Guild Wars 2

How about:

After every hour of (not switched) control of an objective you get score from it, but if that object has no WP and never had an defense event in that hour it only generates 1/5 of score, i.e. regularly switching objectives do not generate score for anyone and never attacked objectives without WP only have a reduced score.

To reduce the possibility of a saboteur/spy to generate score for the opponent only defense events that involve ramm or catapult damage or reduce a wall with a treb by at least 50% are counting.

Isaac.6041:

Khal Drogo.9631:

Does Anet have any plans to let us reset our world ability points like they do for the trait system?

well here’s the deal if you could reset WAP out of combat then u could easily switch between ram mastery or cata mastery, etc. depending on the situation so no I don’t think they would allow this. I think it’s nice enough they reset the points for us after they introduced the account bound WXP patch.

ANet could place an NPC that allows you to reset, or it may only be resettable while out of WvW. Then you cannot change on the fly, but are still able to do it, with an effort comparable to switching characters (and as you can spend all the account WEXP differently per char, you can build a ramm-profi and a treb-profi and …).

Junkpile.7439:

I think that you can enter EotM even if you transfer.

Yes, but that’s quite irrelevant for map completion

Bartosz.2013:

Netko.9271:

Bartosz.2013:

Are u sure that miller will be green today? should i transfer today before reset?

You know if you transfer today, you can’t enter wvw next week?

even before reset?

At least for the duration of the league you are banned from WVW after a transfer for the current and next match.
See https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/get-ready-for-wvw-spring-tournament-2014/

Problem of Mega Servers in PvE and even more in WvW is that a stupid computer program chooses where you have to play.

So you may be lucky in a few cases, you may find a way to trick the program like the taxi-party with a stupid amount of effort or you are lost and either resign or leave.

The stupidity of game play in eotm clearly shows that random-teams aren’t an alternative to self organized communities. But community and random assignment to teams doesn’t fit together.

So yes ANet likely introduce that as the do never showed a sense for understanding communities, but I guess it will also be the last day I and many others spend in gw2.

Prysin.8542:

To be honest, i am so sick and tired of people not getting it that this is NOT a 4 hour a day – seven days a week competition. It is a 24 hour a day, seven days a week competition.

Sick? Oh oh! Maybe you should sleep more and play less 24/7

geist.3980:

3. anet wants you to compress servers. the less servers they have to run, the more money they make. I don’t ever foresee a day that they don’t announce server positioning and then offer a sale to get ppl to transfer up.

Should this be ANets plan, then it shutdown the superflous servers, the sooner the better: “Lieber ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende”

And make such a league afterwards to balance the remaining server.

geist.3980:

1. you cant judge who does a better job by basing it on server population, or time zone coverage.

The fewer people you need to win the better you are, very easy to judge.

geist.3980:

2. its unfair to punish players by forcing them to split rewards with an entire population just because they had the common sense to move to a place where people actually log in to fight daily.

no one is forced, no one is punished

geist.3980:

if your sense of loyalty to your server keeps you in the bottom tier, that’s entirely on your back, not ours.

I am not in bottom tier, and I find a one-sided win where you wake up and map is 690:5:0 for YOU the worst. Even the other way around (you are at 5 or 0) is better, then you have a lot to do

But of course most I like matches like the last 2 weeks in EU-T2, where winner and looser are open till last hour.

Nadha.6097:

Dayra, yours is the best suggestion to season and season rewards I have read in a long long time.

Would you be so kind and post it in a new suggestion thread?
It should not be squeezed in here.

I am just afraid they would never do it, because then we would have some actual numbers how many people play WvW on any Server.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-Season-Rewards-for-better-balance

Problem:
All seasons so far saw a lot of bandwagon jumping around to over-stack servers and maximize personal rewards. So far this resulted in seriously over-stacked servers and very imbalanced matches, as server with many more people usually beat others in coverage over 24/7 matches.

Original formulation of idea:
(https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Give-Bonuses-to-Gold-Silver-League-Servers/3920804)

Proposal
Use the personal rewards system in the next league to balance servers and not to over-stack servers.

Clearly a server performing better should receive more rewards than a server performing worser.

