WvW need a new scoring system because

[SweetPotato.7456]

When your server is doing 260++ points for the same few hours everyday but the rest of day can barely make 100. 
 

This is why we need  new scoring system, start by getting rid of the one up one down, and the one week long match. 

When you are on a server where the score is control by a group of people who only play for a few hours a day , sometime maybe 3 days a week,  We the one that play during the down time with minimum players online, all we can do is drain supply, try our best to defend until we can't hold the objective anymore, often will get roll over in a matter of minutes, our t3 structures that takes hours to tier up.  We have to reclaim the structure only for it to be roll over again and again until we ran out of supply to back cap objectives,  with the non-stop  k-training.   It discourages players from playing at certain hours, the more this happen the more people will move away from the time zone that has low population.

 

Discuss how this can be fix and how is alliance going to fix this.
 

[Daredevil.2745]

This guy is from Tarnished Coast btw, he is discouraged to play at certain few hours when enemeis have equal numberes with TC.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Daredevil.2745

[Dawdler.8521]

I am rather confused by people suggesting Anet need to fix something that the skirmish system fixed years ago. Every 2h is worth the same no matter how much you win or loose, no matter what time it is. There is nothing wrong the scoring system there.

The issue you are describing is... population spread over timezones. And alliances isnt going fix that because Anet cant come to your house at night, pull you up from bed and tell you to log on to WvW because they are too few compared to the enemy. Alliances will help spread it out. But you cant fix it. Its impossible in a 24/7 mode. None of the "suggestions" here like removing 1u1d or a weeks matchup does anything to change this so I have no idea how its a start. In fact 1u1d was also added like the skirmish system to make a victory the same no matter how much you won.

[SweetPotato.7456]

1

Edited November 19, 2021 by SweetPotato.7456

[SweetPotato.7456]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I am rather confused by people suggesting Anet need to fix something that the skirmish system fixed years ago. Every 2h is worth the same no matter how much you win or loose, no matter what time it is. There is nothing wrong the scoring system there.

The issue you are describing is... population spread over timezones. And alliances isnt going fix that because Anet cant come to your house at night, pull you up from bed and tell you to log on to WvW because they are too few compared to the enemy. Alliances will help spread it out. But you cant fix it. Its impossible in a 24/7 mode. None of the "suggestions" here like removing 1u1d or a weeks matchup does anything to change this so I have no idea how its a start. In fact 1u1d was also added like the skirmish system to make a victory the same no matter how much you won.

So, Alliances is just something to make us think there's something to look forward to, when it is not, and instead it is killing server and make everyone become blobgate? 

[Norbe.7630]

Theres no need for that, the only current purpose and purposely winning or losing a match is to have a different server matchup who you want to face or avoid. No more no less.
Theres no real purpose, the purpose died a long time ago. Its just selfish self agendas now or spending time for farm rewards or legendaries.

Now for the alliances you got that on point, it will be formed blobs vs blobs vs blobs.
I agreed to that system only to watch WvW gets burned to the ground by the people who suggested that.
I already had my share of suggesting balance for WvW specifically in different timezones in the past on the former forums website.
And I gave up now. Just let it burn. Thank the PvErs who want this.

 

[Tiawal.2351]

5 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

When your server is doing 260++ points for the same few hours everyday but the rest of day can barely make 100. 
 

This is why we need  new scoring system, start by getting rid of the one up one down, and the one week long match. 

When you are on a server where the score is control by a group of people who only play for a few hours a day , sometime maybe 3 days a week,  We the one that play during the down time with minimum players online, all we can do is drain supply, try our best to defend until we can't hold the objective anymore, often will get roll over in a matter of minutes, our t3 structures that takes hours to tier up.  We have to reclaim the structure only for it to be roll over again and again until we ran out of supply to back cap objectives,  with the non-stop  k-training.   It discourages players from playing at certain hours, the more this happen the more people will move away from the time zone that has low population.

 

Discuss how this can be fix and how is alliance going to fix this.
 

 

Scoring system could use some improvements, but before that other things has to be changed, first among those is a population balance that considers time zones as well, with the extra option to temporarily switch servers to keep the balance real.

 

The Alliance feature itself won't fix this, but balancing is considered in the same rework. While they will go far enough with changes or not, depends on the level of commitment Anet has towards fixing the WvW game mode. 

