People did vote for rewards, and they’ve delivered rewards, so let’s not be too hard on them. It’s true that there are myriad other issues, but they set out to do one thing and have done that one thing well. That’s great.
Granted, it did take a long time to do this one thing and it isn’t the biggest fish that needs frying, but I’d rather complain about them doing things too slowly than complain about them not doing things at all. Their previous system was to try to tackle things comprehensively and it did not work out at all. Now, they’re taking it one bite at a time and it will be cause for celebration if they keep it up.
Either way, we still need better communication. Unlike PvE updates, the WvW stuff is a matter of urgent surgery. PvE is ok between updates because there’s plenty to do for most folks. WvW is not ok between updates because the issues beat us over the head minute by minute. We need hope, not hype, hope.
Perhaps if they gave it a few tiers, it would work out. I think the goal is to allow people to transfer to play with friends/guilds without getting mollywhopped out of rewards for too long. However, the problematic transfers (whole guilds server hopping based on match-up) won’t be affected at all by 3 weeks.
edit: Obviously, this means they’ll get less rewards for about half of the linking, so it will affect them. Maybe it’s a big enough difference that it creates a deterrent while not completely disallowing the practice.
I think the pips are tied to the current participation system. If so, there’s no advantage to K-Training as multiple caps won’t earn you pips.
Grant GertzCurrently, there are no ‘come back’ or ‘close match’ incentives. It is important to remember that the new system is based on War Score, which resets every two hours. Therefore, even if your team is behind in match you can still end up with top War Score for the current tick. The new system also gives a significant bonus to players when fighting outnumbered. This provides servers, with lower populations than their opponents, an opportunity to stay on par or, in some cases, even get ahead of their opponents with respect to their skirmish reward progress.
Read more at http://www.mmorpg.com/guild-wars-2/interviews/exclusive-interview-about-the-wvw-skirmish-changes-and-rewards-1000011772/#TOims3S4Zwg1wdds.99
Will respond more fully later—I want to take some time to think about the additions.
(edited by Sviel.7493)
Agreed,
When I tried to start WvW I spent days with no idea what to do there, until one day I joined Eotm, I started to follow a commander, I soon learned that WvW is for Ktrain.The elitist slag complains about the population, the k-train, the ball-zerg, but something tells me that these are the same ones who spend the day doing duels, afk in Ebg and talking nonsense in the chat. I think if all thes ppl want is small individual battles, why not go for pvp? It is eternally 5×5 and there they can “shine” on how good they are in chat without being nibbled by the “miserable noobs”.
The fact no one admits is that WvW is hostile to beginners and counter-intuitive. It is much easier to start in PVP than in WvW, even in Raids there is something like “training groups”.
A intuitive LFG will be good for small raid commands, small groups doing small missions. The “system” of short names in chat, is still counter-intuitive for beginners.
This is honestly some of the best feedback I’ve seen in a month. If WvW is too hard to get started in, we’ll be hard pressed to solve the population issues. I think I’ll try and put together a thread to get more thoughts specifically on how to ease new players into the game.
Building ballistae to siege cap while wasting all supply is definitely trolling. Ballistae are the cheapest way to waste supply and cap siege.
Unfortunately, Anet has been mum on this. They made improvements like adding the name of the siege to the build site that reduced some other types of siege trolling, but there’s been nothing to address your issue since the beginning of time.
LFG changes are probably geared toward allowing small groups to form more easily. Right now, a new player jumps in and is too kitteno say anything in map/team chat but knows to head to the tag. They learn to be a zergling and are more or less useless when there’s no tag to follow. The goal may be to encourage people to plug into the team effort when there’s no tag and also to learn how to do things without the aid of a commander.
WvW could use some help in that area, so there’s room for these improvements…I just hope that’s what they had in mind.
Not bad, but a couple of problems here.
Speedy Yaks can have their movespeed increased by swiftness. The buff on them has the same icon as the superspeed buff, but it is a different thing entirely. In addition, the speed increase is higher than 1.5×. Unfortunately, I’ve been slacking and thus don’t have my personal guild at a high enough lvl to craft Speedy Yaks so I don’t have hard numbers on it yet.
