materials that you can obtain)

But yeah the possibility to configure auto-salvage would be great, e.g. I would like to tell the system that all white, blue green drops are salvaged automatically with my copper-driven salvager, my rare armor drops with a master-salvager.

Maybe the gw2 API programmer (e.g millenium or http://gw2wvw.org/ or …)
can help the poor PvE players that need map-completion on their X char to build and sell their X legendary with a small alarm app, that rings their smart-phone bell as soon as their team conquered the objective they are waiting for.

Should be simple they only have to tell the app the team and the objective(s) and it can query the API to find out when the objective(s) is/are controlled by that team.
Then they have at least the 5min buf time to visit it

As they earn a lot of gold with their legendaries, they may even pay some cent in the smartphone AppStore for that.

Dhampyr.2104:

The devs don’t have an answer for this yet. They were debating it this afternoon with no conclusion reached.

The one who programmed it left the company in the meantime, so they are as curious as we are what will happen

Edit: Lol this was only a joke, stop making a rumor out of a joke

Junkpile.7439:

Well we are probably red of blue in next match up so i get more bags in EotM. Need to go make some superior trebs and carts.

SFR is currently rank 4, green as usual is most likely.

Phule.1968:

Less blobbing I hope. Other then that it should be just as 1 day before league started.

Day before League would mean that Servers on glicko-Rank 13-15 and 20-24 for NA and 15-18 and 23-27 for EU will have free transfer.

@romek: we all know now, that something happens in WvW that let you hate it now.
But your description fits whole gw2, it’s designed to feel pro for hitting 1, and every added boss event increases this. Second why do you have Elona in your signature? Servers like Elona do not exist outside WvW anymore and you stopped playing WvW. What let you keep the name of a WvW team in your signature, if you hate wvw? Elona doesn’t exist in PvE, EotM nor in sPvP.

Tomorrow at reset the tournament is officially over.

What will happen then to WvW?

1. will the league continue! because you forgot to switch it off?
2. will WvW be back to probabilistic random matches?
3. will …

How will the transfer cost be, when there are no more gold, silver bronze leagues?
How will the transfer-timeout be after league?

A short notice like https://www.guildwars2.com/de/news/get-ready/ concerning WvW would be nice.

Thanks

Cool, thanks…… 15 chars

Swamurabi.7890:

Map caps violate Anet’s Design Philosophy.

Unfortunatly it’s even worser doing something for WvW does violate their release priorities.

Problem

WvW attracts fewer and fewer people (e.g. due to ingame concurence like EotM or Living Story), resulting in fewer and fewer server (called teams from now on) being competitive. This imbalance is even accelerated by server transfer leading to overstacking on a few teams and much less population on most others.

As the match scoring is mostly population based (amount of player and resulting coverage) much to many matches are very imbalanced and boring (for the winners)/frustating(for the lossers).

Solution

Adapt the WvW-matches to the reduced number of players:

1. Reduce the capacity per match by lowering the map capacity (with the nice side-effect of less laags)
2. Set a maximal number of players per team (see below)
3. Choose less teams than there are servers today
4. Dynamic map shut down, e.g. when less than X (100?) players in the match (sum of all 3 teams) only eternal map, when more than X but less than Y (500?) players in the match only the 3 borderland maps, only when more than Y players are in the match all 4 maps can be played. Shutdown maps also do not count for scoring. (to avoid unwanted switch, make a margin of some players)

Teams with a maximal amount of players can be build e.g. as following:

• There is no transfer and no transfer cost anymore
• Player register (during the previous match match) for a team for which they want to play. To make this easy, there is an option to automatically register for the previous team immediatly when registration opens.
• Each team has a maximum capacity (e.g. something like mean over all teams +10%) the current amount of registered player (not as absolute number but as percentage of the capacity) will be shown in the registration dialog.
• Registration once done may not be changed, but at the moment where the capacity of a team is exceeded by a new applications, all registered players get a chance to change their registration (for example, a Guild can use that to ensure that all people will be in the same team)
• If more players sign up for a team as it has capacity, the team-members are choosen randomly (at registration end) from all registered.
• players that were in that team in X (5-10) previous weeks have a significantly improved chance (the more often, the higher)
• earlier applications have a slightly better chance (such that early registration is favoured and not all register in the last minute)
• The player that lost in the lotterie (or did not register) can choose their team (for this week) out of the three worst populated teams when they want to enter WvW for this week for the first time.

