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

Why are matchups not based on k/d solely

2

Comments

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

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @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.

    You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

    I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.


    Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

    Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

    People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

    Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

    No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

    Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

    I know this wouldn't work, but if there was a way to combine to NA and EU servers with the alliance system, and rotating each week which 'region' servers are being the host.

    So week 1 hosted via NA, week 2 via EU. Or maybe week 1 is tier 1 on NA, and week 2 is T2 hosted on NA..

    So both sides of the ocean get similar issues throughout the mohths...

    Meh.,, I am sure it wouldn't work but... it would help the coverage to a point.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @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.

    You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

    I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.


    Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

    Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

    People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

    Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

    No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

    Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

    I know this has been floated before and shot down pretty quickly but I'd be all for weighting the times of day based on average player base, probably by adjusting the length of skirmishes. Like one hour skirmishes in prime time up to maybe four hours during the slowest periods. I rarely play in prime time and I'd be fine with that . . .

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 11, 2018

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @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.

    You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

    I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.


    Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

    Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

    People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

    Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

    No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

    Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

    I know this has been floated before and shot down pretty quickly but I'd be all for weighting the times of day based on average player base, probably by adjusting the length of skirmishes. Like one hour skirmishes in prime time up to maybe four hours during the slowest periods. I rarely play in prime time and I'd be fine with that . . .

    It would be just as unfair as pre skirmish though. Thats why the skirmish system has already fixed it, you dont weigh time or balance by population and whatnot. 2 hours in the middle of the night is worth exactly the same as 2 hours in primetime, period (unlike before when the same time period could be worth 10x as much during the night). What you suggest is just making primetime worth more instead, reversing the scenario.

    You may not win the skirmish because you dont have coverage no, but thats not an issue - thats 24h WvW.

    Whats more broken as I said is the way many outnumbered skirmishes are won - the stronger server sitting on its kitten ticking juicy points from T3 objectives while the other servers cant even make a "comeback" after a hard fight since a recapped T0 is worthless in comparison (and it can be several hours to break a defended T3 keep).

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @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.

    You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

    I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.


    Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

    Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

    People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

    Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

    No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

    Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

    I know this has been floated before and shot down pretty quickly but I'd be all for weighting the times of day based on average player base, probably by adjusting the length of skirmishes. Like one hour skirmishes in prime time up to maybe four hours during the slowest periods. I rarely play in prime time and I'd be fine with that . . .

    It would be just as unfair as pre skirmish though. Thats why the skirmish system has already fixed it, you dont weigh time or balance by population and whatnot. 2 hours in the middle of the night is worth exactly the same as 2 hours in primetime, period (unlike before when the same time period could be worth 10x as much during the night). What you suggest is just making primetime worth more instead, reversing the scenario.

    Then I didn't express the idea well. What I suggested is making each play hour equally valuable, not tipping the scale towards primetime. The 1 hour/4 hour example was just that, an example, and would only hold true if the most populated hour was four times more populated than the least. If what you are saying is that play hours during less populated times should be given more weight, as they are now, then I do disagree. I don't think it's a huge crisis, but if we're going to put it in the 'good' or 'bad' column, it's def bad . . .

  • wvw would be dead already if it was just a 2d team deathmatch mode. why? cuz one side would lose repeatedly, get discouraged, and log off. this already happens but objectives and map design drag it out.

    you don't know till you know, ya know.

  • Israel.7056Israel.7056 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 12, 2018

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    wvw would be dead already if it was just a 2d team deathmatch mode. why? cuz one side would lose repeatedly, get discouraged, and log off. this already happens but objectives and map design drag it out.

    I don't think WvW needs to be a pure deathmatch but I do think kills should count for more than they do now.

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

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    wvw would be dead already if it was just a 2d team deathmatch mode. why? cuz one side would lose repeatedly, get discouraged, and log off. this already happens but objectives and map design drag it out.

    I agree.

    Especially when outnumbered.

    Hence, to have a kd centered much, there must be a faster time limit, and nos. must be equal. sounds like pvp is the answer

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @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.

    You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

    I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.


    Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

    Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

    People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

    Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

    No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

    Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

    I know this has been floated before and shot down pretty quickly but I'd be all for weighting the times of day based on average player base, probably by adjusting the length of skirmishes. Like one hour skirmishes in prime time up to maybe four hours during the slowest periods. I rarely play in prime time and I'd be fine with that . . .

    It would be just as unfair as pre skirmish though. Thats why the skirmish system has already fixed it, you dont weigh time or balance by population and whatnot. 2 hours in the middle of the night is worth exactly the same as 2 hours in primetime, period (unlike before when the same time period could be worth 10x as much during the night). What you suggest is just making primetime worth more instead, reversing the scenario.