But if two servers perform equal, but one has less WvW-player than the other, each player on the lower populated server did a better job than each player on the higher populated one. Therefore they should get more rewards.

This can be achieved by a 2-step reward assignment:
1) Assign rewards to the server based on the rank (or points) it achieved. Better Rank/points should give more rewards.
2) Distribute the server reward equally among all player that have finished the meta-achievement and are on this server at the end of the league.

For optimal results all 24 NA-/27 EU-server should be in ONE big league playing swiss tournament, such that massive transfers shortly before or even within the league can adequately influence the ranking.

For optimal balancing effects during the league the current
rewards per player estimate should be visible in https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/ (updated every week based on rank) as well as in the world transfer dialog (computed on the fly, based on the current number of player that finished their meta and are on this world) . If the server-rewards per rank are not known to the community this cannot be used to estimate actual player numbers (only the relative amount of player can be estimated).
BUT it may be a strong incentive to transfer to low populated worlds, as they likely have a higher reward per player.

This way a player movement to lower pop worlds will be generated with the hope of more balance. To avoid to many transfers to a world the actually of the reward per player in the world transfer dialog is essential.

Optional: For better matches where everyone fights the leading server, I would give one point to the winner of a match and no points to 2nd and 3rd. 9 round of swiss tournament will still be more than enough to clearly order the server and even to reorder them based on population moves.

Optional: To reward the effort of players individually, make the achievements repeatable (and count WvW only, not EotM), count per player the total number of achievements finished, and compute (and publish) the sever reward per achievement. Each player get: sever reward per achievement times achievements finished by this player.

If you need a lower level mat especially leather or fabric you have a hard time as level 80 as you mostly get higher level items dropped even in lower level areas.

Would be handy if you can manually select you preferred drop-level, especially in WvW and EotM.

As said above against stacking helps:
1) reward the server according position
2) distribute the server reward equally among all that contributed on this server position

A scoring that always give equal points to all servers is meaningless, that’s true.
And I never support nor did I proposed such a scoring.

But many people are bored by the current situation of: more PvD in off-time gives an unbeatable score advantage.

Better would: many effort give many points and little effort give little points.

It looks like a lot people seem to like most rewards for no effort, nevertheless it’s wrong.

Here is a good reason why this restriction is very important:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Remove-the-Lockout-Timer/3907185

And as you said, transferring a character-less account is free, and a spy or saboteur only needs lvl 1.

Scale the number of capturable objectives with players by make superfluous lords invulnerable. (E.g. total all sides: <100 only camps, <200 camps and towers, >200 everything capturable). Invulnerable objectives do not count for scoring. That technologies even ANet has :-)

hanZou.3645:

Dayra.7405:

Unless it’s only very low effort, I would prefer that ANet spends it’s time on a more urgent matter:

Improved Match Balance

I agree that there are more urgent things to focus like the one u said “Improved Match Balance” but implementing icons to wvw ranks its not that so hard or complex thing to do…ok they had to get some good rank icons designs first but after that its easy to implent it.
But well this was a suggestion so…lets wait and see

And they already saw the post…cause they moved this topic from gw2 discussion to wvw discussion…

When they do it, I would suggest to put a line of stars below, as colors are difficult to see.
1 star for silver up to 4 for mithril and a cavalry cross for the 5th level of ranks.

BAITness.1083:

Far too many of these suggestions punish servers that have players coming into WvW and reward servers that don’t. If you think this is a fix, you are blind. This will only lead to people yelling at others to log out of WvW so they can get whatever incentive it is you are providing.

If there is never coming enough you loose, nothing more to say.
Rebalancing WvW pop (or shutting down servers) is the only thing that helps there.

But nevertheless coverage is a problem! 30:10:10 generates far more score difference than 300:100:100. And that is (or at least should be) the target of the proposals in this thread.

BAITness.1083:

Players are making suggestions to literally ruin the game

Player suggestions will never do more than a brainstorming for ANet. The only ones that ruin or improve the game are therefore ANet.