I’ll see what I can do about getting some better data soon…
So, basically, you want a completely new gamemode that is nothing like the current EotM…but you want to remove the current EotM at the same time because why not.
They’re working on something related to rewards right now. They haven’t told us, even generally, what they plan to reward people for or what sort of things they want to avoid. It’ll also be released ‘when it’s ready.’
I’m not really sure what the size of the new content is since it doesn’t sound like a huge deal but…it’s been many months.
edit: oh, and a new ranking system of 1up/1down will come out sometime. Super simple stuff, again, but no ETA.
(edited by Sviel.7493)
I don’t play as much when I have ABL as a homeland because I just can’t do much anymore. It’s much harder to harass keeps, kill yaks, defend keeps etc. It was frustrating enough that I quit before HoT dropped and it’s only slightly better now. Should we roll red, I’ll be around more.
Ghost Thief was definitely more annoying. The current condi thief has recognizable downtime that can in theory be exploited, but…
A long time ago, I posted in the thief forum that I was expected a class that relied more on clever dodges than on stealth. Now, they’ve given them so many dodges that there’s no point in being clever with them. Just dodge w/e you’re not in stealth and don’t have your target CCd. It’s honestly even worse. With the daredevil, they don’t even have to stop dodging to deal damage.
You can also play a tank thief and just tag everything and disengage w/e things get hot. Unless you’re bad, you can survive crowds of people chasing you even if you get revealed. Just make sure to use your god tier mobility to buy time if your stun breaks are on CD. That’s pretty annoying.
I also have a collection of screenshots just for these. My favorite is from a commander who switched to an enemy server mid-match. I held him and his whole guild off of a keep for an hour and he kindly informed me that I should die.
I still glance at that every now and then.
Anyway, there’s no stopping the initial whisper, so best to just live with it. Alternatively, you could make a chat tab for WvW and just not show whispers in it.
It does small damage, so it’s helpful in a very small way. You probably won’t do enough damage to get credit for anything.
As someone who often posts lengthy threads myself, I always read the whole post. In this case, I chose a brief reply as the very foundations of the post were a non-starter.
Normal WvW cannot function if many of its players leave for a paid campaign. At the same time, since the paid campaign will not improve WvW in any way, we won’t see any improvements in population or enjoyment. Thus, the playerbase is split and what little resources go towards improvements will be for the paid campaign.
Also, being hardcore doesn’t mean GvG. Perhaps that wasn’t your intention to imply that?
I did not comment on the vendor as it would be easily adjusted—it’s not an integral part of the suggestion. But, in short, selling discounted Raid loot isn’t going to fly with Anet. It would also, by nature of being tied simply to general participation, be easier to obtain via EotM and K-Training. That’s about the same bar that current vendors are at, so it’s not a huge fault on your part…but future rewards should incentive playing well (not necessarily winning) rather than just farming NPCs.
Since it’s tied simply to rank, it’s going to revitalize EotM more than WvW. If that’s the draw, people will rightfully go to EotM to get what they came for while leaving WvW to rot.
Even the citizen discount doesn’t work. You just EotM all day without switching servers and then log into actual WvW for a discount.
So…WvW becomes pay-to-play? This is a good idea why? You’re asking to split the remaining population and condense solutions into an area locked behind a paywall?
Beyond that, it’s the standard wishlist of a GvG player. Remove mechanics that don’t cater to GvG, add mechanics that aggravate temporary population imbalances, remove servers because who cares about those anyway, and so on.
Currently, PPK accounts for ~11% of the score (see: https://wvwstats.com/grapher?server=Sea%20of%20Sorrows&data=Score%20from%20PPK%20. If you increase it to 50%, or make it 5x as effective, you’re effectively killing any reason to defend objectives. The costs of dying during the defense is too high compared to the possible reward of holding the objective. In addition, no one is going to fight open field unless they have a good chance of winning…in which case their opponent will be unwilling. I understand that you want to appear to throw the PPT crowd a bone, but your way of doing it misses the mark.
It is possible to create a WvW that feels great to PPT players and fight-oriented players. It is not possible to please both PPT and GvG, though. They are simply too far apart in what they’re looking for.
In NA T4, red was in second until earlier today. They’ve been fielding far larger numbers than either of the other servers too.