    Then I didn't express the idea well. What I suggested is making each play hour equally valuable, not tipping the scale towards primetime. The 1 hour/4 hour example was just that, an example, and would only hold true if the most populated hour was four times more populated than the least. If what you are saying is that play hours during less populated times should be given more weight, as they are now, then I do disagree. I don't think it's a huge crisis, but if we're going to put it in the 'good' or 'bad' column, it's def bad . . .

    Play hours are not given more weight now, thats the entire point. 30 players playing for two hours against absolutely no one holding 90% of PPT and winning the skirmish is the same as 30 players playing for two hours in heated battles and just barely winning the skirmish. Thats how skirmishes work. Play time is equal.

    Your idea is what tip the scale toward primetime, as 30 players in the night could only get 1/4 the points for the server opposed to the same players playing in primetime against more opponents, in the same timeframe.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @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.

    You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

    I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.


    Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

    Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

    People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

    Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

    No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

    Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

    I know this has been floated before and shot down pretty quickly but I'd be all for weighting the times of day based on average player base, probably by adjusting the length of skirmishes. Like one hour skirmishes in prime time up to maybe four hours during the slowest periods. I rarely play in prime time and I'd be fine with that . . .

    It would be just as unfair as pre skirmish though. Thats why the skirmish system has already fixed it, you dont weigh time or balance by population and whatnot. 2 hours in the middle of the night is worth exactly the same as 2 hours in primetime, period (unlike before when the same time period could be worth 10x as much during the night). What you suggest is just making primetime worth more instead, reversing the scenario.

    Then I didn't express the idea well. What I suggested is making each play hour equally valuable, not tipping the scale towards primetime. The 1 hour/4 hour example was just that, an example, and would only hold true if the most populated hour was four times more populated than the least. If what you are saying is that play hours during less populated times should be given more weight, as they are now, then I do disagree. I don't think it's a huge crisis, but if we're going to put it in the 'good' or 'bad' column, it's def bad . . .

    Play hours are not given more weight now, thats the entire point. 30 players playing for two hours against absolutely no one holding 90% of PPT and winning the skirmish is the same as 30 players playing for two hours in heated battles and just barely winning the skirmish. Thats how skirmishes work. Play time is equal.

    Your idea is what tip the scale toward primetime, as 30 players in the night could only get 1/4 the points for the server opposed to the same players playing in primetime against more opponents, in the same timeframe.

    Apparently I suck at describing this :/

    If primetime averaged the same number of players as nighttime, they would be weighted equally. The weight would only be shifted if the number of players playing during the different periods was unequal. So if primetime had 30 players and nighttime had 30 players, that's the same, there would be no weighting . . .

  • Nimon.7840Nimon.7840 Member ✭✭✭✭

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

    Because anet want to make money with wvw.
    If there was a way to balance population properly, there wouldn't be any way to get money.

    Just look at the current state of some servers.

    I'll take drakkar lake as an example.

    It got linked with miller's sound, both servers played their way up into tier 1.

    Next relink, miller got taken away, even though the other T1 servers had way higher queues. And people had to Servertrans to play with the people they met on the other server.

    Drakkar dropped a bit.

    Then drakkar dropped further and further and is now last place for the time of several relinks.
    Just because there are no people left at all.
    Getting almost no queue on any border. Maybe for reset on one map.
    But if you go online when primetime: no commander at any map, because everyone was frustrated, that there were no people left, so they quit being commander.

    Just was curious about wvw numbers. So I did my daily in wvw and just hopped over all borders to see, if any commanders played.
    Got two commanders:
    One with 11 people
    And one with 5

    But drakkar population is definetly high or very high and doesn't need a partner to link.

    So any drakkar lake player, that want to actively play wvw has to trans to another server, to do so.

  • Lemoncurry.2345Lemoncurry.2345 Member ✭✭
    edited October 12, 2018

    According to https://wvwstats.com/leaderboard even the most fight-oriented servers don't make much more than 35% of their points with PPK. Most servers sit around 20%. PPT coupled with their side effects (coverage wars etc.) are key in winning a MU.

    Imho raising the value of PPK _ a little_ would be beneficial for the game mode. I wouldn' go all in though, because PPT have been always an integral part of GW2 WvW and contrary to popular belief many players seem to still have fun with a PPT-oriented play style. Switching to PPK-only will probably lead to a whole set of new problems as mentioned in this thread (turtle-zergs only fighting inside structures under a massive siege cover for example).

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

    ppl transfering is ok.

    ppl will find their niche

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 12, 2018

    @Lemoncurry.2345 said:
    According to https://wvwstats.com/leaderboard even the most fight-oriented servers don't make much more than 35% of their points with PPK. Most servers sit around 20%. PPT coupled with their side effects (coverage wars etc.) are key in winning a MU.