Obviously ANet expected to have some bug-harmed rounds.
Therefore they made the league 9 rounds even if 2 are sufficient.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Spring-tournament/3896790

SFR wins, AR looses, all other ranks are decided in the last 2 rounds. As vizu lost already a round vs AR, they need to win the last 3 rounds to end rank 2. (As long as it does not loose vs AR again, of course if now AR ends always before vizu, AR can be 2nd by winning the last 3 rounds as well)

That’s why I said at the end better put all server into a single Swiss tournament if you do it that way

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

Only a WvW player knows which server he needs to transfer to, in order to get a Mist Forged Weapon.

Only a WvW-player knows that a Mist Forged Weapon Skin isn’t worth 2000gems.

Only a WvW-player knows that running around with a mist forged weapon will be the same as tattooing bandwaggoner on his forehead.

Please do not mix up two completely different problems of WVW as they need completely different actions to fix.

- coverage: even if you field more people you loose, as the scoring favor a few doing PvD in off-time over many fighting for points in prime-time.
- population imbalance such that you are outmanned most of the time.

First is discussed here, second in threads like https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-Enforced-Player-Balance or https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Season-proposal-preventing-bandwagoning or https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Suggestion-How-about-you-make-WvWvW-smaller

Only a WvW Player wonders what a competitive match could be.
Only a WvW player wonders why it needs a league to rofl-stomp his server.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

And, sadly, I think coverage will continue to be a problem until ArenaNet can find a method to monetize WvW that doesn’t rely on server transfer fees.

That’s why I put gem-registration costs into my AvA proposal
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists/3695388
I am quite sure that WvW has a lot of people that would pay for their alliance to play competitive. Of course that would need a fair acceptable base-scoring for all, and not the off-time domination we currently have. One mayor imbalance problem would at least easily solved: there should be an upper-level of players in an alliance.

Another proposal is to extend the current objective-claiming to a kind of “Guild Fortress”, would make WvW more interesting for pure PvE-Guilds
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/If-you-could-change-the-scoring-mechanic/3552163
and that would also mean gem-selling skins for “Guild Fortresses” and their parts (nicer gates, more flags, the guild name on plates, signposts with guild-objective name, rename the objective on map, statutes with players skin placeable on some places …) would generate some business as well.

I am looking through the API http://gw2wvw.org/?region=2&tier=3
Seems to be only your match.
In the API EB and red BL look normal, whereas Blue and green border some objective seem to switch color randomly.

Yeah EU – Gold matches got decided on the last minute:
T1: SFR (15) – Kodash (11) – BB (11)
T2: RS (9) – Deso (9) – Elona (9)
T3: Jade (7) – Vizu (5) – AR (5)

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Give-Bonuses-to-Gold-Silver-League-Servers/3920804

But I think I like the non-season version
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-Enforced-Player-Balance/3921574
now more, especially as it provides also some WvW-achievements.

Definitely the best way to show ranks. But of course a purely cosmetic thing.
Unless it’s only very low effort, I would prefer that ANet spends it’s time on a more urgent matter:

Improved Match Balance

Ok, after the stick-version in the opening, here the carrot-version:

Make 5 infinite (ala Agent of Entropy, i.e. each round get an achievement point up to 250) WvW-only (not EotM, as it does not contribute to the match) Ticket-Achievements
- 25 Dolyak killed
- 100 player killed
- 20 Towers successfully defended
- 10 Keeps successfully defended
- 5 SN successfully defended

Count per player how many of them he finished within a match.
Count per server how many of them where finished during the match.

Divide the server-score at the end of the match by the amount of finished Ticket-Achievements on this server to get the tickets per achievement. Payout every player tickets per achievement of this server times number of achievements completed in the week, if they are still on the server on which they made the achievements (nothing otherwise).

Publish the “tickets per achievement score” per server, to let people see what they miss by staying on an over-stacked server.

Remarks:
I intendedly choose defensive achievements and most need opponents to achieve, as offensive is already dominant (karma-train) and PvD does not need additional carrots to happen.

T1 should have many more players than T8/9, but the total score (of all 3 servers) would not be that different. So in T8/9 a player you earn much more per week than in T1.

Every score-point counts, even if you loose, you have a motivation to fight.