The biggest issue is probably that it’s impossible to figure out how to fight a mesmer without playing a mesmer. They hit you with things and you don’t really have any idea where all the damage came from or how to mitigate/avoid it.
Then again, mesmers are hardly alone in that category.
Just thought I’d leave this here…
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Server-Linking-Discussion/6343541
Hey everyone,
I wanted to address the idea of moving world linking to monthly instead of every 2 months, since it is being brought up more and more frequently.
The team isn’t opposed to this idea; we actually think it would be beneficial to move to monthly because it would allow us to iterate faster on how we are calculating which worlds should be linked. However, the main reason for not doing this right now is the matchmaking algorithm, Glicko. Each time we shuffle worlds via world linking it takes about 4 weeks’ worth of matches before Glicko begins to reliably match make those new worlds into balanced matches. If we did world linking monthly, Glicko would not be able to create balanced matchups.
Our next priority poll is going to be asking if players would rather have us work on adding rewards to skirmishes (and possibly other feedback items being collected from this thread) or replace Glicko matchmaking with a 1-up 1-down system (wherein the winner moves up a tier and the loser moves down a tier.) The 1-up 1-down system should work better with monthly linkings than Glicko, so we are most likely going to hold off on 1 month linkings until that system is in.
Another possibility we could pursue is 1 month linkings, but use the Glicko offset system to guarantee the matches. Alternatively, we could manually change Glicko ratings to what we believe they should be for each world. Either option would force worlds to start out closer to being in the correct tier and thus give better matches faster. These options are contentious, so even if everyone on the forums seemed to like this idea it would be something we would poll on.
Rather than a competition against some other server’s coverage, I’d rather compete against my own server. Give me a way to look at WvW statistics in game like number of Yaks slapped over the week or the average upgrade status of allied/enemy structures at each tick. Perhaps people killed and time allied keeps were held, too. Then, I could compete against that without feeling helpless to win a whole tournament against stacked servers.
Speedy Yaks has a similar effect to the old Fat Yaks. However, if it is a problem, it should be addressed directly rather than in a change to the whole auto-upgrade system.
still to much… i do like DBL more than the ktrain maps, but there quite a few things that needs tobe adressed on the DBL…
those huge puzle keeps and very bugged that u can just walk into by climbing a rock, spawn and the camp under it should be swapped…
this is one of the issues of the fire keep design
What issue are you referring to? Also, what keep can you walk into by climbing a rock?
P.S. In that screenshot, some one is calling out an SoS thief harassing Firekeep. Pretty sure that was me <3
Previously, killing a Yak in WvW meant that it would not spawn again for about 5 minutes. Today, I’ve observed several instances of a Yak being killed close to its destination and then spawning again within a few seconds. I know it didn’t finish the trip as no supply was added and the Kill the Yak event completed successfully—in addition to the Yak carcass.
If it helps, I noticed it on NWC (Hideaway) in Desert BL and SWC (Encampment) as well.
It’s just a side effect of WvW not factoring much in balance decisions. Condi isn’t as strong in PvP because the gearsets that make it the most onerous have been banned. Also, classes like condi mesmer are terrible at capping points. Meanwhile, it’s been all but forced as the endgame PvE spec and Anet seems to want to drive that point home.
It’s asking too much to account for such wide differences in coverage. They need to be considered, yes, but it’s better to give players the tools to deal with it.
For example, while one server may have a big crew in an odd timezone, the other servers should be able to field at least a few people. Unless the imbalance is horrendously gross, a handful of people should be able to backcap or at least suppress the upgrading of the structures lost to the enemy. This already exists in the game.
The problem lies more heavily with players feeling that anything sort of zerging down a whole map is not a worthwhile contribution. Simply hitting camps/Yaks in a situation like this has a larger impact that capping several keeps, but it doesn’t feel like it.
Anet made great progress on this by adding the floating +score indicators. Now, they need to update the second tab of the UI to indicate that not all objectives are valued the same. Perhaps if they showed the amount of PPT swing that flipping an objective gave, it would help. A T3 keep is a 28 swing while a T0 is only 16. That’s probably just as important as showing the points on capture. To their credit, they do show how much PPT each structure gives, but only for allied structures.