    Imho raising the value of PPK _ a little_ would be beneficial for the game mode. I wouldn' go all in though, because PPT have been always an integral part of GW2 WvW and contrary to popular belief many players seem to still have fun with a PPT-oriented play style. Switching to PPK-only will probably lead to a whole set of new problems as mentioned in this thread (turtle-zergs only fighting inside structures under a massive siege cover for example).

    Decreasing the value of PPT would essentially assist with this.

    Not sure it's the way to go, but I would like to see the PPT value of each structure to not increase as held.

    • Give it a base value, that is static.
    • Take away the Points given for capping a structure.
    • and... (although this isn't a score thing) drop the HPs for each gate/wall at every level (except paper) by maybe 25%.
    • Lastly, require an interaction with the quartermaster to upgrade a structure. no gold, and still require the same number of Yaks etc. But would lessen the 'AFK' upgrades.

    (Edited for format)

  • B e c a u s e

    B a d p l a y e r s b o u g h t t h e g a m e t o o
    Or people that don't want to play for the team
    Or people that flame those offering criticism about their Viper Staff Tempest build

    Because why in the world, would the WvW development team actually attempt to make the gamemode a little bit more competitive and fun?
    PvP is for player vs player
    WvW is for toxic non-gem-buying players that are rude elitist toxic players ok.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 12, 2018

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @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.

    You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

    I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.


    Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

    Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

    People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

    Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

    No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

    Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

    I know this has been floated before and shot down pretty quickly but I'd be all for weighting the times of day based on average player base, probably by adjusting the length of skirmishes. Like one hour skirmishes in prime time up to maybe four hours during the slowest periods. I rarely play in prime time and I'd be fine with that . . .

    It would be just as unfair as pre skirmish though. Thats why the skirmish system has already fixed it, you dont weigh time or balance by population and whatnot. 2 hours in the middle of the night is worth exactly the same as 2 hours in primetime, period (unlike before when the same time period could be worth 10x as much during the night). What you suggest is just making primetime worth more instead, reversing the scenario.

    Then I didn't express the idea well. What I suggested is making each play hour equally valuable, not tipping the scale towards primetime. The 1 hour/4 hour example was just that, an example, and would only hold true if the most populated hour was four times more populated than the least. If what you are saying is that play hours during less populated times should be given more weight, as they are now, then I do disagree. I don't think it's a huge crisis, but if we're going to put it in the 'good' or 'bad' column, it's def bad . . .

    Play hours are not given more weight now, thats the entire point. 30 players playing for two hours against absolutely no one holding 90% of PPT and winning the skirmish is the same as 30 players playing for two hours in heated battles and just barely winning the skirmish. Thats how skirmishes work. Play time is equal.

    Your idea is what tip the scale toward primetime, as 30 players in the night could only get 1/4 the points for the server opposed to the same players playing in primetime against more opponents, in the same timeframe.

    Apparently I suck at describing this :/

    If primetime averaged the same number of players as nighttime, they would be weighted equally. The weight would only be shifted if the number of players playing during the different periods was unequal. So if primetime had 30 players and nighttime had 30 players, that's the same, there would be no weighting . . .

    You describe it perfectly well. You're just not understanding me or your own idea.

    I said "30 people playing for two hours against absolutely no one". Thats a total WvW population of 30 across 3 servers, or complete nighttime dominance for a server.
    30 players primetime would be just 30 out at least 90 if we are having perfectly weighted servers. If thats outmanned we are talking about a total WvW population of 150+ across the 3 servers. Its low primetime count of course but I wanted the 30 vs 30 to be clear.

    In your scenario, that would most definetly mean that the 30 players playing nighttime does not equal the 30 players playing prime, as they would get longer skirmishes. Since you cant have 1 skirmish time for server A and another for server B (that would be very awkward), you have to go by total population even when looking from the perspective of one server. Its an extreme case yes but thats the easiest way to point out the flaws.

    In our current skirmish setup, they are equal. Is it the cheesiest of nightcappings? Yes! Do they win the skirmish? Oh yes. But two hours for them still equal a two hour primetime skirmish win with 10x activity and fairly even PPT overall. For the players playing, their time is worth the same even if their effort to achieve victory is not.

    If we start weighing the theoretical effiency of each individual player vs time, oh boy... thats a rabbit hole you dont want to enter.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • shiri.4257shiri.4257 Member ✭✭✭

    If primetime averaged the same number of players as nighttime, they would be weighted equally. The weight would only be shifted if the number of players playing during the different periods was unequal. So if primetime had 30 players and nighttime had 30 players, that's the same, there would be no weighting . . .

    What if, our moms wanted to skill click and keyboard turn at night when you went to sleep? Who are you to say, their playtime is worth less than yours because it was past your bedtime?