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Jeknar.6184:

Wtf AvAvA mean anyway?

Alliance vs Alliance vs Alliance
If implemented correctly, it would be a great way to preserve server pride and communities while providing a dynamically-balanced competitive environment.

Instead, we got Potato of the Mists.

Here a possible way of doing AvAvA:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists/3695388

Tournament is non-sense as WvW is not competitive and rewards are useless, why should anyone burn out for that?

See https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage
for a collection of proposals that have been made during the last 1.8 years (and some newer ones).

Unfortunately ANet still failed to make the scoring meaningful.

ykyk.2740:

Dayra.7405:

thaooo.5320:

Killface.1896:

50% less points during night problem solved,karma train scrubs still get there karma but are not the only reason server wins.

“Yeah curse those people who don’t live in America. Punish these heathens for playing during their own prime time. How dare they log in and play the 24/7 game while Americans sleep.

#MURICA"

/facepalm

Lol, you should not post about things involving mathematics if you aren’t able to execute simple cross-multiplication

in prime-time we have a point/player ratio of 695/1200 (all maps on all server have queue)
in off-time it depends on the server and it’s rank, but I would be surprised to hear that any match has more player than 400 i.e. a 695/400 ratio.
if you cut points by half in off-time you reach
347.5/400 which is still much in favor of the off-time player than 695/1200 for prime-time player.

To summarize for you:
Cutting off-time points by half, reduces discrimination of prime-time player a bit, it’s still far away from discriminating off-time player

I don’t know where you are from but in NA ladder different servers peak at different times. One server may queue 4 maps during NA while another queues 4 maps during SEA, a difference of about half a day. Why should one of those servers be shafted because their player demographic happens to be a certain way?

I am in EU-gold.

To make it true for everyone, everywhere at any time:
Prime-time is when there are more than 600 player in the match.
Off-time is when there are less than 600 player in the match.
Off-time score is multiplied by 0.5 for balance.

Maybe some NA-tiers do not have an off-time, if that is the case there is no multiplication by 0.5

Probably there are also several matches that never have a prime-time, but that’s a different problem.

thaooo.5320:

Killface.1896:

50% less points during night problem solved,karma train scrubs still get there karma but are not the only reason server wins.

“Yeah curse those people who don’t live in America. Punish these heathens for playing during their own prime time. How dare they log in and play the 24/7 game while Americans sleep.

#MURICA"

/facepalm

Lol, you should not post about things involving mathematics if you aren’t able to execute simple cross-multiplication

in prime-time we have a point/player ratio of 695/1200 (all maps on all server have queue)
in off-time it depends on the server and it’s rank, but I would be surprised to hear that any match has more player than 400 i.e. a 695/400 ratio.
if you cut points by half in off-time you reach
347.5/400 which is still much in favor of the off-time player than 695/1200 for prime-time player.

To summarize for you:
Cutting off-time points by half, reduces discrimination of prime-time player a bit, it’s still far away from discriminating off-time player

No match making helps, only enforce player balance https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-Enforced-Player-Balance may help.

Or a restart, i.e. the replacement of the server by something else (e.g. Alliance vs Alliance).

monkeysensei.6492:

2v1 is essentially win trading. Not exactly something to be proud of having to resort to in order to win.

Even if it is not a win in fights (which sometimes happens) it’s easily a win in PPT, just make 2 groups that PvD faster

Only a WvW-player wonders why he isn’t in Lion Arch anymore when he logs in.

Only a WvW-player wonders, why the hell do the people in his home town now chat in a foreign language.

Only a WvW-player is surprised that an enemy he partied on the battle field now stand beside him in his home-town.

Only a WvW-player ask himself after this happened, if his team is now that bad, that the enemies even invaded his hometown.

Only a WvW wonders what he is fighting for anymore, after an passing-by explained him that his home-world got merged together with all his enemies into the united nations of the mega-server.