Warscore vs Victory Points

I would like to know why Warscore is not what count to determine who goes up and who goes down from tiers.Victory Points doesn't make sense to me be who decide. Can anyone explain me why?

This method will always prevail who has more numbers. And we know that some full servers can put more ppl in the same BL than others. So...

Example (20 skirmish):Server A: 1st - 6 | 2nd - 0 | 3rd - 14 || hypothetical Warscore 100kServer B: 1st - 10 | 2nd - 5 | 3rd - 5 || hypothetical Warscore 300kServer C: 1st - 5 | 2nd - 15 | 3rd - 0 || hypothetical Warscore 200k

Server B: UP from tier.Server A: stays on the same tier.Server C: DOWN from tier.

*Sorry my bad english.

There are a couple flaws with your example.1) it is impossible to have war scores has you have them as there are too many 1st place finishes (21) compared to 2nd (20) and 3rd (19), so one of the first place finishers in your example needs to be 3rd.

Second, even taking your example, your up/down is flawed. Add the Victory Points from your flawed example and here's what you get:

Server A: Places 1st 6x = 30, Places 2nd 0x = 0, Places 3rd 14x = 42, Total = 72Server B: Places 1st 10 x = 50, Places 2nd 5x = 20, Places 3rd 5x = 15, Total = 85Server C: Places 1st 5x = 25, Places 2nd 15x = 60, Plces 3rd 0x = 0, Total 85

So, server A would go down, not stay on the same tier. Either server B or C would go up. This would depend on the corrected placements in your example.

But to answer your question. This system was implemented to prevent a run-away match by aggregating the score into 2 hour segments. Remember, this system has not always been the case. This way, a dominating timezone couldn't blow out the score making it impossible to catch up after only a few days. After the weekend, it would be impossible for some servers to ever catch up, discouraging people from playing. With this aggregate system, it's a bit more in reach. It basically smooths out the big spikes in war score due to population imbalance over different time zones. Think about it like this. If all time zones were relatively even, but one server had a dominating SEA time zone, that could essentially blow out the score of that server over the others, even though it dominates only a few hours out of 24. This curbs that. It will still get ahead, but only by a couple skirmish points.

Another reason why this was implemented was to give matches natural breaks to prevent player burn out. The end of a skirmish is a natural break in action and give people a good reason to stop playing. While matches are never ending, this break in score regarding players playing is psychological. Previously, there was a trend to keep pushing and pushing. This doesn't apply to every guild and player, but it does affect people.

Also, it empowers smaller population servers. With smart game play, it is possible for a smaller population server to out PPT a larger population server depending on their actions. Perhaps they would at least place 2nd, and thus providing more incentive to play. This is more a lost art as most people now-a-days don't care so much about PPT and are more into fights and with server linking, they can just transfer to a winning server's link rather than work on strategy to get your server into a better place over time.

Skirmish points does generally follow war score. I could go on with more math examples regarding ratios, but I think this has been enough.

Long story short, "victory" used to go by total score, but it was changed because some servers had stronger time zones that were able to run amok and win when they really shouldn't have.

In my opinion, game is game we can not favor a server because it plays at a specific time, all other games I played works having players, fair or unfair wins who have more players and if they are doing what has to do that excuse does not convince Guild Wars 2 this is becoming game of weeping, wins who complains more.

@"Spurnshadow.3678" said:There are a couple flaws with your example.1) it is impossible to have war scores has you have them as there are too many 1st place finishes (21) compared to 2nd (20) and 3rd (19), so one of the first place finishers in your example needs to be 3rd.

Second, even taking your example, your up/down is flawed. Add the Victory Points from your flawed example and here's what you get:

Server A: Places 1st 6x = 30, Places 2nd 0x = 0, Places 3rd 14x = 42, Total = 72Server B: Places 1st 10 x = 50, Places 2nd 5x = 20, Places 3rd 5x = 15, Total = 85Server C: Places 1st 5x = 25, Places 2nd 15x = 60, Plces 3rd 0x = 0, Total 85

So, server A would go down, not stay on the same tier. Either server B or C would go up. This would depend on the corrected placements in your example.

But to answer your question. This system was implemented to prevent a run-away match by aggregating the score into 2 hour segments. Remember, this system has not always been the case. This way, a dominating timezone couldn't blow out the score making it impossible to catch up after only a few days. After the weekend, it would be impossible for some servers to ever catch up, discouraging people from playing. With this aggregate system, it's a bit more in reach. It basically smooths out the big spikes in war score due to population imbalance over different time zones. Think about it like this. If all time zones were relatively even, but one server had a dominating SEA time zone, that could essentially blow out the score of that server over the others, even though it dominates only a few hours out of 24. This curbs that. It will still get ahead, but only by a couple skirmish points.