    Spectre [VII] - Wood League Champion. Making "fight guilds" stack on higher tiers since 2013.
    Michelin rated WvW guild since 2015. The gold standard. Never transferred, never reformed, adapting and reloading with or without Anet.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 12, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @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.

    You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

    I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.


    Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

    Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

    People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

    Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

    No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

    Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

    I know this has been floated before and shot down pretty quickly but I'd be all for weighting the times of day based on average player base, probably by adjusting the length of skirmishes. Like one hour skirmishes in prime time up to maybe four hours during the slowest periods. I rarely play in prime time and I'd be fine with that . . .

    It would be just as unfair as pre skirmish though. Thats why the skirmish system has already fixed it, you dont weigh time or balance by population and whatnot. 2 hours in the middle of the night is worth exactly the same as 2 hours in primetime, period (unlike before when the same time period could be worth 10x as much during the night). What you suggest is just making primetime worth more instead, reversing the scenario.

    Then I didn't express the idea well. What I suggested is making each play hour equally valuable, not tipping the scale towards primetime. The 1 hour/4 hour example was just that, an example, and would only hold true if the most populated hour was four times more populated than the least. If what you are saying is that play hours during less populated times should be given more weight, as they are now, then I do disagree. I don't think it's a huge crisis, but if we're going to put it in the 'good' or 'bad' column, it's def bad . . .

    Play hours are not given more weight now, thats the entire point. 30 players playing for two hours against absolutely no one holding 90% of PPT and winning the skirmish is the same as 30 players playing for two hours in heated battles and just barely winning the skirmish. Thats how skirmishes work. Play time is equal.

    Your idea is what tip the scale toward primetime, as 30 players in the night could only get 1/4 the points for the server opposed to the same players playing in primetime against more opponents, in the same timeframe.

    Apparently I suck at describing this :/

    If primetime averaged the same number of players as nighttime, they would be weighted equally. The weight would only be shifted if the number of players playing during the different periods was unequal. So if primetime had 30 players and nighttime had 30 players, that's the same, there would be no weighting . . .

    In our current skirmish setup, they are equal. Is it the cheesiest of nightcappings? Yes! Do they win the skirmish? Oh yes. But two hours for them still equal a two hour primetime skirmish win with 10x activity and fairly even PPT overall. For the players playing, their time is worth the same even if their effort to achieve victory is not.

    If ten times as many players are playing in one slot than another but both slots are weighted equally, play hours are not being weighted equally . . .

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @shiri.4257 said:

    If primetime averaged the same number of players as nighttime, they would be weighted equally. The weight would only be shifted if the number of players playing during the different periods was unequal. So if primetime had 30 players and nighttime had 30 players, that's the same, there would be no weighting . . .

    What if, our moms wanted to skill click and keyboard turn at night when you went to sleep? Who are you to say, their playtime is worth less than yours because it was past your bedtime?

    I'm not following your point . . .

  • we have fought the number 1 server 4 weeks in a row, we cant beat their superior numbers, and probably getting more people moving to it because its a winning server. You will never change the fickleness of humans playing a game, so simple solution, if its unbeatable for 4 weeks in a row, unlink it, then at least it keeps the motivation of other servers, and cause some shift and change in balance and adjustment. I really think that Devs should take more interest in the tiers and results each week, or perma link/unlink. The linking which was supposed to be temporary to help smaller servers has become a one sided affair in every tier, every week

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

    I think the term "weight" could just be swapped with "impact."

    30 people consistently playing an otherwise dead time zone have far more of an impact on the final outcome of a match than 30 people playing during busy timezones even if the skirmish points gained are roughly identical.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 12, 2018

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @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.

    You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

    I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.


    Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

    Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

    People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

    Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

    No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

    Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

    I know this has been floated before and shot down pretty quickly but I'd be all for weighting the times of day based on average player base, probably by adjusting the length of skirmishes. Like one hour skirmishes in prime time up to maybe four hours during the slowest periods. I rarely play in prime time and I'd be fine with that . . .

    It would be just as unfair as pre skirmish though. Thats why the skirmish system has already fixed it, you dont weigh time or balance by population and whatnot. 2 hours in the middle of the night is worth exactly the same as 2 hours in primetime, period (unlike before when the same time period could be worth 10x as much during the night). What you suggest is just making primetime worth more instead, reversing the scenario.

    Then I didn't express the idea well. What I suggested is making each play hour equally valuable, not tipping the scale towards primetime. The 1 hour/4 hour example was just that, an example, and would only hold true if the most populated hour was four times more populated than the least. If what you are saying is that play hours during less populated times should be given more weight, as they are now, then I do disagree. I don't think it's a huge crisis, but if we're going to put it in the 'good' or 'bad' column, it's def bad . . .

