Doubleteaming : how to fix it

[Karagee.6830]

On 9/7/2022 at 7:01 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

So lets go theory crafting. First off lets assume we keep the three sided fight concept because I can't see them doing away with that and it would be a rewrite. In the design you would think that blue & red would double team green, but that's not a great way to do it since you potentially doom anyone that is green. So if the goal is to dynamically shift as the match goes on then we need a mechanic that shifts as we go on so that we can both handle match setting versus skirmish period setting versus score resets. Given the smallest element is 5 mins, lets run with that. So if you want population/score balance to matter than maybe we go with a method that warscore is not even when killing players. So players in the top skirmish score in that 5 mins are worth 1.25, players in second place are worth 1 and players in the third are worth .75. Now I pull these numbers as a simple way to display the concept and numbers can vary. But the goal would be to pay more for kills against whoever is leading at the time to try and discourage people just jumping the side on the bottom. It would pay more to jump the side in the lead and allow for catchup mechanics. Again to keep things in balance this would only apply to PPK. Holding and keeping for PPT should remain the same but I think the PPK would still encourage weaker sides to attack stronger vs just 1 & 2 attacking 3, or it would at least pay #3 more for each kill they did get while double teamed. Just quick thoughts but something to consider if the goal is to encourage weaker vs stronger sides.

Piken topped Deso for 2nd despite being lower in PPT by 40-50 for an entire skirmish yesterday. That means they got points from kills while they didnt have the manpower (or will) to defend some of their structures. If you change the score the way you are proposing they may have won the skirmish despite being 80 PPT behind actually. With your proposal it's also easier to alter results by feeding kills to an opponent...

The truth is PPT from structures should be altered first and foremost, not kills. Because when you are outnumbered the main problem is not that you can't kill enemies while roaming or that you have to fight 20v30, the main problem is that you can't defend, because 2-3 people is all it takes to flip any target including SM and when you have several large groups attacking different targets on multiple borders you simply can't defend. And in the best scenario you defend either EB or home border, if you can.

Edited September 9, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[Karagee.6830]

20 hours ago, manu.7539 said:

Well, the ability to read the map doesnt change anything when 2 map Q attack your bl and focus on your team and objectives. Its nearly impossible to defend yourself from it no matter how good is your team. When it happen too often then your team can be the best you'll still not win at the end of the week. Its obviously a wrong/broken mechanic in a competitive game and I try  to see with u guys if there is some solutions to fix that.. not that I have any big expectations that arenanet will fix it haha

There is a way to defend if you are not outnumbered: send someone to attack the other servers home border...smaller groups and roaming parties are not insignificant. God knows how many time we pulled a 35+ blob from EB or our home border while attacking keeps elsewhere in 4 or 5 people.

And before you say small groups can be easily countered, I will tell you that most towers and keeps can be attacked sneakily and from positions that are very hard to defend (i.e. you may not be able to take the keep but the repair bill will be very high, which is also crippling if done well and if you have other roamers flipping camps and killing supply donkeys). I mean, on red border you can even make fairly sheltered and hard to see trebs to hit a keep's supply depots. Also this often works because the enemy doesn't see the outnumbered icon popping up and doesn't realise something is going on until you have already caused quite a lot of damage 

But of course you need to have roamers and roamers who are not simply camp flippers and donkey farmers on enemy borderlands or smaller tags, maybe guild tags willing to do that, not just chickens following the 50-man open tag on EB or your home border.

Ultimately them taking my T3 keep and losing their T3 keep is a fair trade.

Edited September 9, 2022 by Karagee.6830

[manu.7539]

10 hours ago, Gorani.7205 said:

lol...

Did you just accuse the "worst team" (whatever that is by your definition) to ruin the other two teams winning experience by actually fighting back? It sure reads that way to me.

Your reading was about right but I dont accuse anyone, I would do the same and I did quite often 😉

Still, I dont think its fair or good for the competition to have the better team not winning because they were dblteamed more than the others. I'm just looking for a way to counter balance the effect of dblteaming that "sometimes" can be decisive on who wins or not.

Edited September 9, 2022 by manu.7539

[TheGrimm.5624]

7 hours ago, Karagee.6830 said:

Piken topped Deso for 2nd despite being lower in PPT by 40-50 for an entire skirmish yesterday. That means they got points from kills while they didnt have the manpower (or will) to defend some of their structures. If you change the score the way you are proposing they may have won the skirmish despite being 80 PPT behind actually. With your proposal it's also easier to alter results by feeding kills to an opponent...

The truth is PPT from structures should be altered first and foremost, not kills. Because when you are outnumbered the main problem is not that you can't kill enemies while roaming or that you have to fight 20v30, the main problem is that you can't defend, because 2-3 people is all it takes to flip any target including SM and when you have several large groups attacking different targets on multiple borders you simply can't defend. And in the best scenario you defend either EB or home border, if you can.