@Hubal
Great info in those links—thanks for sharing!
@LJMaster
I’m willing to bet that Stonemist upgrades much faster under the new system. I’m thinking it might be wise to shift the number of Yaks per tier based on the type of objective. At least, Stonemist should take longer than it currently does.
Hills/Bay seem to have similar upgrade times, though. In the old system, with perfect conditions, they upgraded in ~3 hours. Under the new system, they take ~2 hours. On DBL, where the new system was meant to be deployed, the side keeps take ~3 hours to upgrade due to lack of service from South Camp.
@Hubal
That’s an excellent point you make about the towers. I’ll see if I can find some info on upgrade costs (in supply) for them under the old system. Then I’ll calculate old T3 ugprade times and compare to the current system.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/6co28x/anet_glicko_needs_to_go/dhwhl30/
AnetChrisBI’m doing local tests for a change to 1-up/1-down on the other monitor now. No exact date, but we’re aiming to send it toward Live and turn it on when it’s ready.
I’ve never found the loot from capturing places to be especially worthwhile. Then again, I’ve never K-trained and rarely ran with zergs in non-defensive scenarios. Especially now that we have reward tracks, I don’t feel like I’m missing out when defending as opposed to PvDooring.
On the other hand, since badges come exclusively from kills on players and NPCs, I do often feel shortchanged in that regard. Even so, it’s not so much that I’d consider letting something flip.
But, to your devilish advocate, perhaps the fabled skirmish rewards are going to fix everything.
snipples
jesus dude, I read one sentence and had to stop. chill out!
What post are you even referring to?
I haven’t timed the Yak routes on EBG so I can’t provide any data there. In general, since the distances are shorter, minimum upgrade times are faster and less points are lost due to re-upgrading. I would guess that all of the towers upgrade at about the same rate since they’re served by two camps each at similar distances.
Wait, what tactic was removed from the game?
Draining supply to make a keep vulnerable is certainly viable—It’s what I do if the keep on the side of the map I’m working is in enemy hands. I can’t flip it myself, of course, but when a group shows up they have a quick route to lord, minimal enemy siege to face and the enemies don’t have supply on hand to make new siege.
If anything, it’s a tactic I employ more often now since they don’t drain their own supply with doomed attempts at upgrades.
As a small group/solo roamer I don’t expect to flip defended keeps. I just set them up for other groups and flip towers/camps/shrines. Of course, I have flipped keeps because they didn’t defend them, but that’s not something I expect to happen often.
Maybe bullets will get through?
-I heard that you were keeping the supply drained.
-In the old system, the yaks that made it in during the time it took to upgrade would have given more supply.
-Therefore, since they had much more supply, your attacks may not have been sufficient to drain all of it.
That’s why the threshold is important. Because if you didn’t meet it…
-Supply only drains if people take it.
-If they wanted to upgrade, they could have taken just as much supply as they did in this instance and still had plenty left to upgrade with.
As for SM, see bullets 4-5. If they don’t repair the walls, which seems fairly standard since there’s constant treb pressure on them, then the attacks wouldn’t have drained supply anyway. Thus, that supply goes right to upgrades.
This isn’t spin, it’s math. You either did enough damage that they wouldn’t have had enough, or you didn’t. I’ve given you the threshold as a raw number and as an approximate number of walls collapsed. Did you meet it or did you not?
Also, you were the one who was saying 5v50+ earlier. Not that it matters. If 50 people babysit a keep next to their spawn for hours versus 30 people who spawn elsewhere, they’re going to upgrade the keep.
And, head’s up, the supply in the keep would have been coming in much faster under the old system. Even if it was being drained as fast as it came in under this system, that anecdote is not accurate in the past. Precisely the reason the flow was cut down was to account for upgrades not draining supply.
The point is that you would have had to have done enough damage to knock down over 25 walls just to get through their surplus supply. I’m going to guess that you did not.
The reason they were able to upgrade that keep is because they had 50 people babysitting it and you had 5. It wasn’t because of the new upgrade system. In fact, as I have shown, it would have been easier with the old system and they would have had more supply on hand since Yaks carried more by default.