    Play hours are not given more weight now, thats the entire point. 30 players playing for two hours against absolutely no one holding 90% of PPT and winning the skirmish is the same as 30 players playing for two hours in heated battles and just barely winning the skirmish. Thats how skirmishes work. Play time is equal.

    Your idea is what tip the scale toward primetime, as 30 players in the night could only get 1/4 the points for the server opposed to the same players playing in primetime against more opponents, in the same timeframe.

    Apparently I suck at describing this :/

    If primetime averaged the same number of players as nighttime, they would be weighted equally. The weight would only be shifted if the number of players playing during the different periods was unequal. So if primetime had 30 players and nighttime had 30 players, that's the same, there would be no weighting . . .

    In our current skirmish setup, they are equal. Is it the cheesiest of nightcappings? Yes! Do they win the skirmish? Oh yes. But two hours for them still equal a two hour primetime skirmish win with 10x activity and fairly even PPT overall. For the players playing, their time is worth the same even if their effort to achieve victory is not.

    If ten times as many players are playing in one slot than another but both slots are weighted equally, play hours are not being weighted equally . . .

    It is from the perspective of any given player. The entire point of the skirmishes is so that it doesnt matter if 500 people are online or if 5 people are online. If you are one of those 5 playing at 02:00 to 04:00 you played 2 hours, not 10 hours. The value of a 2 hour skirmish is... 2 hours. 24h hours a day. While true that the total man hours is much higher for more people, the presence of more players does not change the concept of time and its relation to a skirmish win/loss for the points given to a server.

    Before skirmishes I also wished for PPT to be weighed against total WvW population so that low population times (no matter when during the day or night) didnt affect score so much. The less players, the more WvW would go into "downtime" and scale down max PPT. When the time segmented skirmishes didnt exist it was practicly impossible to achieve nightcapping PPT during daytime, thus 2h during the night could be worth so much more than 2h during the day. Come primetime it was often within 20-50 points.

    Skirmishes made all of this irrelevant. We can stop worrying about weighing players or timezones.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

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

    just need to unlink guilds from the server and the guild leader can choose a place ti stay. unlink every 2 to 3 months. give us seasons, something growth.

    .<

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

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

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Skirmishes made all of this irrelevant. We can stop worrying about weighing players or timezones.

    No that is entirely illusory. Skirmishes changed the game not at all except superficially on paper. In principle everything works exactly as it did before the introduction of skirmishes. Lipstick on a pig if you will.

  • Vayne.8563Vayne.8563 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Kill death ratio would favor hard core players and no one else. Casual players would have nothing to do. In pretty much any system in any game, casual players tend outnumber hard core players. Thus decisions made in favor of hard core players tend to be bad decisions over all at the expense of everyone else.

    If this change were made, I'd probably never go into WvW again. I'd make no more legendary weapons, and it might eventually cause me to leave the game, since legendaries are a big part of my day. I enjoy defending and capping stuff. I don't enjoy min maxing, or necessarily fighting. Some servers are very good at that but it's often a small percentage of hard core guys carrying that server, who are there all the time.

    I think WvW would suffer if this was implemented. It would certainly mean less for me to do in game.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @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 . . .

    Alliance size confirmed as 500
    Number of people it'd take to dominate aatch: much fewer

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Since this turned into a full PPT vs PPK discussion:

    I was initially a fan of adding PPK to the mode (In addition to the Bloodlust bonus PPK), but the more I've thought about it and seen in-game, I have changed my view. PPK does, more often than not, discourage players that doesn't feel confident about combat from trying to fight. After all, why give the enemy a free point ?

    The basic idea is good, give a point/reward for doing something active/pvp in a pvp mode. The problem is that it also punishes and thus discourages players that doesn't feel confident they have a chance to win.

    This also goes into both the reward system and the point system in WvW. You should reward players for being active (killing or dying!) with personal rewards, so players are encouraged to throw themselves in there and try/learn. But avoid giving personal reward (bags, pips, whatever) to only the winner. You should also avoid giving more points for something as fairly strategically insignificant as a duel at south camp or outside SMC.

    Easy to say, hard to design. Yes I know.

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    Currently playing: Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night (way too much), Guild Wars 1: Pre-Searing

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Rysdude.3824 said:

    @joneirikb.7506 said:

    @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.

    You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

    I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.


    Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

    Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

    People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

    Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

    No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

    Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

    I know this has been floated before and shot down pretty quickly but I'd be all for weighting the times of day based on average player base, probably by adjusting the length of skirmishes. Like one hour skirmishes in prime time up to maybe four hours during the slowest periods. I rarely play in prime time and I'd be fine with that . . .

    It would be just as unfair as pre skirmish though. Thats why the skirmish system has already fixed it, you dont weigh time or balance by population and whatnot. 2 hours in the middle of the night is worth exactly the same as 2 hours in primetime, period (unlike before when the same time period could be worth 10x as much during the night). What you suggest is just making primetime worth more instead, reversing the scenario.