 

The WvW dev team group is likely still smaller than what is needed. So better if they do one step at a time, and scoring should be adjusted after population balancing, then adding back missing systems like the Orb mechanism was and redesigning the whole defensive buff and upgrade process. 

 

There's much to do, and they sadly too slow. We are far beyond hoping now, after too many years of neglect and many generations of lost players. But if things change to better, I will still take it, and WvW can be reborn. For now, just enjoy those very rare moments of fun that can be found at times, there's nothing else left.

[Svarty.8019]

9 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Discuss how this can be fix and how is alliance going to fix this.

As I understand it:

Alliance is going to fix this because the TEAM (world) will be bigger than the Alliances themselves.

 

The way your TEAM gets generated is by allocating some alliances to it. Arenanet will start with one alliance and then add others but the subsequent alliances will have people who play at different times of day. Then they add guilds that aren't in alliances then they add single players. All of these are added based on their previous behaviour - so for starters, they might look at the time of day that they are active, and if things look balanced they might be able to add additional filters such as how MUCH they are active.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Svarty.8019

[Boh.4568]

Alliances COULD mitigate this issue if WvW gets enough new traction that the main WvW guild will start recruiting people to cover different timezones (within the limits of NA/EU).

I don't see many more possibilities, timezones are timezones and dead skirmishes will always be there.

[subversiontwo.7501]

10 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

Discuss how this can be fix and how is alliance going to fix this.

Alliances isn't going to fix that (beyond whatever Boh said above that could somehow open up availability of disproportionately powerful resources, aka. nightcrews). Alliances do not set out to fix that. Alliances sets out to fix the full-server+transfer circus.

 

This is also why you are right. Overall population issues are best adressed by Alliances. Timezone issues are best adressed by scoring. This has been discussed at length before and I believe even BenP came out to say that Alliances is step 1 in this and scoring is step 2. Logically, rewards would then be step 3. As per recent communication I would assume that Alliances is still 1 but it seems like more focus is put on rewards beyond that. It could also be that some rewards may be adressed before scoring and some will be adressed after or together with scoring (eg., they can put more items into existing reward structures first, then fix scoring and look at other reward structures later; which wouldn't necessarily be bad if it wasn't for the fact that WvW development cadence is so bad that it does even have a cadence to begin with as Anet has a history of dropping a crumb and moving resources back to the PvE majority).

[joneirikb.7506]

13 hours ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

When your server is doing 260++ points for the same few hours everyday but the rest of day can barely make 100. 
 

This is why we need  new scoring system, start by getting rid of the one up one down, and the one week long match. 

When you are on a server where the score is control by a group of people who only play for a few hours a day , sometime maybe 3 days a week,  We the one that play during the down time with minimum players online, all we can do is drain supply, try our best to defend until we can't hold the objective anymore, often will get roll over in a matter of minutes, our t3 structures that takes hours to tier up.  We have to reclaim the structure only for it to be roll over again and again until we ran out of supply to back cap objectives,  with the non-stop  k-training.   It discourages players from playing at certain hours, the more this happen the more people will move away from the time zone that has low population.

 

Discuss how this can be fix and how is alliance going to fix this.
 

/Rant:on

There are a lot of things to take on in this thread, but I'll start with this part:

* Remove/change the point system (War Score, or Skirmish?, I'm assuming War Score because of the numbers you gave).
* Remove 1up1down
* Remove 1 week matches
* Want balanced gameplay during all times a hours/day/week

This would be best served by making a completely new game mode, something like a 20vs20 map that lasts for 1 hour, and that people can queue up for, with no pre-determined teams. I'm pretty sure several other mmo's have had something similar in the past (WoW-Battlegrounds).

Basically, at that point it is no longer WvW. And it might have been nice in its own right, it would also lose some things that other people find interesting and nice in WvW. For one thing, it would lose the very Team structure that many bemoan alliance for removing already. Also ANet is too invested/stuck with WvW to remove it, so this won't happen (for good or bad).

----

Let's say ANet did try to adapt the WvW game mode to something like that however?

* Remove/change the point system 

I don't think a change in point is really relevant until other things changes first.

As others have pointed out, the WarScore doesn't really mean anything at all. It's the Skirmish points that matters and which prevents big runaways due to coverage anyways. Also the score's only purpose these days are determining your next match-up. The majority of players are no longer invested enough in their "Team" or the Rewards to really care about the points themselves. At most it serves as a "We're on low points, so I can't grind rewards efficiently, so I'll get back later" kind of impact.