Another reason why this was implemented was to give matches natural breaks to prevent player burn out. The end of a skirmish is a natural break in action and give people a good reason to stop playing. While matches are never ending, this break in score regarding players playing is psychological. Previously, there was a trend to keep pushing and pushing. This doesn't apply to every guild and player, but it does affect people.

Also, it empowers smaller population servers. With smart game play, it is possible for a smaller population server to out PPT a larger population server depending on their actions. Perhaps they would at least place 2nd, and thus providing more incentive to play. This is more a lost art as most people now-a-days don't care so much about PPT and are more into fights and with server linking, they can just transfer to a winning server's link rather than work on strategy to get your server into a better place over time.

Skirmish points does generally follow war score. I could go on with more math examples regarding ratios, but I think this has been enough.

I'm from Sea of Sorrows. Maybe by looking for yourself at the link below, you change your mind or have new conclusions.See Week 22 and Week 29. Both weeks SoS won but was BG who really win us. Why? Victory Points. Is it Fair? I don't think so. And this it's making me tired of the game.

http://gw2stats.com/servers/history/37

My question is: Why Victory Points matter most than Warscore?

@Menzo.2185 said:

@"Spurnshadow.3678" said:There are a couple flaws with your example.1) it is impossible to have war scores has you have them as there are too many 1st place finishes (21) compared to 2nd (20) and 3rd (19), so one of the first place finishers in your example needs to be 3rd.

Second, even taking your example, your up/down is flawed. Add the Victory Points from your flawed example and here's what you get:

Server A: Places 1st 6x = 30, Places 2nd 0x = 0, Places 3rd 14x = 42, Total = 72Server B: Places 1st 10 x = 50, Places 2nd 5x = 20, Places 3rd 5x = 15, Total = 85Server C: Places 1st 5x = 25, Places 2nd 15x = 60, Plces 3rd 0x = 0, Total 85

So, server A would go down, not stay on the same tier. Either server B or C would go up. This would depend on the corrected placements in your example.

But to answer your question. This system was implemented to prevent a run-away match by aggregating the score into 2 hour segments. Remember, this system has not always been the case. This way, a dominating timezone couldn't blow out the score making it impossible to catch up after only a few days. After the weekend, it would be impossible for some servers to ever catch up, discouraging people from playing. With this aggregate system, it's a bit more in reach. It basically smooths out the big spikes in war score due to population imbalance over different time zones. Think about it like this. If all time zones were relatively even, but one server had a dominating SEA time zone, that could essentially blow out the score of that server over the others, even though it dominates only a few hours out of 24. This curbs that. It will still get ahead, but only by a couple skirmish points.

Another reason why this was implemented was to give matches natural breaks to prevent player burn out. The end of a skirmish is a natural break in action and give people a good reason to stop playing. While matches are never ending, this break in score regarding players playing is psychological. Previously, there was a trend to keep pushing and pushing. This doesn't apply to every guild and player, but it does affect people.

Also, it empowers smaller population servers. With smart game play, it is possible for a smaller population server to out PPT a larger population server depending on their actions. Perhaps they would at least place 2nd, and thus providing more incentive to play. This is more a lost art as most people now-a-days don't care so much about PPT and are more into fights and with server linking, they can just transfer to a winning server's link rather than work on strategy to get your server into a better place over time.

Skirmish points does generally follow war score. I could go on with more math examples regarding ratios, but I think this has been enough.

.. Why would he change his mind? He literally explained it clearly.

SoS has a large random timezone (SEA/OCX) population, and is able to generate very high PPT during specific server hours. However, they're historically very poor at fighting and lose lots of skirmishes because they die a ton and the other servers farm them for PPK.

SoS dominating a small time frame (OCX hours) should not let them be "first" (it's also t1, does it even matter lol) because they generate more points at that specific time

Otherwise servers who could generate 10k points and tick 400 points during offhours (OCX, SEA, EU, whatever the case may be) would win matchups despite getting hard farmed during "prime time" hours.

Are you new to the game?In the old days servers like SoS would ktrain points overnight through ocx and sea and demolish other servers, which very few of them could even compete in that time zone to the tune of 10-15k points overnight. Now is that fair? When all the servers are NA, all stacked with NA players, but only a few of them had stacked populations from ocx and sea times which could completely ruin a matchup. Is that fair?