    Then I didn't express the idea well. What I suggested is making each play hour equally valuable, not tipping the scale towards primetime. The 1 hour/4 hour example was just that, an example, and would only hold true if the most populated hour was four times more populated than the least. If what you are saying is that play hours during less populated times should be given more weight, as they are now, then I do disagree. I don't think it's a huge crisis, but if we're going to put it in the 'good' or 'bad' column, it's def bad . . .

    Play hours are not given more weight now, thats the entire point. 30 players playing for two hours against absolutely no one holding 90% of PPT and winning the skirmish is the same as 30 players playing for two hours in heated battles and just barely winning the skirmish. Thats how skirmishes work. Play time is equal.

    Your idea is what tip the scale toward primetime, as 30 players in the night could only get 1/4 the points for the server opposed to the same players playing in primetime against more opponents, in the same timeframe.

    Apparently I suck at describing this :/

    If primetime averaged the same number of players as nighttime, they would be weighted equally. The weight would only be shifted if the number of players playing during the different periods was unequal. So if primetime had 30 players and nighttime had 30 players, that's the same, there would be no weighting . . .

    In our current skirmish setup, they are equal. Is it the cheesiest of nightcappings? Yes! Do they win the skirmish? Oh yes. But two hours for them still equal a two hour primetime skirmish win with 10x activity and fairly even PPT overall. For the players playing, their time is worth the same even if their effort to achieve victory is not.

    If ten times as many players are playing in one slot than another but both slots are weighted equally, play hours are not being weighted equally . . .

    It is from the perspective of any given player. The entire point of the skirmishes is so that it doesnt matter if 500 people are online or if 5 people are online. If you are one of those 5 playing at 02:00 to 04:00 you played 2 hours, not 10 hours. The value of a 2 hour skirmish is... 2 hours. 24h hours a day. While true that the total man hours is much higher for more people, the presence of more players does not change the concept of time and its relation to a skirmish win/loss for the points given to a server.

    Before skirmishes I also wished for PPT to be weighed against total WvW population so that low population times (no matter when during the day or night) didnt affect score so much. The less players, the more WvW would go into "downtime" and scale down max PPT. When the time segmented skirmishes didnt exist it was practicly impossible to achieve nightcapping PPT during daytime, thus 2h during the night could be worth so much more than 2h during the day. Come primetime it was often within 20-50 points.

    Skirmishes made all of this irrelevant. We can stop worrying about weighing players or timezones.

    As long as you understand the current system is weighing players' time unequally, that's fine. Whether that is a good result is an opinion question. I think it's worth looking at weighing time slots that are significantly more populated more heavily than slots that are lightly populated, but it's just my opinion. None of it really matters anyway until they can develop a system where players can be consistently relied upon to be motivated to win . . .

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @LetoII.3782 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @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 . . .

    Alliance size confirmed as 500
    Number of people it'd take to dominate aatch: much fewer

    It depends on the tools the new system gives them to design better matchups. I'll wait and see before I give up. Then I'll give up . . .

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 13, 2018

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion.
    06210311 251521 121512

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 13, 2018

    @Israel.7056 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Skirmishes made all of this irrelevant. We can stop worrying about weighing players or timezones.

    No that is entirely illusory. Skirmishes changed the game not at all except superficially on paper. In principle everything works exactly as it did before the introduction of skirmishes. Lipstick on a pig if you will.

    If you have a pet pig and apply a rule that says you may only apply lipstick to the pig 10cm from any other applied lipstick you will end up with a drastically different looking pig compared to smearing its face with layers and layers of it. If you still after that ask the question "It's still a pig. How do I fix it?" then the correct answer is what the hell kind of question is that?!.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 13, 2018

    @Israel.7056 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.

    Yes but it won't ever happen

    THe game has its own rules if players want to play differently for most part, that up with them.

    IMO i believe both groups that ppt and groups that search for fights on ground or going for big fights sieges are important to the server ecosystem, both need to find a middle ground to work together since they are on the same boat.

  • Klipso.8653Klipso.8653 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

    If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

    Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

    -Balwarc [ICoa]

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

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

    If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

    Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

    Thing is: No one is doing just one thing. Staying with hockey: if you don't hit the other team you are playing it wrong too. The best teams do both. Successful teams have had players that were good at hitting ('goons') and some that were far more finesse.

    Telling the 'goons' to stop hitting doesn't work either. They don't score well.

  • Klipso.8653Klipso.8653 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Clearly,
    I'm not saying Ktrain is the way to go, I'm saying that only fighting while ignoring that everything around you flips to the wrong color is not the way to go either

    -Balwarc [ICoa]

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

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

    If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

    Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

    Imagine a 24 hr hockey game where some teams got to have players on the ice scoring uncontested goals for hours at a time every single day putting the score completely out of reach for any team that didn't have players on to at least guard the net 24/7.