There are a lot of other things that needs to be changed first, before a re-work of points would even serve a purpose. The basic logistics of the game mode (World Restructure, aka Alliances), and get players invested into the mode (either team/guild pride, or at the very least a high enough interest in rewards to make players motivated to work with the system to win).

----

* Remove 1up1down

What would they change it to? Back to the old Glicko system? that would work even worse now that we have the link system (since there are even fewer entries to apply glicko from, glicko is supposed to have a certain minimum of entries with smaller differences between them than wvw worlds have).

There has to be a mix between complete staleness (only fighting servers by rank, no random), or complete random (completely ignore ranks and just throw servers around randomly each time). The 1up1down is a fairly decent compromise on that.

Also remember that systems like this needs to be simple enough to be automated, so no systems like having your entire server's players voting on where to go and who to fight etc. That would just never work. Not to mention even if it did work, it would just be abused constantly, by all kinds of players trying to get matched up against servers they can destroy without effort, and everyone wanting to get away from the same servers they do now, and then the same amount of people would come and complain because the "system doesn't work, we're always(*) put against the same servers we hate to play against!"

(* Player perceptions are always skewed, if someone is put up against server A 2 times in a year, they will claim they've been against that server for half or the whole year. Also someone HAS to play against the servers no one wants to play against anyways. And players will almost always mob mentality so all servers majority would want to pick the perceived 2 easiest servers to play against, and avoid the 2-3 strongest + the one server no one wants to play against no matter what.)

----

* Remove 1 week matches

One of the core designs with WvW is the consequences and consistent experience. What happened before dictates where we are now. Reducing the amount of time per match-up is going to effectively remove that.

Say WvW got changed to 1 day, so if you played at the same time each day, you'd never see any coherence in the matches, as they'd be a new match every single time. You'd have no feeling that anything you'd do could leave a consequence in any way.

Change it to hours, and you make it feel more like a spvp match than a realm vs realm mode. Which leads to the next topic:

----

* Want balanced gameplay during all times a hours/day/week

This is where we move completely away from what WvW is, and more into other game modes like sPvP or WoW-Battleground style. 

There are essentially 3 ways to force a similar population through all times of the day:

1: Queue matches like PvP does.
2: Block players from entering WvW if they would outnumber one of the opposed teams (read, 2 teams would constantly be queued, probably with hard kicks to keep the two top teams in check).
3: Put people in queue on the opponents team.

As you can see, either one of those would break what WvW is.

(1) Would essentially require a new game mode like WoW-Battleground, which honestly might not be a bad idea by itself, but it isn't WvW any longer, it would be much closer to sPvP.

(2) You can imagine how popular it would be to have 50+ people in queue, because the opponent server is asleep or just mass log off because they're losing. Imagine how much more players would hate to play against servers that already have skewed coverage (SoS or BB for example) because they couldn't even get into maps.

(3) This has some advantages, but it would also:
(a) Discourage anyone that wants to fight for their team, play with their guild, play with their friends, or anyone that still has some shred of server pride.
(b) Be insanely easy to abuse for trolling and information spying.

----

TLDR: Final words, Edge of the Mist has actually implemented some variations of most of what you ask for. And most people doesn't enjoy it.

* No real point system
* No ranking so no 1up1down
* Removed 1 week matches in favour of 4 hours matches
* Pulls players from all servers divided by 3, to fill the maps. It's the closest to balanced numbers
 

Edited November 19, 2021 by joneirikb.7506

[subversiontwo.7501]

14 minutes ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

 

There are a lot of things to take on in this thread, but I'll start with this part:

* Remove/change the point system (War Score, or Skirmish?, I'm assuming War Score because of the numbers you gave).
* Remove 1up1down
* Remove 1 week matches
* Want balanced gameplay during all times a hours/day/week

 

I haven't gotten around to reading the entire post yet, but I will. However, it feels pertinent to immidiately point out to any would-be readers that 3 out of 4 points/suggestions here are scoring changes.

I also have little new to contribute to the scoring discussion overall besides that it should be map-based. They should simply remove score from any map that is unbalanced at any time, giving incentive to players to spread out across both space and time. Despite its simplicity it is a solution (a change to scoring) that holds up incredibly well compared to any other suggestions that have been floated, ever. It may not be perfect but the idea of it is comparatively good at its raw basics and can be refined into something even better with time. Take the outnumbered mechanics and put them into something good and useful. The mech/tech already exists, use it.

