Why are matchups not based on k/d solely — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Why are matchups not based on k/d solely

TallBarr.2184TallBarr.2184 Member ✭✭

fairer matchups and less steamroll from 1 side

<13

Comments

  • LaGranse.8652LaGranse.8652 Member ✭✭✭

    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.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    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.

    Yes but it won't ever happen

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 8, 2018

    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.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Rysdude.3824Rysdude.3824 Member ✭✭✭

    @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.

    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.

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

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    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

    "May contain large quantities of snark and sarcasm. Handle with care."
    Proud member of [FIRE] on RoF "... since day 1!"
    Infraction Farmer Extraordinaire & Leader of the Big Beautiful Choya

  • DeadlySynz.3471DeadlySynz.3471 Member ✭✭✭

    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.

    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.

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

    Maybe its time they release that alliance system reform hmmff

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    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.

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

    Maybe its time they release that alliance system reform hmmff

    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.

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭

    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.

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    "It's kind of sad how MMORPGs went from DND based sandbox games to theme park grind time sinks." -YoukiNeko.6047

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    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.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    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.

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

    Maybe its time they release that alliance system reform hmmff

    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.

    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%.

  • LaGranse.8652LaGranse.8652 Member ✭✭✭

    @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 kitten 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 ;)

  • geist.4126geist.4126 Member ✭✭

    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.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭
    edited October 9, 2018

    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 ;) ).

  • enkidu.5937enkidu.5937 Member ✭✭
    edited October 10, 2018

    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" ?

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    K/d based fights is best for population who are equal. Outside of that, it would not work. For many will always beat the few.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Henry.5713Henry.5713 Member ✭✭✭

    Because nothing would stop those servers from sitting inside fully siege stacked and upgraded objectives during the day. It would be far worse, if anything. They wouldn't come out to fight at all anymore. Something they do with the current system as their PPT score is already ensuring them the victory whether they get farmed or not.

    Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs. Henry Ford

  • juno.1840juno.1840 Member ✭✭✭

    KDR is only half of the WvW game mode. There should be no reward for ignoring half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    Gregorpayne for Arenanet partner

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @juno.1840 said:
    KDR is only half of the WvW game mode. There should be no reward for ignoring half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    Last I checked kills accounted for a relatively small percentage of total points and it's entirely possible to win the week with a negative kdr so I don't think kdr is even half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @juno.1840 said:
    KDR is only half of the WvW game mode. There should be no reward for ignoring half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    Last I checked kills accounted for a relatively small percentage of total points and it's entirely possible to win the week with a negative kdr so I don't think kdr is even half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    PPT scoring is rewarded by the additional points you get for having upgraded objectives. The extra points given for taking upgraded objectives isn't enough to justify the grind to take them. I think that's one reason why PPT still beats out PPK.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @juno.1840 said:
    KDR is only half of the WvW game mode. There should be no reward for ignoring half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    Last I checked kills accounted for a relatively small percentage of total points and it's entirely possible to win the week with a negative kdr so I don't think kdr is even half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    PPT scoring is rewarded by the additional points you get for having upgraded objectives. The extra points given for taking upgraded objectives isn't enough to justify the grind to take them. I think that's one reason why PPT still beats out PPK.

    100 percent. Structures upgrade automatically and upgraded structures can just sit there accumulating points for hours during low activity spots with zero interference whereas farming ppk takes a lot of time and effort and the people getting farmed can just peace out and go build siege and force attackers to endure hours of long sieges just to get one or two fights and ain't nobody got time for that.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 10, 2018

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @juno.1840 said:
    KDR is only half of the WvW game mode. There should be no reward for ignoring half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    Last I checked kills accounted for a relatively small percentage of total points and it's entirely possible to win the week with a negative kdr so I don't think kdr is even half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    PPT scoring is rewarded by the additional points you get for having upgraded objectives. The extra points given for taking upgraded objectives isn't enough to justify the grind to take them. I think that's one reason why PPT still beats out PPK.

    100 percent. Structures upgrade automatically and upgraded structures can just sit there accumulating points for hours during low activity spots with zero interference whereas farming ppk takes a lot of time and effort and the people getting farmed can just peace out and go build siege and force attackers to endure hours of long sieges just to get one or two fights and ain't nobody got time for that.

    Yea, the automatic upgrades are killer too. Used to need an actual person to initiate an upgrade (along with no additional points for upgrades). Now PPT runs on auto-pilot.

  • juno.1840juno.1840 Member ✭✭✭

    Even if the ratio of K/D points to PPT points is not 50%, it still illustrates that K/D is not the whole game -- only part of the game. If you want to be top tier, you have to do both.

    I think a good discussion can be had around how to change PPT so it's more in line with K/D, but the best outcome there is a 50/50 split.