    Imagine getting on the ice every day to find yourself 50 goals behind and still outnumbered and knowing that even if you can come from behind and score 25 goals they're just going to score another 50 when you go to bed.

    What sense would it make to focus on scoring at that point when it's clearly a game that cannot realistically be won without insane unpaid overtime and likely burnout and maybe not even then?

    Why not just focus on hitting because it's fun and it's something you can actually control and win at in the moment?

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

    If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

    Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

    killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

    Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion.
    06210311 251521 121512

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 13, 2018

    While I don't mind that people are talking, these are discussion forums after all, the discussion here strikes me as very odd.

    We already know all the issues with timezone imbalances - or the issues of a 24hr mode divided into regions (likely, for taxation reasons). The core design is flawed, the concepts of 24hr coverage and regional division simply does not match. Anet knows them too by now (even if it took them some time to aknowledge and begin to adress).

    We also know how Anet are attempting to adress it - even if we have no timframe on its implementation. They are trying to adress it by making it easier for all servers to gain access to off-hour friends by increasing player control over the composition of a "server", splitting said composition into smaller pieces for a more even puzzle, removing transfer costs in gems and by shuffling the board more regularily.

    Many of us also know that their approach may not be the most effective when dealing with timezone imbalance as it doesn't regulate it directly - it simply gives players more tools to regulate it, indirectly. It will get better but we do not know if it will be good enough. What we do know is that it allows Anet to also give more responsibility to the playerbase with it. It allows them to sit back and tell us to fix the results as we are given more influence over the results.

    With that most of us also know that alot of the work they are doing is circumventive (both in terms of process and approach, they are reinventing the wheel and adressing outlying issues) where they could instead have gotten rid of the queue system and directly scaled map scoring to the active populations of any procedurally generated map (making more equally populated maps contributing more score). They already have the tech for that so it could have been more easily implemented and been far more effective at adressing population- and timezone imbalances tied to score. That would have allowed them to put more development focus on other aspects of the social guild-oriented side of the game for WvW or otherwise (such as map events like missions, the Guild Halls or better designed WvW Arenas than GH as it stands, OS or the new EotM one etc., all of those are great ideas from Anet but underdeveloped).

    However, they have already made their decision and they have worked on it for like a year and a half already, so, while we can discuss things, maybe we should keep our discussion to the future and the decisions made. I get that it is hard to keep talking about it with so little information comming out of Anet (no updates since july 2nd) but it is also rather odd that we talk so little about Alliances here and so much about moot topics like known and aknowledged issues with scoring as is, or solutions that are not on Anet's radar while they have spent so much time already on something they have already decided on.

  • LaGranse.8652LaGranse.8652 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 13, 2018

    People that favor PPK seem to complain about score gained during the off hours in the night when much fewer are playing.

    If you focused on getting your own structures to T3 in preparation for the night as well as degrading the opponents your night shift would have a much easier time keeping your structures and flipping enemy ones. You don't need to go full on PPT just strike at enemy structures and you will get your fights.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 13, 2018

    @LaGranse.8652 said:
    People that favor PPK seem to complain about score gained during the off hours in the night when much fewer are playing.

    If you focused on getting your own structures to T3 in preparation for the night as well as degrading the opponents your night shift would have a much easier time keeping your structures and flipping enemy ones. You don't need to go full on PPT just strike at enemy structures and you will get your fights.

    Your problem is that you assume a "night shift" to be normal. It isn't.

    Plenty of servers completely dominate the normal regional hours, do ALL the things you suggest, and still do not win weekly matchups.

    As long as the game is designed around regions it is also problematic and irresponsible to design a mode that does not take regular sleeping and working hours into consideration. If the game had no regions your argument would be fair, you could assume a night shift. Alliances will in part adress this. As things stand however your entire argument is moot because having a "night shift" is abnormal and irresponsible design. It is completely counter productive to building a good game, something that Anet is otherwise pretty good at. Again, your argument is something that the Alliance system will partly make valid, it may become normal then, but in the current system the argument is rather daft as it's already done and has been proven ineffective or inherently broken.

  • Klipso.8653Klipso.8653 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

    If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

    Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

    killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

    Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

    This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

    -Balwarc [ICoa]

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

    there's always streetfighter games for button mashing. =p

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

    If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

    Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

    killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

    Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

    This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

    No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem...

    WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky teletubby rainbow farm

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion.
    06210311 251521 121512

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

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

    If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

    Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

    killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

    Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

    This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

    No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem...

    WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky teletubby rainbow farm

    I can't believe you pulled out that reference....

    Respect...

    Dwindling....