I agree the server should get tickets according to their final rank:
gold 1) 2’000’000
gold 2) 1’950’000
…
gold 6) 1’800’000
silver 1) 1’750’000
…
silver 9) 1’350’000
bronze 1) 1’300’000
…
bronze 9) 900’000
Then distribute the tickets a server earned equally among all people that finished the league2 achievement on that server, e.g. if 10’000 people on blackgate finished the achievement and they ended 1. That’s 200 tickets per person.
If EB ended 24. and they had 1000 people finishing their achievement they get 900 each.

For that of course it would be better if all server would play in one large swiss-league. Then you could even distribute tickeckts to servers based on the points the earned in the 9 rounds (between 45 and 9), e.g. 50’000 tickets per point earned.

If it would lead to an equal cut over all, no one would have a reason to complain.

And for all that love difficult fights it is a big gain, that off-time PVD would finally no longer dominate fights.

I am in favor of making the fight people happier, over keeping the off-time PvDler decisive.

Ansau.7326:

But all these suggestions of time frames, off peak times and such would only hurt WvW,

I would not hurt WvW on all server, but it would definitely hurt Baruch bay’s score

The best counter so far is level 4 “contradiction” (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-decrease-the-player-cap-on-WvW-maps/3909770)

“If you do not allow us to overstack all will leave”
You forgot: Due to allowing overstacking so far a lot already left.

But most only make it till Level 2 “Ad Hominem”, Poor

PS: You best counter arguments on the level on which they are made, so this post starts with a level 4 reply to drop down to level 2 as well

Transfer is transfer, guesting never existed for WvW. So I do not understand what you mean with permanent transfer, of course after a transfer you can do another transfer.

And yes, of course the sense of this proposal is:

Enforced destacking of overstacked servers like blackgate.

And yes, to enforce people to do something, you have to generate problems for them, if they do not do what is needed.

And yes, that the people on over-stacked servers do not like it is clear, they would not overstack if they don’t like it, therefore complains from them are expected and only support: for balance enforced de-stacking is needed, voluntary de-stacking will never work.

And it will do nothing on servers that aren’t overstacked. (with the clear definition: A server is overstacked if it has more than 10% more WvW-player than the mean of all servers of this league.), except: They will get more variance in match-making AND better balanced matches.

I am on my servers team-speak when I am in WvW, but
- TS may be down (all these attacks …)
- There are people without Mic (hey I cannot scout I don’t have a mic …)
- You aren’t in the TS-channel, if you aren’t in WvW (commanders don’t like it, as they consider the channel as their core-army), so you cannot get calls for help this way.

@Liston: yeah that’s even better, you can subscribe to the team-channel, even if you aren’t in WvW.

read the prerequisite: mega server in place, I.e. Server = WvW-team and nothing else.
See https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/the-megaserver-system-guilds-and-the-future/

I didn’t care about other transfer costs so far, but the filled quota percentage of a server would of course be a very good base for determine general transfer costs. If transfer costs will be needed et al. Probably it would be sufficient that WvW-teams that hit the quota are marked as full.

As ANet never publisher player numbers I can only guess where the quota will be, if my estimate of 2000-3000 players is correct 10% will be 200-300 free space per server and I don’t know a guild with that many WvW player.

Blackgate will likely be hit hard by that proposal.

But

be forced to run on a new server each week with random people,

is simply wrong. As said: most server will never hit the quota. And if everyone would follow the quota recommendation as described above, after 1 week no one will ever be hit by it again.

Only if a lot people refuse to follow it, they will be hit again, till enough people follow it.

@Mattargul: Yes! Thats why I like the proposal of time-sliced matches with different leagues per slice. Then Glicko does a better job, as it can the servers per slice, and no longer via their mean performance averaged over the slices.

And thanks for the further illustration why free-transfers alone aren’t sufficient
“If I choose to overstack I wana win overstacked” seems to be a to common attitude, much more common than “yeah I like balanced matches between many equally man-powered servers”..

If you wana do a WvW-guild-raid and you are so late that the map is full and queue is long you are banned to play it, such is life.

If it is for some reason important for you to stay there, you will try to be faster for the next match. So again you aren’t banned, just paused due to match-balance-capacity.

quota will be much higher than map-capacity.

I guess in mean around 2000-3000 different people play WvW per server and week, whereas map-capacity of all 4 maps is somewhere around 400. Don’t forget that the quota is based on the sum of players over all the 168 hours of the match.

