Coefficient of competition and competition points.

[Mabi black.1824]

An argument that has the presumption that WVW is a large-scale PvP game based on a team-based concept.

How many times have we read, is my server better than your server? But how do you sustain it? How can you sustain your position in a system based on 1-week matches?

Our current points system delivers 5 - 4 - 3 victory points every 2 hours. In reference to the 1st - 2nd - 3rd place (war points) at the end of the week we get 1 up and 1 down just in reference to the total victory points.

ANET has repeatedly informed us that they have at their disposal all the tools capable of measuring the flows of all WVW teams (players and their hours of play)

So, let's pretend to add 2 columns after the victory points. the first ''competition coefficient'' defined by the inversely proportional ratio of the flow of the 3 teams 1 hour before the reset. ( e.g. green 100 hours blue 50 hours red 50 hours - competition coefficient green 0.5 blue 1 red 1 ) the second '' Competition Points '' is defined by victory points x the competition coefficient. And can these last Competition Points be used for a seasonal competition? A competitive summer or winter event? or anything else? At least, when you claim that your server is better than mine, I'll be able to verify competition points and data confirm or refute your claim.

[Dawdler.8521]

This achieves the same thing as saying my server is better than yours because it’s higher rank. Because it’s going to be directly related to hours and numbers.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

This achieves the same thing as saying my server is better than yours because it’s higher rank. Because it’s going to be directly related to hours and numbers.

Not exactly. Your server is ranked higher than mine because it has a higher flow (100vs50 players and hours of play just for example). It doesn't define whether your server's players are more organized than mine. If we go through a competition coefficient (which measured the weekly flows of my server and your server) it could help us define which server was better/more effective , in proportion to the players that the teams actually had available. The final result should better measure quality/strategy/organization , purified of quantity. in theory.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[TheIceman.1039]

Server rankings mean nothing until there are motivating server tiers.

[Mabi black.1824]

1 minute ago, TheIceman.1039 said:

Server rankings mean nothing until there are motivating server tiers.

What do you mean by motivating server levels?

[TheIceman.1039]

I may have expressed myself badly, I apologize. But we don't get real information at the moment which server is the best or not. Because tiers 1-4 mean nothing. Servers & players in them have no motivation to become a top tier server. For example, on NA servers where everyone else competes with each other not to go tier 1 for God's sake. It's kind of tragic as well as sad. Anet should start with fix tiers. Those servers with the highest kdr should go to tier 1. And then it becomes clear which server is the best. Period.

[Mabi black.1824]

29 minutes ago, TheIceman.1039 said:

I may have expressed myself badly, I apologize. But we don't get real information at the moment which server is the best or not. Because tiers 1-4 mean nothing. Servers & players in them have no motivation to become a top tier server. For example, on NA servers where everyone else competes with each other not to go tier 1 for God's sake. It's kind of tragic as well as sad. Anet should start with fix tiers. Those servers with the highest kdr should go to tier 1. And then it becomes clear which server is the best. Period.

Now I see what you mean. It also happens in the EU. My suggestion doesn't help much in this regard. Victory points still define the server going up and the server going down. And if a team wants to go down on purpose, they will continue to do so. But if we add a coefficient of competition and consequently the points of competition, it will be easier for everyone to measure the quality of the teams and not just the quantity. If your server puts restricted content ( purposely or not I don't care ) will have the lowest victory points, but they could get higher competition points than the other two teams, if that little time they put in put them in high quality.

If we share an honest way of measuring the quality/experiences/game strategy of the teams, we could grant a series of periodic competitive events to our WVW, appointments that the teams know are coming, waiting, expectation, preparation, organization etc etc. are all things that help in the long run and stimulate the curiosity and participation of the player. 

or not?

Edited October 18, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[TheIceman.1039]

There is the problem that excessive specialization drives away casual gamers in the game. Unless higher tiers have a different game system.

Maybe through the api key, you could get information about how much time one or the other player spent to achieve, for example, 1000 kills per day. It makes a big difference whether the player was active for 3 hours or 18 hours to achieve this. At the moment, this information is not available through the api.

[MedievalThings.5417]

How about we just remove ALL scoring except kills for score.  That way, blob servers can't farm bags all day and still throw the match to avoid mag.

[Dawdler.8521]

27 minutes ago, MedievalThings.5417 said:

How about we just remove ALL scoring except kills for score.  That way, blob servers can't farm bags all day and still throw the match to avoid mag.

Making the entire goal of WvW to avoid fights in order to not give the enemy any points is going to go great 👍

[Mabi black.1824]

36 minutes ago, MedievalThings.5417 said:

How about we just remove ALL scoring except kills for score.  That way, blob servers can't farm bags all day and still throw the match to avoid mag.