  • CrimsonNeonite.1048CrimsonNeonite.1048 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2018

    I don't think it would matter anyway, there is no reason to win, server pride is meaningless with communities these days and the populations that hop into available each day are lower, compared to what you would see six years or even a year ago. Even during the WXP we just had, there were rarely queues or just short queues on a T1 server.

    The game mode is currently still all about coverage and numbers. Many people I know, have quit or split onto different servers, apart from their original ones. So generally, servers should not care what tier they're in or about winning matchups, because it is determined by the population of players left and whether they play for different matchups or not.

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 14, 2018

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

    If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

    Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

    killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

    Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

    This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

    No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem...

    WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky teletubby rainbow farm

    I can't believe you pulled out that reference....

    Respect...

    Dwindling....

    I have a daughter and she was watching teletubbies at the time of my posting, could have said baby jake? Cuz that was on just before the teletubbies

    I think the real headline here is that someone actually respected me 😀

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion.
    06210311 251521 121512

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @CrimsonNeonite.1048 said:
    I don't think it would matter anyway, there is no reason to win, server pride is meaningless with communities these days and the populations that hop into available each day are lower, compared to what you would see six years or even a year ago. Even during the WXP we just had, there were rarely queues or just short queues on a T1 server.

    The game mode is currently still all about coverage and numbers. Many people I know, have quit or split onto different servers, apart from their original ones. So generally, servers should not care what tier they're in or about winning matchups, because it is determined by the population of players left and whether they play for different matchups or not.

    They can't give us incentives to win before they generate tools that ensure balanced matchups. Ppl think bandwagoning is bad now, imagine if winning had benefits . . .

  • juno.1840juno.1840 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 16, 2018

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

    If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

    Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

    killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

    Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

    This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

    No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem...

    WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky teletubby rainbow farm

    You wandered all over the place in your argument... really not sticking to the original point.

    You stated "it is impossible to play WvW wrong"... and that is not accurate depending upon the goals. If the goal is to win (which is a compelling goal since it is a competitive game mode) then it is possible to play it wrong. I'm not sure why you chose to fight a battle over that, because it's clear as the sky is blue. If your goal is to have fun, then I guess you can say someone is playing it "wrong" if they are not having fun... that's a bit pedantic though.

    Right now I'm on a server that plays it "wrong". They are interested only in fights so their score is mostly PPK and not PPT. This same server has no patience for sieging a structure for defense. This server has no patience to break down a well defended T3 structure. Half the time, players don't even man siege when required. Nobody puts down supply traps... and yet they get mad when walking into opposition supply traps (like it's some kind of horrible play). After losing, the excuse is "this tier is cancer".

  • sephiroth.4217sephiroth.4217 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 16, 2018

    @juno.1840 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 said:

    @sephiroth.4217 said:

    @Klipso.8653 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.

    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.

    Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

    If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

    Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

    If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

    Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

    killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

    Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

    This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

    No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem...

    WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky teletubby rainbow farm

    You wandered all over the place in your argument... really not sticking to the original point.

    You stated "it is impossible to play WvW wrong"... and that is not accurate depending upon the goals. If the goal is to win (which is a compelling goal since it is a competitive game mode) then it is possible to play it wrong. I'm not sure why you chose to fight a battle over that, because it's clear as the sky is blue. If your goal is to have fun, then I guess you can say someone is playing it "wrong" if they are not having fun... that's a bit pedantic though.

    Right now I'm on a server that plays it "wrong". They are interested only in fights so their score is mostly PPK and not PPT. This same server has no patience for sieging a structure for defense. This server has no patience to break down a well defended T3 structure. Half the time, players don't even man siege when required. Nobody puts down supply traps... and yet they get mad when walking into opposition supply traps (like it's some kind of horrible play). After losing, the excuse is "this tier is cancer".

    Theres no arguement here so because of that I ignored everything you said after the first sentence... Not as a rudeness thing but as a "youre out of context and not on the same page as the discussion" sorta thing...

    Not to brag, but I put together a puzzle in 4 days and the box said 2-4 years.
    Please allow team queue with rewards again at our own discretion.
    06210311 251521 121512

  • Acyk.9671Acyk.9671 Member ✭✭
    edited October 17, 2018

    If you want more fight in objectives, make outter keeps upgrade slower than inner. For example, when keep is t3, outter remains with stone walls (from t2).
    It will be easier to get in, counter auto upgrade, ppk player would siege without wanting to vomit everytime they see a t3 and force people to come defend.
    Objectives become interesting again so fights 24/7, case closed.

  • Junkpile.7439Junkpile.7439 Member ✭✭✭

    This is actually good idea. Problem just is that people are stupid and would try to fight.

    Low quality trolling since launch
    Seafarer's Rest EotM Hero

©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.