Constructive complaints about auto-upgrades are fine. Blaming them for other things isn’t doing anything but helping you vent.
So you fat fingered adding a comma after 63 instead of just 6 and then also fat fingered an extra 0 at the end? I considered that but dismissed it as far too unlikely. Sorry?
Under the old system, with fat yaks, they would have amassed 19,600 supply over 140 yaks. That means they had 13,300 supply to spare for repairs, etc. So unless you completely knocked down over 25 walls, they would have had plenty. And that’s assuming they didn’t run any supply from the camps they were guarding so well…and assuming they bothered to repair.
It sounds like your scout complaint is less about auto-upgrades and more about sentries and watchtower.
How are you getting that 63,000 number? Here’s a list of the supply costs in the old upgrade system along with a video that you can verify them by.
Supply Costs
info can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGehPFSL8oo
Reinforce Walls - 500 supply
Reinforce Doors - 1,000 supply
Fortify Keep - 2,000 supply
Cannons - 400 supply
Mortars – 800 supply
Waypoint - 1,600 supply
Hire Merchants - 300 supply
Hire Services - 600 supply
Hire Patrol - 900 supply
Hire Second Worker – 300 supply
Hire Additional Guards - 600 supply
Raise Guard Level – 1,200 supply
By my count, it would take 6,300 supply to get a fortified keep with a WP. That’s a factor of 10 less. In terms of Yaks, that’s 90 normal Yaks or 45 fat Yaks (pre-HoT, yaks carried 70 supply to keeps). Compare to the 140 Yaks it takes under the new system. Thus, even when you account for repairs and siege, a keep that got 140 Yaks under the old system would still have been fortified with a WP. It actually would have happened much sooner, in terms of supply. I, unfortunately, don’t have any info atm on how long the upgrades took in terms of time.
I should also note that due to Yaks delivering only 40 supply now, keeps gain 4,200 less supply over those 140 Yaks than they did before. The maximum supply in the keep was also cut.
On the scouts, I presumed you meant they had 50 people on a map not 50 people in the entirety of WvW. But if we go with that and they have 24 scouts, you’re still 5v26+ and probably not any better off.
I can confirm such cata spots in DBL, but if the Alpine towers have wonky watchtower radii it might take a small charge. I don’t usually attack enemy Alpine BLs and enemy towers on home BL don’t get that upgraded. On NET in DBL, one place is at a lower elevation (NE corner) so it should be alright. I don’t think a guild upgrade having some value is a terrible thing, but I’m afraid that’s another topic entirely.
(edited by Sviel.7493)
In the old system, if you needed 70 supply to finish an upgrade and the keep was fully drained, you could escort one last Yak in and all the walls would be repaired and be reinforced/fortified. That is not a consequence of the new system.
I said the catas hit from uncharged range. That means minimum range. You can’t put them point blank on the wall, but they’re still close enough for maximum DPS. If you still want to know how long it takes, I have that info here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S0RkQUsaXhBmv4y1dN7YtFWmuUq8VsUBUk1uxTj4AZw/edit#gid=0
Your claim about splitting up the blob hinges on there being many scouts before—enough to reduce the blob to a manageable size. There is nothing to support this. People have been complaining about unmanageable blobs from day one. But, since me saying that clearly isn’t convincing, perhaps numbers will work? Let’s say there’s a scout in every walled objective other than Bay. On a borderland, that’s 6 people. If the blob was 6 people smaller so you were 5v44+, would your small team have had more success?
And for the second time, it is impossible to have a Speedy, Armored Yak. You can pick one from the list of improvements as seen here: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Resource_camp#Improvements
What you’re doing is identifying a problem and then blaming it on something else without regard for the evidence at hand. Note how you keep getting what I say wrong and claiming things that can’t possibly be true. If you can step back and find the actual cause of the problem, perhaps we can fix it. For example—do you feel that auto-upgrades are faster than the old system? If so, what are the negative consequences?
(edited by Sviel.7493)
If the keep was starved of supply, it couldn’t have upgraded because no Yaks were getting in. In order to hit T3, 140 Yaks must have made it to the keep.
It sounds like small groups were able to have considerable effect if you punched the place full of holes. It would nice if you could have taken the camp or had more room to hit the Yak—that’s one of the intentions of the DBL makeover. You wanted ABL, though, so don’t go complaining about it now.
