Why are matchups not based on k/d solely

fairer matchups and less steamroll from 1 side

Because it’s not just PvP. The core task on those maps is to take and defend assets.

Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?

A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

@LaGranse.8652 said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?

A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

@TallBarr.2184 said:

@LaGranse.8652 said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?

A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

@TallBarr.2184 said:

@LaGranse.8652 said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?

A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

Yes but it won't ever happen

Because the initial design of the mode is to focus on capping and defending things, regardless how unrewarding it is to win a matchup. The devs was hoping the community will keep up that warfare spirit but well, players just want to farm bags.

Furthermore, KDR is never accurate, if you want positive KDR, you can just avoid fights you know you can't 100% win. There are plenty of commanders that do that. Not every commander is gung-ho about fighting fights they don't have high chance of winning.

@TallBarr.2184 said:

@LaGranse.8652 said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?

A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

You can’t pair servers because all the virtual warriors bandwagoned to the same server and now have no one to fight.

Would sure feel great for a large majority of servers to just lose every week because they don't have the numbers or NEETs carrying them

Because some servers (and many guilds for that matter) refuse to engage unless their numbers are larger. A lot of the guilds in T1 and T2 are like this at the moment. They get rolled when the numbers are even remotely even so they tend to run and hide until they have a much larger force. We can't create match-ups based on this behavior.

Unless they added some sort of cowardice buff that froze their kill count when they engage in this type of behavior, I can't see match-ups being based on K/D ratio (as much as I'd like to see it happen). Or unless Anet can somehow only count kills when numbers are somewhat even per fight, and discounting any kills from players touched by siege. It's probably too much of a headache to even attempt to roll out such a system.

@Rysdude.3824 said:

@TallBarr.2184 said:

@LaGranse.8652 said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?

A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

Maybe its time they release that alliance system reform hmmff

@TallBarr.2184 said:

@Rysdude.3824 said:

@TallBarr.2184 said:

@LaGranse.8652 said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?

A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

Which.., won't change this occurrence. It will still be one up, one down, thus ensuring even the 'ideal' matchup will switch the following week.

Will always be groups that are fights focused, and those that are PPT focused.

A match-up system based on only Kills/deaths would turn out very boring, the moment you have a dominant server in your match-up, the best strategy for all parts involved is for Server A (top dog) to group up in the largest zerg they can and hunt down any and all enemy players, with perhaps a few stealth thieves to scout the enemy out. And for Serber B+C (Underdogs), the best ting they can do is log out, and not play the game until either "New matchup"; or "Wait until they go to bed and track down their 2 abandoned scouts.

kdr is nice but most i have seen, high kdr = more nos vs less nos where > nos winning over < nos.

sample, i have a team of 5 to 22. then we meet tc or kainengs queu. gg. going to take camp on other side of map. we do fight still though. to stave boredom.

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@TallBarr.2184 said:

@Rysdude.3824 said:

@TallBarr.2184 said:

@LaGranse.8652 said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?

A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

And perhaps more importantly players are going to look for a way to stack alliances to make whatever scoring system they come up with just as meaningless as PPT has been.

On EU usually servers have like 25% of total points from ppk only. I blame nights and workhours of inactivity for not being it higher though, as ppt gains through the night with all those T3s are too strong. But it is kinda close to the % of daily activity of a player - I guess even more dedicated one would be in WvW for like 1/3 to 1/4 of a day. If we had full coverage (aka always full maps for each timezone), then the percentages would swap around and ppt would be just 15-20%.

@Hanakocz.5697 said:On EU usually servers have like 25% of total points from ppk only. I blame nights and workhours of inactivity for not being it higher though, as ppt gains through the night with all those T3s are too strong. But it is kinda close to the % of daily activity of a player - I guess even more dedicated one would be in WvW for like 1/3 to 1/4 of a day. If we had full coverage (aka always full maps for each timezone), then the percentages would swap around and ppt would be just 15-20%.

The total points gained through kills in a match is not important though. You need to look at skirmishes individually and from my own experiance the points gained through ppt is higher than ppk even during primetime. Exeptions would be either reset night because ppt takes a while to ramp up or someone getting farmed at spawn because they do not realize spawn has 3 exits.

@"TallBarr.2184" said:fairer matchups and less steamroll from 1 side

except when it matches server deploying huge zergs but avoiding/ignoring open combat (overly focusing train throught the unguarded objectives, and by this somehow ending up with low k/d) against servers with no real wvw presence (low k/d ratios due to mostly fighting uphill battle and dying alot in the process)

not much you can do when best you can deploy is 20 people under tag against people whom roll on 50, and ended up having same crap k/d ratio due to "normally" not focusing on killing other players.....

altho I wish I'll live up to the day when that whole revamped wvw/alliance thingy drops.... and that it'll actually work as intended for once ;)

KDR means shit in any environment. You can have a great kdr by running over roamers 24/7. Or by sitting in your keep until you outnumber the enemy.

@geist.4126 said:KDR means kitten in any environment. You can have a great kdr by running over roamers 24/7. Or by sitting in your keep until you outnumber the enemy.

And you can have great PPT by taking stuff during coverage gaps or when the enemy is heavily outnumbered so PPT is also a meaningless number.

With the current 1up1down system, you would still get unbalanced matchups just as often as you do now.

Having it based purely on K/D would change the way people play on not for the better.

• No reason to attack objectives. They are harder to take an often result in more deaths to your team. You are effectively feeding the other team points by trying to take fortified objectives
• No reason to fight if outnumbered. You are punishing your team by doing so.
• People will be more likely to run from fights.
• People will be more likely to leave if losing further exasperating any population differences.
• More toxic behave against players who are perceived to be low skilled or die a lot.
• More reason to bandwagon and stack servers. From all the points above, if you aren't winning you won't be having fun.

Quite frankly I think a score based upon K/D would absolutely decimate the game mode.

@GrackFields.7805 said:Having it based purely on K/D would change the way people play on not for the better.

• No reason to attack objectives. They are harder to take an often result in more deaths to your team. You are effectively feeding the other team points by trying to take fortified objectives
• No reason to fight if outnumbered. You are punishing your team by doing so.
• People will be more likely to run from fights.
• People will be more likely to leave if losing further exasperating any population differences.
• More toxic behave against players who are perceived to be low skilled or die a lot.
• More reason to bandwagon and stack servers. From all the points above, if you aren't winning you won't be having fun.

Quite frankly I think a score based upon K/D would absolutely decimate the game mode.

I could make the exact same arguments against the score being based off any quantifiable metric including ppt as long as players are allowed to transfer.

There is no purely logical reason for anyone to suffer any form of adversity whatsoever in this game when they could just transfer to somewhere more favorable.

The balance between k/d and capture points is not necessarily bad, it is the night capping that throws it off balance.During prime time a server with dominant k/d also tend to dominate capture points.

The problems arise in off-hour timezones that produce little to no k/d because one or two servers effectively have no one on the map.Off-hour timezones does not have to be that population-imbalanced. They just are because there is no incentive for those players to spread thin.

Players or groups who transfer to off-continent servers rarely do that to find opposition (on maps or in/for capture points). They either do it to find friends or to exploit this gap in scoring (or because someone paid them dirty PvE-gold to exploit said gap ;) ).

Fights should give personal rewards only, for participation, and an extra bonus for winning. Winning fights already leads to more war score indirectly. No need to punish the outnumbered side for engaging.

Do we really need more "we dodge this fight because we will most likely lose it" ?