It also works very well together with Alliances if Alliances can deal with the incentive to stack for content then scoring can deal with the incentive to stack for results. The remaining issue in the list (1 up/down) and the ladder is not necessarily a problem if everything else works.

Edited November 19, 2021 by subversiontwo.7501

[kash.9213]

42 minutes ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

/Rant:on

There are a lot of things to take on in this thread, but I'll start with this part:

* Remove/change the point system (War Score, or Skirmish?, I'm assuming War Score because of the numbers you gave).
* Remove 1up1down
* Remove 1 week matches
* Want balanced gameplay during all times a hours/day/week

This would be best served by making a completely new game mode, something like a 20vs20 map that lasts for 1 hour, and that people can queue up for, with no pre-determined teams. I'm pretty sure several other mmo's have had something similar in the past (WoW-Battlegrounds).

Basically, at that point it is no longer WvW. And it might have been nice in its own right, it would also lose some things that other people find interesting and nice in WvW. For one thing, it would lose the very Team structure that many bemoan alliance for removing already. Also ANet is too invested/stuck with WvW to remove it, so this won't happen (for good or bad).

----

Let's say ANet did try to adapt the WvW game mode to something like that however?

* Remove/change the point system 

I don't think a change in point is really relevant until other things changes first.

As others have pointed out, the WarScore doesn't really mean anything at all. It's the Skirmish points that matters and which prevents big runaways due to coverage anyways. Also the score's only purpose these days are determining your next match-up. The majority of players are no longer invested enough in their "Team" or the Rewards to really care about the points themselves. At most it serves as a "We're on low points, so I can't grind rewards efficiently, so I'll get back later" kind of impact.

There are a lot of other things that needs to be changed first, before a re-work of points would even serve a purpose. The basic logistics of the game mode (World Restructure, aka Alliances), and get players invested into the mode (either team/guild pride, or at the very least a high enough interest in rewards to make players motivated to work with the system to win).

----

* Remove 1up1down

What would they change it to? Back to the old Glicko system? that would work even worse now that we have the link system (since there are even fewer entries to apply glicko from, glicko is supposed to have a certain minimum of entries with smaller differences between them than wvw worlds have).

There has to be a mix between complete staleness (only fighting servers by rank, no random), or complete random (completely ignore ranks and just throw servers around randomly each time). The 1up1down is a fairly decent compromise on that.

Also remember that systems like this needs to be simple enough to be automated, so no systems like having your entire server's players voting on where to go and who to fight etc. That would just never work. Not to mention even if it did work, it would just be abused constantly, by all kinds of players trying to get matched up against servers they can destroy without effort, and everyone wanting to get away from the same servers they do now, and then the same amount of people would come and complain because the "system doesn't work, we're always(*) put against the same servers we hate to play against!"

(* Player perceptions are always skewed, if someone is put up against server A 2 times in a year, they will claim they've been against that server for half or the whole year. Also someone HAS to play against the servers no one wants to play against anyways. And players will almost always mob mentality so all servers majority would want to pick the perceived 2 easiest servers to play against, and avoid the 2-3 strongest + the one server no one wants to play against no matter what.)

----

* Remove 1 week matches

One of the core designs with WvW is the consequences and consistent experience. What happened before dictates where we are now. Reducing the amount of time per match-up is going to effectively remove that.

Say WvW got changed to 1 day, so if you played at the same time each day, you'd never see any coherence in the matches, as they'd be a new match every single time. You'd have no feeling that anything you'd do could leave a consequence in any way.

Change it to hours, and you make it feel more like a spvp match than a realm vs realm mode. Which leads to the next topic:

----

* Want balanced gameplay during all times a hours/day/week

This is where we move completely away from what WvW is, and more into other game modes like sPvP or WoW-Battleground style. 

There are essentially 3 ways to force a similar population through all times of the day:

1: Queue matches like PvP does.
2: Block players from entering WvW if they would outnumber one of the opposed teams (read, 2 teams would constantly be queued, probably with hard kicks to keep the two top teams in check).
3: Put people in queue on the opponents team.

As you can see, either one of those would break what WvW is.