Why can’t your small groups ninja stuff anymore? The range on Watchtower is shorter than the uncharged range of a catapult. You can still knock the wall down without being seen and then you only have to kill the lord. Think of it as a slightly more engaging version of this ninja PvD you so sorely miss. Also, if they port their zerg there, that creates an opportunity for hitting SWT, SWC or Bay.
My point was that all of the effort that I listed still exists. It didn’t go anywhere because I don’t have to manually start the upgrade.
If you want to approach SW camp and you don’t spawn on that side, you can take the Oasis route to the Firekeep area and hit the camp from the north. If you go under the desert, you can assassinate the Yak but you can’t reach the camp without hitting the other sentry. If you go over the desert, no watchtowers or sentries will be privy to your movements. Also, they can’t WP in before T3 without an Emergency WP. They can’t do that twice in a 30m period whereas walking to the camp is only 2-3m depending on your route. Finally, they can’t run both Speedy Yaks and Armored Yaks at the same time. Camps were reduced to a single upgrade tier many months ago.
But wait! You were talking about ABL, weren’t you. Isn’t that the map that’s supposed to be better for roamers? Well, in that case, there really wasn’t anything you could do. Too bad.
Anyway, while I had fun with it, your example plays out the same in the former upgrade system. The blob might be missing 2-3 people who would otherwise have been starting upgrades elsewhere, but if you were so heavily outmatched, that would not have made a difference.
I noticed this recently as well and totally support this change.
If it’s data collection and math, I’m up for it, but can you clarify what you want to know a bit?
Are you asking if a server gets more points by defending structure A or backcapping structures B-Z? If so, a T3 keep is worth 20 while T0 camps are 2 and T0 towers are 4. That means defending a T3 keep is as much points as backcapping all 4 towers and 2 camps in the short run. If you’re going to be able to hold the stuff you flip and keep Yaks running for PPY, it’s worthwhile, but otherwise it’s better to defend the keep.
There are minor exceptions. On DBL, you need the northern towers to allow the Yaks from the side camps to get to the home keep. Defense is still a priority, but you probably don’t want to just ignore the towers. On ABL, the northern towers take 12 hours to upgrade under perfect conditions so you may want to take special care of them.
A personal note—I like to backcap things just to take the heat off of a keep I’m defending. Blobbers gonna blob, after all, so if they send the blob to hit a tower I get more time to prepare defenses and run Yaks.
Nobody is saying that. People will defend if there is a fun fight in doing so. But there isn’t a way to tell whether people before you put any effort into upgrading anything (unless you see them doing so yourself), so there’s less reason to prioritize defending at all. It’s about effort and teamwork, not gold.
You say that but…
OPBefore auto-upgrade, people would bother to build defensive siege on objectives, now this rarely occurs as nobody put effort into upgrading it.
and…
YouYou don’t care about defending because nobody put any effort into upgrading in the first place, and structures will just auto upgrade again super fast.
Unless you consider manually starting an upgrade to be effort, what are you talking about? I still have to scout the area, keep the Yaks running, siege it up and defend it. None of that changed. Where is this loss of effort if it’s not a euphemism for gold?
And for the record, fun fights are just a bonus. The only time I don’t defend something is when I’m defending something else.
You againThe best option is to have the old system without the gold costs. It solves both issues at once and people have been suggesting this for a while.
What is the issue you’re trying to solve?
Auto-upgrades weren’t just about removing the gold cost. They also streamlined the upgrades so that if you spent several hours working on something, it might just have reinforced walls and gates. The old system wasn’t just punishing because of the cost—it also meant that attempting to upgrade the keep meant leaving it out of supply and vulnerable to everything. You had to have siege pre-built for everything and, if it got AoE’d down, you were out of luck. Thus, if you didn’t have a zerg backing you up, you were screwed.
Do you dislike it because of the upgrades are too fast? Because it leaves defenders with potential supply? What, exactly, is your problem with the auto-upgrade system? And if your answer is ‘lack of effort,’ please explain further.
