POLL - Adjusting WvW PPT Gameplay

[Xenesis.6389]

Note, this poll is not about combat and fights, or population balancing, it's about the general ppt gameplay of wvw, the very base of the game mode.

This includes anything from how objectives are related to each other, to flow of the map, to upgrades and timers.

What would be your choice to improve first.

Feel free to expand on buffs or nerfs on any options or add your own, no quippy examples this time....

[Zikory.6871]

Remove it completely. Along with all rewards. 

[Xenesis.6389]

7 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

Remove it completely. Along with all rewards. 

Who let you out of your zone, git, git, shoo

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mists_Arena

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Obsidian_Sanctum_(zone)

 

[Gorani.7205]

I think the Supply mechanic has the greatest potential to chance the tactics and strategies of WvW and impacting the "PPT" type of game play. Having or not having supply has lost its charm after auto-upgrades and not choosing what the supply in a structure will do.

Ideas like you lose supply everytime you glide, mount up or die might sound extreme, but should not be off the table from the start. You could sabotage camps to deliver "poisoned supply" that instead of increasing supply in depot, will decrease it on arrival (a way to weaken a T3 Keep before an attack, if it is unnoticed). Supply could be used to feed the sentries, so they keep marking enemies or can unstealth Thieves etc. Supply could be used to make tactics & improvements recharge faster.

Being a "supply manager" could also be something a more PvE oriented players might be interested to do, e.g. if supply would be needed to start new dynamic events (bribe Centaurs & Skritt to start a raid against a camp or northern tower in Alpine BL)

[Friggarn.9451]

Warscore/PPT points based on current population. Points based on effort, weird concept, eh?

[Xenesis.6389]

21 minutes ago, Friggarn.9451 said:

Warscore/PPT points based on current population. Points based on effort, weird concept, eh?

They had somewhat thought about scoring based on population, back when they first brought up skirmish. But it was never really deemed necessary after skirmish mode made it in, most of the overnight scoring talk stopped after that point. Not long ago I brought up an idea about making the winning/strongest side be worth more points to the other two, like a reverse outnumbered, but no one cared for that. Most people don't care much about the scoring these days. 🤷‍♂️

 

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Let-s-Talk-Scoring

Potential (controversial) additional change:

• While the above change takes steps to bring the value of off-hours coverage in-line, there’s a good chance it’ll still be overvalued. If that’s the case (and we’ll eventually poll on this), then we have plans for an additional system.
• This is the Action Level – Victory Point Multiplier system
  • This system would multiply the Victory Points awarded by Skirmishes based on map populations and time of day.
  • During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3.
  • During off hours, the multiplier might stay at 3 or drop to 2 or 1, depending on on activity level.
  • It’s important to include map populations as a factor, to make the system more fair for off hours players and its important to include time-of-day as a factor to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score muliplier low by exiting WvW
•  

Edited April 15, 2022 by Xenesis.6389

[MedievalThings.5417]

PPT needs to be removed.  Let kills determine who wins or loses.  That way, superstacks can't hide in lower tiers by gaming the scoring system while steamrolling every fight. 

[Xenesis.6389]

1 minute ago, Ubi.4136 said:

PPT needs to be removed.  Let kills determine who wins or loses.  That way, superstacks can't hide in lower tiers by gaming the scoring system while steamrolling every fight. 

I'm fine with that, provided objectives are made to be valuable in some other ways.

[Friggarn.9451]

18 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

They had somewhat thought about scoring based on population, back when they first brought up skirmish. But it was never really deemed necessary after skirmish mode made it in, most of the overnight scoring talk stopped after that point. Not long ago I brought up an idea about making the winning/strongest side be worth more points to the other two, like a reverse outnumbered, but no one cared for that. Most people don't care much about the scoring these days. 🤷‍♂️

 

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Let-s-Talk-Scoring

Potential (controversial) additional change:

• While the above change takes steps to bring the value of off-hours coverage in-line, there’s a good chance it’ll still be overvalued. If that’s the case (and we’ll eventually poll on this), then we have plans for an additional system.
• This is the Action Level – Victory Point Multiplier system
  • This system would multiply the Victory Points awarded by Skirmishes based on map populations and time of day.
  • During prime time hours, the multiplier would always be at it’s maximum of 3.
  • During off hours, the multiplier might stay at 3 or drop to 2 or 1, depending on on activity level.
  • It’s important to include map populations as a factor, to make the system more fair for off hours players and its important to include time-of-day as a factor to prevent a winning team from trying to keep the score muliplier low by exiting WvW
•  

 

Right. People don't care currently because there's almost 0 incentive to winning. Once rewards are back in, more people will care again. It'll be important that everyone's effort is counted fairly. 1 person in SEA is worth 10 in NA in some cases, because of timezone coverage. That'll need to be addressed if they give rewards based on total warscore. If the rewards are only per skirmish-- well that will be a different story.