(1) Would essentially require a new game mode like WoW-Battleground, which honestly might not be a bad idea by itself, but it isn't WvW any longer, it would be much closer to sPvP.

(2) You can imagine how popular it would be to have 50+ people in queue, because the opponent server is asleep or just mass log off because they're losing. Imagine how much more players would hate to play against servers that already have skewed coverage (SoS or BB for example) because they couldn't even get into maps.

(3) This has some advantages, but it would also:
(a) Discourage anyone that wants to fight for their team, play with their guild, play with their friends, or anyone that still has some shred of server pride.
(b) Be insanely easy to abuse for trolling and information spying.

----

TLDR: Final words, Edge of the Mist has actually implemented some variations of most of what you ask for. And most people doesn't enjoy it.

* No real point system
* No ranking so no 1up1down
* Removed 1 week matches in favour of 4 hours matches
* Pulls players from all servers divided by 3, to fill the maps. It's the closest to balanced numbers
 

Having contrived limited matches in place of WvW would basically just be some new content for spvp players while WvW players look for a new game that has some combination of thoughtful and engaging combat with some open world elements. WvW falls short of that but there's still some of that drop in and drop out openness that keeps people logging in. Alliances and the way they trickle categories of people into teams sounds like it's going to hurt that element of WvW also creating a pipeline into a bunch of blobs with the leftovers of people who just want to wander around and fight getting scattered to wherever or dumped into one throwaway team. 

The scoring system isn't great and I'd rather have something else, but WvW is already too much of a scaled up spvp match. That was a good write up though and I'm not saying your wrong, that's just my opinion of how it would roll out. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by kash.9213

[joneirikb.7506]

5 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

Having contrived limited matches in place of WvW would basically just be some new content for spvp players while WvW players look for a new game that has some combination of thoughtful and engaging combat with some open world elements. WvW falls short of that but there's still some of that drop in and drop out openness that keeps people logging in. Alliances and the way they trickle categories of people into teams sounds like it's going to hurt that element of WvW also creating a pipeline into a bunch of blobs with the leftovers of people who just want to wander around and fight getting scattered to wherever or dumped into one throwaway team. 

The scoring system isn't great and I'd rather have something else, but WvW is already too much of a scaled up spvp match. That was a good write up though and I'm not saying your wrong, that's just my opinion of how it would roll out. 

Yeah, I can relate to that, my point was rather that there are limits to what they can do and how they can stretch the system, while retaining what it is and what it is supposed to be. If they push that boundary too far, something will snap.

 

The mode already struggles to keep players happy, as it tries to appeal to a very wide group of players with very different motivations and wants from the game mode. And many suggestions on this forums tend to see things from one perspective, but not try to take others into consideration, while trying to make blanket changes for the whole game mode. Which would be the last drop for a lot of other players and make them leave, as the game mode would no longer satisfy the things they like. ANet has to look at all aspects of this, before making any changes, and even then making mistakes. I don't envy them that job.

In this case, I'd say the scoring system isn't actually the root issue, but a symptom. The root is players lack of motivation for winning. Without that, no score system is going to really make any real change. You could have the best scoring system in the world, but with motivation as it is nowadays, players would just get annoyed because it would be harder to abuse to avoid Server A +B that they don't want to fight.

[Zikory.6871]

None of this matters if you don't incentivize players to care about whatever scoring system is in place. New scoring system or alliances, some servers still going to let 5 people ktrain their map while they chase fights for hours. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Zikory.6871

[Samis.1750]

SoS ktrains whole maps during certain non-peak hours due to their massive population advantage (West Coast and Asia). I logged on once when I couldn't sleep and wandered into our garrison after they took it. I noticed they had 4 shield generators at inner garri which I found remarkable given that their opponents likely struggle to  drop 4 siege in total when taking it back.

 

Essentially , if that SoS off hours group remains together, they guarantee at least 2nd place in a matchup. Off hours should possibly count for less in my opinion. While adjusting the score for kills, etc.,  helps make prime time more important it may not be sufficient.

[joneirikb.7506]

2 hours ago, Samis.1750 said:

SoS ktrains whole maps during certain non-peak hours due to their massive population advantage (West Coast and Asia). I logged on once when I couldn't sleep and wandered into our garrison after they took it. I noticed they had 4 shield generators at inner garri which I found remarkable given that their opponents likely struggle to  drop 4 siege in total when taking it back.

