Three proposals PPC PPK Hotspot rewards.

I have 3 proposals to discuss.

1. To encourage fighting the leading team in points I would suggest objectives from the leading teams increased in worth by a scale of 1st 3x, 2nd 2x, 3rd 1x warscore and wxp on capture.To expand:The time frame for this could go with the 2 hour skirmish, although the negative of this is if the 3rd place team manages to win a skirmish it doesn't help them in the next skirmish. If the time frame were instead placed on who is leading in victory points in the match it could work much better. The 3x 2x reward I would suggest be on the points scoring on capture (not for the tick), and for bonus wxp and karma which are usually given out as an event reward on a capture.

2. To expand on the bounty hunter ideas I would like to suggest the leading team in kdr be worth more by a scale of 1st 3x, 2nd 2x, 3rd 1x warscore and wxp points on their deaths.To expand:The time frame for this is better suited for the skirmish 2 hour frame, especially if zergs are running and managing to run over players to gain a high kdr in a skirmish. The only problem is most zergs only run for a couple hours, so they could absolutely run over two sides for 2 hours, then log off and then their side suffers for the next 2 hours without them(which really wouldn't be unfair in that case). Bringing the trigger down to an hour instead might be better. The other thing that could be done is if you use the 5min ticks instead to check on the kdr and assign the highest side with the bonus bounty, I would keep this hidden like no active buff icons or marks or anything, so players aren't thinking about it constantly. Add the bonus on the wxp flash up on a kill and that's about it. Killing someone too much until diminishing returns kicks in for 0 points on a kill still applies.

3. To add some random hotspots to the game I would like to suggest some objectives be worth 10x the points on capture.To expand:Random hotspots that reward 10x warscore and wxp on capture 5x on defense events, once a skirmish period, to help promote focus fighting on an objective. This could be randomly placed on the leading team objectives, or something that is tier 3, or only keeps, or even all three options at once. It's just something to give some focus for both offense and defense teams.

There's a lot of different scenarios that could happen here, but the main idea is to encourage focus on the leading teams, instead of always bullying the weakest team for easy points. Wvw is also a finicky place where unfortunately players would rather sit out or tank on purpose, even on servers where they have to power to easily win, so even placing bounties on players could just be an overall negative effect. But maybe even try them out as events.

Discuss or whatever, getting tired of stuff here.

The weakest team is more likely to get me to UD.

Every skirmish (lets make them 3hr skirmishes) shuffle the servers around; almost like a round robin on steroids. Every 3 hours you get a new match-up.

This way, your score isn't based on "holding" objectives for any length of time; it's based on capturing and killing. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to award a large sum of points if objectives reach T1, T2, or T3 during the 3 hours; would give incentive to try and actually hold and defend it. On the flip side, flipping a higher tier objective awards a large sum of points.

Basically, at the end of the week, all the servers are ranked from 1 to whatever based on their point acquisition. The intent of this is, to continuously shuffle the matches; but keep a running score total. This wouldn't necessarily favor servers with more numbers, because if the other 2 servers were smart, they'd smack the stronger server into oblivion in their match-up preventing them from getting many points.

Something I just thought of on the fly.. I think this would be funny to pull off for at least a week just to see how things would pan out.

Anet doesn't want us to defend. They want people to run around the map, flipping structures for karma/loot/ranks. I'm not sure fighting is even a concern of theirs at this point. They do, however, want people to buy gems to have easier karma-trains, or to avoid having to face an equal size server. Those are the reasons this idea isn't going to work.

is it developable? (magic word, yes, lets coi it.)

@"DeadlySynz.3471" said:Every skirmish (lets make them 3hr skirmishes) shuffle the servers around; almost like a round robin on steroids. Every 3 hours you get a new match-up.

This way, your score isn't based on "holding" objectives for any length of time; it's based on capturing and killing. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to award a large sum of points if objectives reach T1, T2, or T3 during the 3 hours; would give incentive to try and actually hold and defend it. On the flip side, flipping a higher tier objective awards a large sum of points.

Basically, at the end of the week, all the servers are ranked from 1 to whatever based on their point acquisition. The intent of this is, to continuously shuffle the matches; but keep a running score total. This wouldn't necessarily favor servers with more numbers, because if the other 2 servers were smart, they'd smack the stronger server into oblivion in their match-up preventing them from getting many points.

Something I just thought of on the fly.. I think this would be funny to pull off for at least a week just to see how things would pan out.

Basicly award the 'bonus-ppt' for keeps/towers that are upgraded, the moment the skirmish ends, not the tick..Will encourage defense

I did suggest hyper speed 2hr matchups before, but I am not sure how that impacts the game mode as a whole since it might mess up other thiings like upgrades etc. If they did these very short matchups, we don't necessarily need to bomb servers, just assign people a color. This should be tested as an event week if anything. The only way to a balanced population is to control the flow of people in a matchup in realtime imo. If they want to play with friends or guildies they'll have to party up and queue. They can be on different servers still, just that when they want to play, the server will have to maintain as equal a distribution of people across all 3 colours as much as it can.

@"DemonSeed.3528" said:I did suggest hyper speed 2hr matchups before, but I am not sure how that impacts the game mode

Oh I know how - it utterly destroys and ruin WvW.

Short matchups just makes every day a blur, nothing matters. Its like asking a PvPer how their last match was and how they look forward to the next. They wont care. Its just a match out of dozens or hundreds a week.

People always underestimate just how big of an "event" weekly reset night is. Gamemode, balance, fights, it doesnt matter if people arent looking forward to the next reset, the next week. This is what has kept WvW going for over 6 years.

If matchups where 2h people would just look at the time and go meh.

Yeah that's true, I'd have to agree with that

dood these are pretty interesting ideas.good work.