So no way to reach quota within “first 0.5s of reset night”, maybe it is reached on saturday evening on some high stacked servers.

And: it will never be reached on 50% of the servers!

And they are not banned. They get a “capacity exceeded” message and they are offered to play IMMEDIATELY somewhere else. This is similar to be placed on an overflow map, because the map you wanted is full. That’s better than the queue that already exist, where you only get the offer to “play sometimes later”.

Virtute.8251:

Dayra.7405:

An the new think
- A server-shout buyable for honor-badge and/or gems to call people on your server for help.

I think this would be annoying. I really don’t care to receive announcement about some rich kid’s daily Tequatl raid, nor some retired guy’s call-to-arms for WvW “defense”.

That’s why I proposed to do it that way in my opening post

Dayra.7405:

To avoid unwanted spam of stupid messages maybe not as free text but as fixed text: <WvW map on which this shout was used> needs urgent help
Into a world chat, that people can decide to see or not.

Virtute.8251:

Besides, you know my stance on the server concept. I ultimately want the divided and named server concept to be utterly destroyed. That would complicate or remove the server-shout capability.

With mega-server sooner or later server transforms to WvW-team , in that case it would be shout to (potential) WvW-team – independently how it is may be defined in the future.

Problem Some server have much to many WvW-Player, some server have to few players to play competitive WvW. And even worse people seem to have a tendency to concrentrate on a few server and not to spread out over all servers.
This uneven player distributions lead to very unbalanced matches and as only a few servers are of similar strenght to very repetitive matches.

Prerequisite: Mega-servers are in place, such that current servers are nothing else than “WvW-teams”, i.e. a switch to another server, has only WvW-effect, but no effect on guild-membership.

Previous Proposals
- map capacity reduction: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-decrease-the-player-cap-on-WvW-maps is currently under discussion
- free transfers to low pop servers: had either no or sometimes even the opposite result
- enforced assignment of people to servers: unrealistic

Solution Proposal (stick-version)
Compute for each week how many different player entered (or wanted to enter) WvW over all worlds and matches (per league, i.e. one for EU and for NA).
Divide this LastTotal by the number of servers to get the mean quota for the last weak matches. Add 10% reserve to it to get the intended player-quota for next week.

The places in this quota are filled up by players joining WvW in a first come first serve manner. A player that get into WvW, can play over the whole week. A player that tries to get into WvW when it’s server quota is exceeded cannot play WvW this week on this server, however he get the offer of a free transfer to the 3 server with lowest filled quota (these servers always exist). He can accept this and play WvW on the new server, or he refuses and can try to be faster for the next match.

The total number off available place is 10% higher than the number of players that played or tried to play last week so under normal circumstance (no peak increase in player numbers, e.g. at the beginning of the league. In this case: If 66% of the servers reached the quota, add 10% to the quota of all servers, and announce that to everyone that hit the quota and did not transferred via ingame email.) there is a place to play for everyone, however if he is to slow not on the server where he was so far.

Intendet results:
- Player amount imbalance is restricted, no server can field more players than 10% more than the mean number of players.
- Player that are to slow to play, will sooner or later accept the offer to spread out to lower populated servers and by that help to balance the server even more.
- as soon as more balance is reached, no one will ever hit the quota.
- the quota will avoid that imbalance is ever increased

optional extension: People on low-pop servers say that they want to be on low pop servers and do not want to have the masses of players that run around in matches of the high-pop servers.

If this is true: make two permanent leagues in EU (1-18 large-scale, 19-27 smale-scale) and NA (1-15 large-scale, 16-24 small-scale) and compute the quota per league and offer only servers of the same league for the free-transfers for exceeded quota.

Another solution (carrot-version) proposal added
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-Enforced-Player-Balance/3921574

The extension of “not in the current match” to “not in current and not in the next match” is needed, because the next match is currently predictable. (opposed to most matches in the random-modified opponents in normal match-making)
I.e. in 99% of cases you can be 100% sure who will be you next opponents.

Therefore this time-out is needed to avoid placement of spies/saboteurs (2nd accounts) on the next opponent servers.

akanibbles.6237:

PVDoor fits perfectly with casual gaming… just like candy crush.

But the league does not.