[Xenesis.6389]

6 minutes ago, Friggarn.9451 said:

Right. People don't care currently because there's almost 0 incentive to winning. Once rewards are back in, more people will care again. It'll be important that everyone's effort is counted fairly. 1 person in SEA is worth 10 in NA in some cases, because of timezone coverage. That'll need to be addressed if they give rewards based on total warscore. If the rewards are only per skirmish-- well that will be a different story.

And the reason why we don't have rewards based on warscore is once again because of population stacking. The reason why most of the rewards are through skirmish/regular rewards tracks is because they are more fairly based personal rewards that mostly rely on the individual performance not on the server. You do get some extra pips from warscore performance, but a chunk of it is from ranks.

 

Should some person playing 10 hrs a week in a T1 super stacked server get extra rewards for crushing every skirmish period, over someone stuck on a low pop last place T4 server playing the same 10 hrs a week? I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how effective the world restructuring is in order to bring more rewards back to server instead of individual performance.

[Strider Pj.2193]

1 hour ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

I'm fine with that, provided objectives are made to be valuable in some other ways.

Make the tier of an objective multiply the score of PPK somehow..  So, if an enemy tries to take a t3 objective, they get either awarded more points for kills or the defenders get more points for kills…. Not sure which, or if both would work.

[Xenesis.6389]

1 minute ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Make the tier of an objective multiply the score of PPK somehow..  So, if an enemy tries to take a t3 objective, they get either awarded more points for kills or the defenders get more points for kills…. Not sure which, or if both would work.

Not when boon balls sit in lord rooms farming kills...

[Coldtart.4785]

Get rid of PPK. You're already punished score-wise for losing a fight because you don't get to walk away with whatever score-generating objective you were fighting for, so there's no need to be punished twice because you also gave out a ton a points when you died. All it does is discourage PPTers from fighting when they aren't sure they'll win and I think anything that discourages anyone from fighting players in a PVP mode is absolutely unacceptable.

[Strider Pj.2193]

13 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Not when boon balls sit in lord rooms farming kills...

There is that..  but then how do we make the objectives worth something?  

[Xenesis.6389]

18 hours ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

There is that..  but then how do we make the objectives worth something?  

This is where something like lattice systems or attaching bonuses to objectives could work, taking examples from older rvr games,.

Warhammer required you to capture smaller objectives in order to get the right to siege their keeps.

ESO, you can take the smaller objectives in order to shut down the waypoint at their nearby keep.

Planetside had a lattice system where you had to go through certain objectives in order to get the ones behind it. They also had objectives that served different purposes, like unlocking a vehicle type for use in that map while holding that objective, or use of air vehicles, or faster respawns, or use of the drop ship, etc.

 

Running theme here is taking some of the smaller objectives in order to attack the bigger objectives, there's a number of ways they could go about this. It could be as simple as capture one of the north towers on alpine in order to attack garrison with siege, you could further complicate this with requiring a lattice of capturing swc, then swt, to take bay, or nwc, then nwt, then you can attack garrison, or reverse you take nwt then nwc then you can attack bat, if something is lost in between this (like the camp) then the attack is halted.

 

You can use stacking bonuses for important things, like owning one tower will give you access to mount up, owning two towers will give you access to gliding. Owning a keep will unlock golem building. Owning a camp will give you +1 supply, up to +6 for all of them.

 

But I don't expect anet will ever go away from the ppt system.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Xenesis.6389

[Stand The Wall.6987]

siege ruins this mode so much. an objective defended just a little will require many more times the numbers to take, and at a certain point the attacking zerg will just overpower the defenses. if i could redo this mode, i would get rid of siege and have only rams. only 1 ram would be required which can't be killed and will break thru a tower gate within a set time (reg 4min, sup 3min, guild 2min) or something like that. maybe double that time for keeps. make RI longer and make sure people can't drop a ram and leave. the reason i would redo siege this way is to have the mode be 100% about players fighting players, not siege vs siege while the attackers stare at the defenders for 6min until walls are down. also a lot of objectives in the current iteration require zergs to take, which leads to karma trains. along with these changes it would be necessary to make it possible for defenders to stand on walls so they can actually put up a fight against the attacking zerg. maybe a buff applied to you when you're standing on the wall and goes away when the gate is down or something like that.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Stand The Wall.6987

[b k.1648]

More diverse gameplay would be nice. Something to do that isn't just a cap circle with extra steps.