In fact this shifts little or nothing in reference to what I have suggested. Even if we hypothetically decide that the score is only defined by PPK, at the end of the week the PPK still defines a team's victory points. Those victory points should still go through the 'competition coefficient' to be stripped of quantity and define the quality of a team. You have twice as many victory points, so you got twice as many PPK as your enemy , because you play a 100 vs 50 week? Or because you played 50 vs 50 but were actually 2 times better?

[Zyreva.1078]

I don't need anet to know that the vast majority of players doesn't play very "efficiently" (in terms of scoring). I also don't care that my server doesn't play efficiently - i mean, why should i care? It's not something i can influence a whole lot anyway, so if i start caring it would just lead to frustration. And the only "solution" would be to transfer to a better server - then get bored to death.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Zyreva.1078

[Mabi black.1824]

26 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

I don't need anet to know that the vast majority of players doesn't play very "efficiently" (in terms of scoring). I also don't care that my server doesn't play efficiently - i mean, why should i care? It's not something i can influence a whole lot anyway.

Let's say that if I look at WVW from your perspective, why do we actually deliver victory points to teams every 2 hours? Why do we have a total of victory points at the end of the week and therefore 1 up and 1 down? And come to think of it, why do you have to try to take your tower and maybe put some content in this mode. I mean why should I care? I don't have the power to influence a 24/7 game much. It's certainly a legitimate view, of course, but frankly it almost makes you want to play WVW.

[fuchsia.4369]

Does it have to be server based? I’d rather see some form of guild based competition that leads into alliance based(when ever that happens) Revamp the claim system, let guilds claim multiple objectives, gain increased rewards per objective held for X amount of time. Give guild stats so you can see this guild held x amount of  objectives for x amount of time. Make is more worth while to capture an objective the longer it’s been held. Give some sort of reward that is better dependent on which tier you are in and if your the top of t1, something with bragging rights like an smc skin with tiers idk. So now if you want the best rewards you need to be in the best tier, best tier requires the best alliances best alliances require the best guilds/players with well rounded time zones  if you or your guild  don’t care about being the best or getting the best rewards then you’ll go to the lower tiers with servers or alliances/guilds that have roughly the same guild stats. Hopefully the higher tiers would balance themselves out and the lowers would get adjusted  with players that don’t claim a guild to run wvw with. Just a thought probably wouldn’t work out like that. 

[Mabi black.1824]

6 hours ago, fuchsia.4369 said:

Does it have to be server based? I’d rather see some form of guild based competition

Is there a place in the official GW2 forum or in the official GW2 website where you can see/compare guild statistics as you say?

[Mabi black.1824]

Well, I have the impression that the small community that participates in the forum has no interest in the competitive part of this mode. Yet it would be enough to add two columns of data and information in addition to the victory points. Probably also simple to get. For example it would be so funny to find in the current EU  T4 as FSP that it is kicked into T5 (because without a match) through a competition coefficient it could prove to be 2 times better than Ar+FR

using this only as an example since FSP doesn't have a pairing. but it's better not to know. It's best to keep your eyes closed. More information in the hands of players is not good.✌️

Edited October 20, 2023 by Mabi black.1824

[blp.3489]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Well, I have the impression that the small community that participates in the forum has no interest in the competitive part of this mode.

I suspect that it is more a case of the competition isn't really credible enough to take seriously.  Picture a 24/7 soccer match where the number of people on each team varies with the time of day and day of week, sometimes you show up and there are two of you playing against a full team opposition, sometime you have a full team and the opposition is a few stragglers.  How seriously would you take the score at the end of the week?  Add in a third team that may either gang up on you or gang up with you and really, what conclusions or sense of pride can you draw from the results?  Personally I mostly just want to evaluate "how did I do under the circumstances I found myself in?"

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

This would be fine if there was only the competitive type in wvw, but there is much more. You have people that play for rewards, people that play for fun, people that play for fights, people that play for "fights", you have people that love big fights, you have people that hate big fights, you have people that love small fights, and people that hate small fights, you have people that roam solo, you have people that suck solo, you have guilds that hunt other guilds, you have guilds that hunt only pugs, you have players that have no idea what they're doing, you have players that only play if there is a tag to follow, you have people that fair weather, and last but not least all of the above can fair weather at any time.

 

Unless you can factor in all these variables, we won't know the truth of any one server. Oh I forgot people who transfer, damnit.

 

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

Honestly I wanted the skirmish reward track to have a server pool based on ppt+kills+objective captures and defenses and then divide that by player every five minutes. That way zerg servers have to share with the zerg, and would also encourage people to play during weak time zones for more rewards. 

