Rewards and How To Discourage Night Capping

[ElectRic Raikou.8349]

On 9/18/2021 at 6:06 AM, Dean Calaway.9718 said:

That's not how dynamic caps work anywhere, I thought it would go without saying but I guess not... So here...

Example:

Current player cap is 25, suddenly Server A drops to 12, new cap 17.

Server B has 25 players on the map, no new players can come in BUT THE PLAYERS ALREADY THERE CAN STAY WITHOUT BEING REMOVED, as people leave on their own accord 24, 23, 22... still no new players can come in, because current cap is 17, as more players leave 19, 18, 17, 16 now 1 new player can come in.

You can also have a hard low limit cap of 10 players, even if no one else on the other sides is in the map.

WvW is inherently unbalanced, but there's different levels of unbalance, ever since the game came out people always tried to migrate to the side with the bigger numbers in an effort to outnumber the opponents for an easy win, with a dynamic cap in place (and aggressive AFK kick) you'd actively discourage outnumbering as the winning strategy, because you simply couldn't do that anymore, instead even out player numbers thus making WvW less unbalanced than it currently is, and with the way Anet plans to shuffle players around in the new system, this would be the best time to try something like this.

 

I dont think this would solve anything. If a map has 100 team A and 20 team B, your suggestion is that team A cant get anybody else inside the map... But is not like they need to, they already have superiority.

 

Now my idea (which is probably not good either, but might sound interesting):

Have you guys seen how maps have mercenaries and "wild" npc enemies? What if those npc were able to capture camps and towers? They would raid the buildings after a given timer.

 

Sounds crazy i know, but think about it. If npcs fought your team-captured-buildings that would give a reason to the team to spread and send a portion of the players to other maps thus dealing with the issue of oversized zergs camping a map. And if there is no players to defend from npcs, then the captured buildings will be lost and would become neutral, this would prevent empty maps from gaining score by themselves.

 

In particular im thinking about magumma NA server, they always camp on the enemy spawn preventing decaps and being annoying, but if they had to deal with an invasion of centaurs in their tower at the other side of the map, and say a champion branded boss capturing a camp at the opposite side. Then they would have to necessarily spread and reduce numbers.

 

Another scenario: What happens with small 5-10 guilds when their team has the whole map captured? RN the only option is going to ebg to try and join a huge fight. But if you dont find fights in ebg, youre pretty much screwed. As guild leader this has happened to me before. And the problem is we have fixed schedules for wvw, so if everything is captured our only option is to go early to bed. I think my idea would fix this allowing us to do some ppt.

[Chaba.5410]

1 hour ago, ElectRic Raikou.8349 said:

In particular im thinking about magumma NA server, they always camp on the enemy spawn preventing decaps and being annoying, but if they had to deal with an invasion of centaurs in their tower at the other side of the map, and say a champion branded boss capturing a camp at the opposite side. Then they would have to necessarily spread and reduce numbers.

Unless those centaurs can cap SMC, Maguuma players won't care about a tower of centaurs any more than they care about Desert BL.  The bags are at the enemy spawn.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Chaba.5410

[ElectRic Raikou.8349]

2 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Unless those centaurs can cap SMC, Maguuma players won't care about a tower of centaurs any more than they care about Desert BL.  The bags are at the enemy spawn.

I mean is not a fully developed idea, but actually you make a point, what if keeps would get decapped? Do you think it would help?

 

Also i read they are going to implement a better reward system for score, so maybe they might start caring if score yields as much reward or better.

 

I think my idea is simple and is going to work better if anet implements what they have planned

[Chaba.5410]

38 minutes ago, ElectRic Raikou.8349 said:

I mean is not a fully developed idea, but actually you make a point, what if keeps would get decapped? Do you think it would help?

 

Also i read they are going to implement a better reward system for score, so maybe they might start caring if score yields as much reward or better.

 

I think my idea is simple and is going to work better if anet implements what they have planned

With Maguuma?  I really don't have any good suggestion on what would help haha.  They operate on a different mindset that objectives are for generating fights and bags, not simply for taking and holding for score.  That's sort of what objectives are good for anyway.  I don't think better rewards would help either since most competitive players don't really care about rewards.

[Kovu.7560]

On 9/16/2021 at 4:14 PM, Chaba.5410 said:

One idea that Anet came up with was the idea of score multipliers during times of high activity.  Activity would be based on the amount of people playing across all three teams during a skirmish.  Times of low activity would be the baseline score rather than punishing players during those times.  I'm hoping they look into that idea again.

 

That is a good idea. They should consider implementing it.

~ Kovu

[Dean Calaway.9718]

[This message is unwelcomed and was removed.]

Edited September 30, 2021 by Dean Calaway.9718

[Chaba.5410]

8 hours ago, Dean Calaway.9718 said:

Sounds like someone is triggered.

You're beyond naive if you think you can sit on a map, tell everyone to leave and anyone will, or ask people to leave as they come along. I have a bridge to sell you.

And you're naive if you think that a coordinated group of players can't queue a map by themselves.  Indo alone can get 70 or so players into his discord when he public tags.

[Valik Shin.9027]

we have gone over this for 9 years. There is no way to do it fairly. You can't punish people for playing at any time of the day

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, Valik Shin.9027 said:

we have gone over this for 9 years. There is no way to do it fairly. You can't punish people for playing at any time of the day

Well except it being perfectly fair by making each 2h skirmish of a 24h period worth the same regardless of how much you win it with.

[Chaba.5410]

On 9/25/2021 at 8:07 AM, Dawdler.8521 said:

Well except it being perfectly fair by making each 2h skirmish of a 24h period worth the same regardless of how much you win it with.

The skirmish system helped smooth out run-away scores.  On a certain level though it remains not a "perfectly fair" system because the status of the objectives are not reset at the start of each skirmish.  Some teams start with the advantages of having, for example, a T3 upgraded SMC.

Should it be changed to that?  I don't know.  Seems a little too harsh.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Chaba.5410