 

Essentially , if that SoS off hours group remains together, they guarantee at least 2nd place in a matchup. Off hours should possibly count for less in my opinion. While adjusting the score for kills, etc.,  helps make prime time more important it may not be sufficient.

The problem with that, is that it creates a distinction of "you guys aren't worth as much as we are". It really shouldn't matter where you live and how you work and what times you play at. That also makes the scoring "unfair", which will make people take the scoring even less serious than they already do, and also it still won't fix the problem that the majority of players find it just kitten boring to play when they're losing that bad.

At that point, you could just as well remove point systems, since if it becomes unfair it ceases to have a meaning/purpose.

And again, this is why there are other things that needs to be fixed first. Because a point system can only work when you have some basics in place first:

* A minimum of population/coverage balance (Alliances, hopefully)
* Player motivation for winning (Guild/Server/Alliance pride, competitive spirit and a feeling that you can make a difference, or lastly and worst rewards)

Which also means that current servers with monolithic coverage needs to be broken up for the good of the game, even though they too are just doing what everyone else does: Play with their friends/community and trying to enjoy the game.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

At that point, you could just as well remove point systems, since if it becomes unfair it ceases to have a meaning/purpose.

At that point you might as well remove WvW. Which then again is what most suggestion threads seem to be about.

[Cuks.8241]

I don't think this can be completely avoided. Alliances might fix this a bit but maybe it won't. It really depends on the players. If 500 players decide to make a "early morning ppt alliance" and there is not enough players to match against, well there is really not much to do.

Planetside had a partial solution for this but it would involve complete overhaul of the maps. The maps there were symmetrical, not like here where we have home borders. So what they did was lock out maps in off hours and turned them on in peak hours. Anet could either lock out all the home borders in off hours or lock out EBG. But I don't think this is the solution anyone wants.

[LetoII.3782]

Large numbers of players concentrated in one timezone will always lead to a shortage in others.

That's just balance.

10/10/10/10 = 40

01/01/01/37 =40

[Svarty.8019]

On 11/19/2021 at 7:01 PM, Zikory.6871 said:

None of this matters if you don't incentivize players to care about whatever scoring system is in place. New scoring system or alliances, some servers still going to let 5 people ktrain their map while they chase fights for hours. 

Oftentimes chasing fights is the same as defending, because people tend to only attack when they have a tag up.

If you were to suggest that standing-in-a-field were an undesirable behaviour type, and one that would be best designed against (because at it's more-or-less kill (read: point) trading) then I'd agree with you.

[Dayra.7405]

In the end there is only one fix: stop the 24/7 matches and make 2-4h matches. This way you can make as many matches as needed per timeslot and not always  4 (NA) /5 (EU), but most of the time only 1.

[Zikory.6871]

2 hours ago, Svarty.8019 said:

Oftentimes chasing fights is the same as defending, because people tend to only attack when they have a tag up.

If you were to suggest that standing-in-a-field were an undesirable behaviour type, and one that would be best designed against (because at it's more-or-less kill (read: point) trading) then I'd agree with you.

Not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. I'd love to see a example of kill trading effecting a match up. It actually sounds dumb. 

As it stands, if we have a fun fight, there would be very little reason to leave it to defend something. And chasing 5-10 havok groups is a waste of time, so they can have all the objectives and we'll take them back later because the points don't matter. 

[Svarty.8019]

54 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

As it stands, if we have a fun fight, there would be very little reason to leave it to defend something. And chasing 5-10 havok groups is a waste of time, so they can have all the objectives and we'll take them back later because the points don't matter. 

Indeed, which is why a new scoring system should be adopted, one that doesn't encourage endless scrims in empty, open fields.
I don't think it should punish them either, but that shouldn't be a profitable way to maintain participation or score.

[Zikory.6871]

7 minutes ago, Svarty.8019 said:

Indeed, which is why a new scoring system should be adopted, one that doesn't encourage endless scrims in empty, open fields.
I don't think it should punish them either, but that shouldn't be a profitable way to maintain participation or score.

I couldn't say. Defending/attacking isn't particularly fun or engaging. Group strength differences, whether it be numbers or "skill" is probably at the worst its even been. I'd say there are quite a few core issues that would need to be addressed to adopt a new scoring system. I feel Alliances is the same, promising but not the full "fix".