    Gregorpayne for Arenanet partner

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @juno.1840 said:
    KDR is only half of the WvW game mode. There should be no reward for ignoring half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    Last I checked kills accounted for a relatively small percentage of total points and it's entirely possible to win the week with a negative kdr so I don't think kdr is even half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    PPT scoring is rewarded by the additional points you get for having upgraded objectives. The extra points given for taking upgraded objectives isn't enough to justify the grind to take them. I think that's one reason why PPT still beats out PPK.

    100 percent. Structures upgrade automatically and upgraded structures can just sit there accumulating points for hours during low activity spots with zero interference whereas farming ppk takes a lot of time and effort and the people getting farmed can just peace out and go build siege and force attackers to endure hours of long sieges just to get one or two fights and ain't nobody got time for that.

    Yes, that's the problem. Ppl getting farmed aren't willing to stick around and get farmed. So inconsiderate . . .

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 10, 2018

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @juno.1840 said:
    KDR is only half of the WvW game mode. There should be no reward for ignoring half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    Last I checked kills accounted for a relatively small percentage of total points and it's entirely possible to win the week with a negative kdr so I don't think kdr is even half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    PPT scoring is rewarded by the additional points you get for having upgraded objectives. The extra points given for taking upgraded objectives isn't enough to justify the grind to take them. I think that's one reason why PPT still beats out PPK.

    100 percent. Structures upgrade automatically and upgraded structures can just sit there accumulating points for hours during low activity spots with zero interference whereas farming ppk takes a lot of time and effort and the people getting farmed can just peace out and go build siege and force attackers to endure hours of long sieges just to get one or two fights and ain't nobody got time for that.

    Yes, that's the problem. Ppl getting farmed aren't willing to stick around and get farmed. So inconsiderate . . .

    It's a problem if ppk is supposed to be an actual deciding factor in matches if people can just build siege and easily hide from fights.

    It's a problem if the winners are supposed to be the ones winning most of their fights.

    Its a problem because experienced ppt oriented players know that they don't actually need to be able to win fights to win matches so a lot of servers don't even try to fight much they just try to take stuff when everyone else is asleep upgrade them so they get as many points as possible and then defend them with siege and stalling tactics whenever they get attacked.

    This is the game were playing so let's not pretend fighting is half of what's needed to actually win when ppk is more like 10 to 15 percent of the total points in most matchups.

  • Lahmia.2193Lahmia.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If it were, SoS would be a t4 server.

    "Surrender and serve me in life, or die and slave for me in death."

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @juno.1840 said:
    KDR is only half of the WvW game mode. There should be no reward for ignoring half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    Last I checked kills accounted for a relatively small percentage of total points and it's entirely possible to win the week with a negative kdr so I don't think kdr is even half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

    PPT scoring is rewarded by the additional points you get for having upgraded objectives. The extra points given for taking upgraded objectives isn't enough to justify the grind to take them. I think that's one reason why PPT still beats out PPK.

    100 percent. Structures upgrade automatically and upgraded structures can just sit there accumulating points for hours during low activity spots with zero interference whereas farming ppk takes a lot of time and effort and the people getting farmed can just peace out and go build siege and force attackers to endure hours of long sieges just to get one or two fights and ain't nobody got time for that.

    Yes, that's the problem. Ppl getting farmed aren't willing to stick around and get farmed. So inconsiderate . . .

    It's a problem if ppk is supposed to be an actual deciding factor in matches if people can just build siege and easily hide from fights.

    It's a problem if the winners are supposed to be the ones winning most of their fights.

    Its a problem because experienced ppt oriented players know that they don't actually need to be able to win fights to win matches so a lot of servers don't even try to fight much they just try to take stuff when everyone else is asleep upgrade them so they get as many points as possible and then defend them with siege and stalling tactics whenever they get attacked.

    This is the game were playing so let's not pretend fighting is half of what's needed to actually win when ppk is more like 10 to 15 percent of the total points in most matchups.

    Then you should be lobbying for forced transfers to even out populations and coverage, stricter pop caps on maps to guard against blobbing, etc. Preventing an outmanned force any method of defending themselves against a blob only leads to them abandoning the map, as you have illustrated . . .

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    when maps are always full then kd may be a good metric but so long as pop imballance, kd still belongs to the ball zerg

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Then you should be lobbying for forced transfers to even out populations and coverage, stricter pop caps on maps to guard against blobbing, etc.

    I'm all for both tbh. I even made a thread proposing forced transfers once but it was not well received at the time.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 10, 2018

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Preventing an outmanned force any method of defending themselves against a blob only leads to them abandoning the map, as you have illustrated . . .

    Can we be honest for a second here and say that defenders are not always outmanned? I've seen blobs run from 25 or so people.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Then you should be lobbying for forced transfers to even out populations and coverage, stricter pop caps on maps to guard against blobbing, etc.

    I'm all for both tbh. I even made a thread proposing forced transfers once but it was not well received at the time.

    Maybe they'll make the alliance limits small enough that to help them with world balancing. It's all we can hope for I guess . . .

<13
©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.