 

Not being in the match I am not sure I follow you. The question is was 2 &3 fighting 1 or was 1 &3 attacking 2? Or was it a even spread? Again the numbers I used was an example, the spread need not be that much if the theory was implemented/tested. The question is would it balance out the fights to the OP's original point. I wouldn't adjust PPT because that will self regulate, as you said the side that has less to defend will lose their structures depending on numbers so PPT will be determined by the side that is successful in their attacks/defenses. Since the side that was on top would vary as skirmish period score changes this concept would hopefully lead to people targeting the side at the top at the time since for a 1 to 1 kill the side in the current lead would be worth more to take down. If the skirmish score flips due to a side that was trying to bank PPK from this and being successful they would then find themselves the better targets for fights until the score balanced. Again theory crafting in a quick manner. There of course could be mechanic that within certain point spreads this incentive wouldn't apply when score were more balanced but would kick in if larger score gaps appeared. Again if the goal is to more often have 2&3 going after 1 when they have a bigger lead vs 1 & 2 going after three since they are an easier target at the time. 1 &2 could still do it but 3 might have better odds in fighting and more thought for trying to defend if they don't have enough to hold their objectives due to numbers available since each kill they secured would be worth a bit more. Mind you numbers and stats would need to be reviewed and a potential increase might be needed for PPT to make sure the PPK & PPT points stay in a reasonable balance. Just quick theory crafting.

[Karagee.6830]

5 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

Not being in the match I am not sure I follow you. The question is was 2 &3 fighting 1 or was 1 &3 attacking 2? Or was it a even spread? Again the numbers I used was an example, the spread need not be that much if the theory was implemented/tested. The question is would it balance out the fights to the OP's original point. I wouldn't adjust PPT because that will self regulate, as you said the side that has less to defend will lose their structures depending on numbers so PPT will be determined by the side that is successful in their attacks/defenses. Since the side that was on top would vary as skirmish period score changes this concept would hopefully lead to people targeting the side at the top at the time since for a 1 to 1 kill the side in the current lead would be worth more to take down. If the skirmish score flips due to a side that was trying to bank PPK from this and being successful they would then find themselves the better targets for fights until the score balanced. Again theory crafting in a quick manner. There of course could be mechanic that within certain point spreads this incentive wouldn't apply when score were more balanced but would kick in if larger score gaps appeared. Again if the goal is to more often have 2&3 going after 1 when they have a bigger lead vs 1 & 2 going after three since they are an easier target at the time. 1 &2 could still do it but 3 might have better odds in fighting and more thought for trying to defend if they don't have enough to hold their objectives due to numbers available since each kill they secured would be worth a bit more. Mind you numbers and stats would need to be reviewed and a potential increase might be needed for PPT to make sure the PPK & PPT points stay in a reasonable balance. Just quick theory crafting.

It was fairly even I think Gandara has higher numbers and higher kdr. I think numbers were Gandara>Desolation>Piken but Piken got a comfortable second and Gandara a comfortable first place after losing to desolation the previous week.

The problem with PPT v points from kills is that the former is way more correlated with participation than the second. Imagine a situation with: server 1 35k kills and 55k deaths; server 2 40k kills and 25k deaths; server 3 35k kills 40k deaths. Server 1 will easily dominate the PPT without question, but as you can see the PPK are pretty even despite the participation disparity.

In normal conditions each server will attack more one of the 2 other servers based on how they think the match is going to go. If one server dominates, the other 2 will typically attack each other to avoid last place. If you can win, you will try to go after whoever you think your biggest competition is.

[Svarty.8019]

Yep, doubleteaming the strong side should occur much more often, but instead this is the game of;

"Who can kick the crap side hardest?"

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

2 hours ago, Svarty.8019 said:

Yep, doubleteaming the strong side should occur much more often, but instead this is the game of;

"Who can kick the crap side hardest?"

 

Or have your guild and server mate propose locking your opponents in their own tier because evidently you can’t beat them.  Honestly, I think the two servers running T1 right now enjoy kicking the other server more than ‘winning’.  

[Xenesis.6389]

26 minutes ago, Strider Pj.2193 said:

Or have your guild and server mate propose locking your opponents in their own tier because evidently you can’t beat them.  Honestly, I think the two servers running T1 right now enjoy kicking the other server more than ‘winning’.  

Sounds like nothing new for t1. 🤭 🤷‍♂️

 

[ArchonWing.9480]

Just follow this crow's strategy at 2v1 and you'll have no trouble getting SMC to t3.

This is not my forum strategy either. Promise!

Edited September 15, 2022 by ArchonWing.9480

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

Couldnt tell ya how many times I find 2+ enemies attack 1 of server 3 enemy and I jump in and help the 1 win, then they turn around and kill me xD

THATS how you discourage doubleteaming LMAO

[HazyDaisy.4107]

You won't ever be able to fix a player / large guild controlled system where everyone has an alt on every server and a pass code to every Discord, where one server is running clockwise around the lowest pop bl and the other server is running counter clockwise, won't ever fight each other, but spot a lone defender and OMG FIGHTZ!

[Dawdler.8521]

16 hours ago, Bigpapasmurf.5623 said:

Couldnt tell ya how many times I find 2+ enemies attack 1 of server 3 enemy and I jump in and help the 1 win, then they turn around and kill me xD

THATS how you discourage doubleteaming LMAO

You probably ruined his youtube clip.

[ArchonWing.9480]

14 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

You probably ruined his youtube clip.

Is that why people salt whisper?

[enkidu.5937]

11 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Is that why people salt whisper?

its called socializing 😘