I’m not trying to solve all of the world’s problems here. There was some uncertainty about whether a certain action was worth it with respect to points. I put together a little information to help people answer that question. That’s all~
Recently, I was asked if saving a keep was worthwhile compared to just flipping it back. I did some math and totally botched it so I decided to do it better. Figured I’d share.
As a baseline, I’ll calculate the number of points your server misses out on while a T0 structure upgrades back to T3 assuming perfect Yak survival and camp holding. The formula is as follows:
(Upgrade Time in Minutes / 5) x ((20/140)x(T3-T0) + (40/140)x(T3-T1) + (80/140)x(T3-T2))
Where T0…T3 is the point value of the structure at that tier.
ABL
Garrison – 180 points
Hills – 176 points
Bay – 132 points
NET – 411 points
NWT – 461 points
SET – 102 points
SWT – 112 points
DBL
Rampart – 149 points
Airkeep – 246 points
Firekeep – 208 points
NET – 180 points
NWT – 176 points
SET – 118 points
SWT – 118 points
Naturally, if a camp flips or a Yak is slapped, the number of lost points rises dramatically.
This means that even with PPK enabled, dying to save a keep is worth it with tiered scoring so long as they don’t get hundreds more kills than you. In the previous system where all upgrades gave the same amount, there was no direct benefit in giving your life for the cause. You would retain the extra defenses, but that’s all.
The data can be found, along with upgrade times, here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AvuefUnzOVLcp1c44-KHu6q9iXgKlkzMfLMOo7a2IwY/edit?usp=sharing
I really wish you all would stop saying that the only reason people defend is because they invested money. If someone is going to take an allied keep, I’m going to fight them every step of the way. They’re not getting to the lord unless they slip in my blood and trip on my bones.
Besides, if there’s even one enemy trying to stop it, upgrading a keep is still a huge amount of work and time invested. Just, now, I have a better expectation of that investment paying off and don’t have to worry about being personally punished if my server doesn’t bother defending the place.
I care about upgrading keeps.
I care about defending keeps.
I care about preventing enemy keeps from upgrading.
So would you kindly buzz off with this baseless, sentimental nonsense?
If the keep is upgraded, it’s worth dying for in terms of score as well.
Is it?
I can think of quite a few X/Y/Z matchups where X and Y have an equal or greater share of the PPT score, but are both losing to Z by more than double because Z is farming them for PPK.
A T3 keep gives 20 points every 5 minutes. PPK is only 1 point. A T0 keep gives only 8 points and, depending on the keep, takes a average of ~5 hours to hit T3 again. If we estimate ~40m at T0, ~1.kitten T1 and 3h at T2 then your server has 8 T0 ticks, 18 T1 ticks and 36 T2 ticks that could have been T3. That’s a difference of 96 + 144 + 646 = 886 points.
So, in contrast, dying a couple of times to avoid losing the keep pales in comparison to losing the upgrade’s contribution to points. A full map blob can wipe over 10 times before they start losing points on it.
When you see score disparities that aren’t reflected in PPT, it’s more likely due to one side having bloodlust, more Yaks completing their routes (ie: not random structures in enemy territory and camps flipped), or an earlier disparity in PPT.
(edited by Sviel.7493)
In keeping with the theme of encouraging last ditch defensive fights in the lord’s rooms, PPK has to go. I’ll happily go back to the days of throwing myself into the fray time and again to try and save a keep, but not if it just means feeding points to the enemy every time I die. Better for my team to just recap later instead.
If the keep is upgraded, it’s worth dying for in terms of score as well.
@Chinchilla
You’re right that PvD is rarely employed. I wouldn’t categorize this as a pressing issue. I also agree that oil/cannons are a more gainful fix. However, removing PvD is a full positive change. It’s less about adding counterplay and more about shifting gameplay to the areas where counterplay already exists. Since it’s an easy change, I support it.
@SpellOfIniquity
I’m not sure who these people are that think they should be able to defend indefinitely against a group triple their size. They’re obviously silly.
However, there’s no need to assume that anyone that talks about defensive changes is in that crowd. There was nothing like that in the OP and others who chimed in went out of their way to avoid sounding as such. No one said anything of the sort until you brought it up to condemn it.
Unless I missed something?
(edited by Sviel.7493)