And given that most matches are imbalanced: No (visible) scoring would be better for casuals than the current scoring. These imbalanced scores turn-off many people.

But better balanced matches and a better scoring funtion that makes people’s impact more equal – independently when they play – would be even more stimulating to participate in WvW. The “PPT doesn’t matter” attitude was followed by a WvW-interest drop.

Ok, thanks for the explanation of the current redundancy.

Remains open:

What do you think of my proposal, to make use of this redundancy?

- map chat to talk to your team on the current map (as it is)
- team chat to talk to your team on all WvW maps (e.g. for multi-map scouting)

An the new think
- A server-shout buyable for honor-badge and/or gems to call people on your server for help.

1 thing I never understood in WvW:
Why are map and team chat doing the same?
- map chat should be this map (as it is)
- team chat should be all WvW maps (I.e. The whole current WvW team)

Maybe it’s a good idea to add:
Server shouts where each shout consumes 1 items shop ( or badge of honor shop) item
To avoid unwanted spam of stupid messages maybe not as free text but as fixed text: <WvW map on which this shout was used> needs urgent help
Into a world chat, that people can decide to see or not.

This becomes important with the mega server to reach your servers player as “go to LA and ask for help” no longer works.

2000 gems for these tickets?

You are the customer ANet likes!

HoD seems to be the server in NA (Gandara in EU) that wins it’s league with highest certainty, and as far as I know winning is winning no matter if gold silver or bronze.

KOPPER.1458:

wvw isn’t meant to be a fair fight.

Yes I know, it’s meant to be a meaningless amusement (i.e. gold-sink) for casuals

Translated citation from ANet’s german community manager:
https://forum-de.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Verschwendung-von-Vorr-ten-oder-andere-Spielweise/205593
“Both PvP and PvE content are merged in the WvW to a combination. … WvW is not meant to be pure PvP, and even less it is meant as a competition-relevant eSport. …. each effort that is put into WvW should lose not sight to the goal: Guild Wars 2 and it’s WvW is a game mode designed for people to have fun.”

Quality doesn’t matter, amount of people doesn’t matter, not even longer coverage does matter.

The only question is: why does this need a league with price?
A lottery over all that finished the meta-achievement would do the same. (beside earning gems for transfers)

Virtute.8251:

Ew, gross. Imaginary numbers.

Has no basis in reality, whatsoever.

Edit: More specifically, it’s a tautology.

And was is this? No argument, not even a tautology, only some flames?

And here is the reality for SoS:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage/3466962
and here is the reality for BB:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/matchups/SFR-Kodash-Baruch/2254763

WrckAHoe.9827:

Coverage? This is WVW, why? The objective in WvW is PPT, to keep a good PPT rate you must have map control and able bodies to keep the objectives under your control. WvW sessions last for 1 week so the winner is the server that controls the most objectives the longest. People play in the “off hours” too so they need to be able to play.

Unfortunately not even this is true as we have 3-sided matches:
Assume the following coverage:
T 00-08 08-18 18-24
S1 2 5 10
S2 2 5 10
S3 6 3 5

Resulting in the following score distribution:
S1: 8h 5% | 16h 45%
S2: 8h 5% | 16h 45%
S3: 8h 90% | 16h 10%

1h = 4 ticks 8h = 32 ticks , 16h = 64 ticks

S1: 32*0.05*695+ 64*0.45*695= 1112 + 20016 = 21128
S2: 32*0.05*695+ 64*0.45*695= 1112 + 20016 = 21128
S3: 32*0.9*695 + 64*0.1*695 = 20016 + 4448 = 24464

S1 and S2 have more people in the match than S3, they fight more, and harder for their points and they even have clearly more coverage (16h) than S3 (8h), but S3 has a period where it has alone most coverage, while S1 and S2 share their coverage. That’s why S3 wins.
Artificial example? No, reality! SoS and Baruch Bay score’s worked very often exactly like that, when they won a match.

There is a second problem with current coverage: Matches are decided when fewest people are playing, not when most people are playing. Which means the majority is irrelevant, a minority rules. Bad game design for the majority of player.

Most Servers already have trouble filling 4 maps if you just add a 5th …
Maybe with a radical server merge as proposed in https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/The-Nightwatch-Issue/3857278