Also a 3rd reward based on victory in tier would be nice

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

I suspect that it is more a case of the competition isn't really credible enough to take seriously.  Picture a 24/7 soccer match where the number of people on each team varies with the time of day and day of week, sometimes you show up and there are two of you playing against a full team opposition, sometime you have a full team and the opposition is a few stragglers.  How seriously would you take the score at the end of the week?  Add in a third team that may either gang up on you or gang up with you and really, what conclusions or sense of pride can you draw from the results?  Personally I mostly just want to evaluate "how did I do under the circumstances I found myself in?"

Well, 24/7 weekly matches are a feature of our game mode. They invest my server but they also affect all the other servers. In the same way, throughout the 1-week period, we all know that the number of players changes, continuously, alternating between moments of superiority and moments of inferiority. This is also a feature of our game mode. This also affects my server but also all the other servers.

My suggestion doesn't change any of that, at the end of the week we will still have the total victory points, which defines who won and who lost the weekly game. But since we know that Anet already has all the tools available to read the streams of all the teams (players and hours of play) if we use this information to ''filter'' the victory points 1 hour before the weekend reset, we allow the players to verify/understand how they handled the weekly game. We should get a much more credible comparison than the one match we have now ''Victory Points''

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:

This would be fine if there was only the competitive type in wvw, but there is much more. You have people that play for rewards, people that play for fun, people that play for fights, people that play for "fights", you have people that love big fights, you have people that hate big fights, you have people that love small fights, and people that hate small fights, you have people that roam solo, you have people that suck solo, you have guilds that hunt other guilds, you have guilds that hunt only pugs, you have players that have no idea what they're doing, you have players that only play if there is a tag to follow, you have people that fair weather, and last but not least all of the above can fair weather at any time.

 

Unless you can factor in all these variables, we won't know the truth of any one server. Oh I forgot people who transfer, damnit.

 

Also all this description of yours of WVW and all the different things that you can find in it, affect all the servers. All the teams have all the diversity you have described. beautiful, and woe betide you if it weren't.

But, albeit in a different way, all those players are still influencing the final outcome of the win points. If you kill someone by yourself you get points. If you kill someone on a small scale, you get points. If you kill someone on a large scale, you still get points. If you defend a structure, you get points. If you attack a structure, you still get points. So, whether they like it or not, they're all playing as intended.

They are all involved in a large-scale competition, defined at the end of the week by the total victory points. You can invent and build as many sandcastles as you want. But WVW is pretty much that. Of course, you get there in many different ways. But that remains.

Now, since the information on the streams (players and hours of play) Anet already has them available, I'm just throwing in the suggestion to use this data, and give the players, a better, more credible comparison. Because it gives you the opportunity to purify our current score from the ''variable'' of quantity and better show you the quality of the teams.

[Zyreva.1078]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

 we allow the players to verify/understand how they handled the weekly game.

No. A server wide indicator of how efficient said server was at average doesn't say anything about the performance of individual players. If my server has a low "efficiency score" it doesn't say anything about my own performance, same when it has a high score. Ofc there will be players that use a score like that in oder to pat themselves on the shoulder, and claim they are better than someone else, when in reality said score says as much about their performance as other indicators we have such as victory points or k/d.

Since a score like that wouldn't actually give players feedback about their own performance, therefore not incentivizing improvement and "tryharding" (but potentially giving players another reason to bandwagon, after all that's the only way to get a better "team") and it also doesn't work well for matchmaking purposes - what's the point?

[Cyninja.2954]

Until there is a system in place which makes competing not as much dependant on numbers per side and thus entirely open to manipulation, no one is going to take the competitive nature serious of a mode. 

Once some basics are implemented which guarantee less manipulation possibilities, that might change.

As far as scoring, I like the way Eve Online handles this, scoring corporations (their form of guilds) based on their performance. This approach would obviously lend itsself far more towards a system which is centered around guilds.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Mabi black.1824]

11 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

No. A server wide indicator of how efficient said server was at average doesn't say anything about the performance of individual players.

Yes, this is true. But we're not talking about offering better feedback to the individual player. We're talking about giving teams a better comparison, as a whole. After all, this is a large-scale PvP game. although you can play it yourself.

 

14 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

what's the point?

The point is to offer a better server-based comparison. We filter the victory points to obtain a more credible value, purified of the ''quantity'' factor that comes closest to the ''quality'' value. The point is to give an extra tool for comparison, as usual, to involve players and stimulate them to participate.

Nothing so earth-shattering, I suppose. And above all, easy work for development, something new for WVW.

[Zyreva.1078]

3 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

The point is to give an extra tool for comparison, as usual, to involve players and stimulate them to participate.

But since it wouldn't actually tell players more about their "quality" than those metrics we already have access to, why would it lead to more "involvement and stimulation"? If you want to compare servers so desperately, just use whatever information we have now (and make sure to pick whatever makes your server look best).