The skirmish system was put in place to slow down runaway scores.If you think that's the reason SoS loses to BG you aren't looking in the right place.

TL;DR if a server wins every night skirmish, it generally takes just as many day skirmishes to catch up (depending on who ends up 2nd). If we still went by PPT alone, it would be nearly impossible to make up the 10x+ points gained during a true unopposed night cap unless you had just as large PPT gains during the day. 1h during the night was worth 10x as much as 1h in primetime. Now its 1:1.

@"Menzo.2185" said:I'm from Sea of Sorrows. Maybe by looking for yourself at the link below, you change your mind or have new conclusions.See Week 22 and Week 29. Both weeks SoS won but was BG who really win us. Why? Victory Points. Is it Fair? I don't think so. And this it's making me tired of the game.

http://gw2stats.com/servers/history/37

The obvious solution is to attack the server that has the most Victory Points and push them to third in the skirmish. Do that for enough skirmishes and your server will gain two VP above the first place server every time (instead of just one VP for 2nd place) for each skirmish to make you win.

Skirmishes as they exist at present are incomplete. Originally when being designed skirmishes were going to scale based on activity and population levels. Meaning that you would get more victory points in an active skirmish, less in an inactive skirmish. Once alliances replace servers hopefully they'll take another look at scaling skirmish scaling.

@Evolute.6239,

SoS don't die a ton and we are not "historically very poor at fights".We are ganked by BG in their time zone, it's always 2 to 1 or 3 to 1.They put all keeps and towers T3 at reset night or in the day after, then, at SEA/OCX timezone, the few BG remaining defend everything easily.BG "sits on" the deaths they make by having a huge population. Now, HoD + SoR do the same. Is this FAIR?Will Alliance solve this? Only if warscore will matter most or at least the same as PPK. This is my humble opinion.

• sorry my bad english

@Menzo.2185 said:They put all keeps and towers T3 at reset night or in the day after, then, at SEA/OCX timezone, the few BG remaining defend everything easily.

If you aren't attacking the first place server, then your server shouldn't win the match.

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Menzo.2185 said:They put all keeps and towers T3 at reset night or in the day after, then, at SEA/OCX timezone, the few BG remaining defend everything easily.

That actually deppends the population has well.The behaviour of what tends to happen, usually the most populated servers at a time focus on the lowest pop server for easy fights, if theres 1 mass server it will focus on everything :.Servers will only focus on 1st paced server if they have more population.. way more...

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Menzo.2185 said:They put all keeps and towers T3 at reset night or in the day after, then, at SEA/OCX timezone, the few BG remaining defend everything easily.

Sure, but the OP thinks his server should win for total warscore and not necessarily for pushing down the victory points of the first place server.

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Menzo.2185 said:They put all keeps and towers T3 at reset night or in the day after, then, at SEA/OCX timezone, the few BG remaining defend everything easily.

Has if go up and down means anything... xD

@Menzo.2185 said:@Evolute.6239,

SoS don't die a ton and we are not "historically very poor at fights".We are ganked by BG in their time zone, it's always 2 to 1 or 3 to 1.They put all keeps and towers T3 at reset night or in the day after, then, at SEA/OCX timezone, the few BG remaining defend everything easily.BG "sits on" the deaths they make by having a huge population. Now, HoD + SoR do the same. Is this FAIR?Will Alliance solve this? Only if warscore will matter most or at least the same as PPK. This is my humble opinion.

• sorry my bad english

So you think that BG and HoD shouldn't be rewarded for getting structures to T3, then successfully defending them? But you want SoS's OCX/SEA timezone that has virtually no competition and is able to boost your warscore dramatically, to be a deciding factor in who wins the week?*if I am interpreting your statement correctly

@Menzo.2185 said:@Evolute.6239,

SoS don't die a ton and we are not "historically very poor at fights".We are ganked by BG in their time zone, it's always 2 to 1 or 3 to 1.They put all keeps and towers T3 at reset night or in the day after, then, at SEA/OCX timezone, the few BG remaining defend everything easily.BG "sits on" the deaths they make by having a huge population. Now, HoD + SoR do the same. Is this FAIR?Will Alliance solve this? Only if warscore will matter most or at least the same as PPK. This is my humble opinion.

• sorry my bad english

You got your answer, now you've turned it into a match-up thread. GG