Coefficient of competition and competition points.

[Mabi black.1824]

3 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

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).

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

Sorry but if we use Anet's punctual and accurate flow data and use it to filter our victory points, we are using simple math. It shouldn't bring any weird mistakes. How can you say we don't get anything out of this. when we practically cancel out the quantitative factor. What you're left with should only be a qualitative number. If you have more points at that point, for the same flow, it should tell you how much better you were (at killing enemies) rather than organized (because you brought people together) rather than effective (because you defended or attacked with cunning).

[Zyreva.1078]

7 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

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

Sorry but if we use Anet's punctual and accurate flow data and use it to filter our victory points, we are using simple math. It shouldn't bring any weird mistakes. How can you say we don't get anything out of this. when we practically cancel out the quantitative factor. What you're left with should only be a qualitative number. If you have more points at that point, for the same flow, it should tell you how much better you were (at killing enemies) rather than organized (because you brought people together) rather than effective (because you defended or attacked with cunning).

Let's assume we get that information - and your server ends up at the bottom of the barrel - what would you do? And if your server ends up at the top instead, would you do something different? And if yes, why?

Also, if i'm winning outnumbered fights and/or taking structures while at a numerical disadvantage i already know that i'm doing better than my opposition, regardless what any score might say. Likewise if you are losing fights/structures while outnumbering or generally having to bring more players than neccessary to do stuff that can be done with less, you aren't playing very efficient and having a good score at the end of the week doesn't change anything about that.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Zyreva.1078

[Mabi black.1824]

23 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Until there is a system in place which makes competing not as much dependant on numbers per side and thus entirely open to manipulation

I'm proposing a method that literally goes beyond the concept of numbers, the quantitative aspect and how it influences the outcome of our weekly matches. Because I use stream reading, which Anet has repeatedly stated to have under its radar. It has the ability to tell you tiocators and playtime for each server. while we wait for whatever you prefer to implement or modify in this mode. Can we take advantage of the data that Anet already has? And offer a better comparison or even just a new comparison to the players?

[Dawdler.8521]

15 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

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

Sorry but if we use Anet's punctual and accurate flow data and use it to filter our victory points, we are using simple math. It shouldn't bring any weird mistakes.

So for arguments in your example of a match ending up 310 vs 300  vs 260 VPs or something like that you're saying that the winner - which barely won against the second place despite apparently needing to fight much harder than them with twice the hours put in - is actually the competetive looser?

[Mabi black.1824]

12 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

Let's assume we get that information - and your server ends up at the bottom of the barrel - what would you do? And if your server ends up at the top instead, would you do something different? And if yes, why?

Just because the players will have new information related to the 'quality of their team' I am sure that it leads to the players themselves being more involved. We're not changing anything to our mode. If with this information you realize that your team is at the bottom of the barrel, you will have the obvious opportunity to change something in your strategy, rather than in your guild's strategy. You will be stimulated to change.

If you're at the top of the leaderboard and maybe in the middle of a 6-month no-link period, you'll be able to keep your people together better. Because we lose all the time week in and week out, but we're playing well, we have a very good competition score. etc etc

I don't understand why if we offer something more to the player in terms of comparison, you have to get something bad.

[Zyreva.1078]

You didn't answer my questions. I don't want to know what you think other's will do (which cetainly does not apply to myself). What would you do? And why? I want an actual example of what you would change in your gameplay based on some sort of "quality score" and why you would need said score in oder to make that change.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Zyreva.1078

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

4 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

 

I don't understand why if we offer something more to the player in terms of comparison, you have to get something bad.

Because it could have the dps meter effect, which gave players tools to judge how well they were doing or areas to improve, but also had the negative effect of showing how bad some people were who were then effectively cut out of groups and runs whether it was pve(where it happened first), and even wvw(which eventually followed).

[Mabi black.1824]

6 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

You didn't answer my questions. I don't want to know what you think other's will do (which cetainly does not apply to myself). What would you do? And why? I want an actual example of what you would change in your gameplay based on some sort of "quality score" and why you would need said score in oder to make that change.

so let's see. what would I do? right now I don't know what I would do. at the moment the feedback on our scores at the end of the week are too clouded by ''quantity'' if you give me access to new info, I will need to look at it for several weeks. 

for example, if I've spent the last two weeks focusing on offense, and I see a ''competition score'' that sucks. I may decide to try 2 weeks focusing on the defense and see what changes.

or I might find that it is more profitable to defend a home t3 than to capture more t0 structures on the enemy border. so my choices as I play will be different, based on what I've learned about the new info. ect ect

and why I do it. I think it's quite natural to try to improve yourself. set yourself goals. try to do something good for your team. This mode is team pvp. my suggestion goes in the direction of stimulating players, participation, common objectives, things of this type in short.

[Mabi black.1824]

2 hours ago, Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:

Because it could have the dps meter effect, which gave players tools to judge how well they were doing or areas to improve, but also had the negative effect of showing how bad some people were who were then effectively cut out of groups and runs whether it was pve(where it happened first), and even wvw(which eventually followed).

I don't agree with this. if you are an inclusive player, or if you are in an inclusive rather than exclusive guild, it does not depend on whether you have more or less parameters available to the player. It just depends on what you or your group are like.

stimulate or improve competition, the comparison between teams does not mean transforming our modality into something bad or toxic. what matters is participating in the competition, not necessarily winning.

[Zyreva.1078]

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

for example, if I've spent the last two weeks focusing on offense, and I see a ''competition score'' that sucks. I may decide to try 2 weeks focusing on the defense and see what changes.

or I might find that it is more profitable to defend a home t3 than to capture more t0 structures on the enemy border. so my choices as I play will be different, based on what I've learned about the new info. ect ect

But we already came to the conclusion that said score won't give you feedback about how efficient you are playing, no? So said score won't tell you if focusing on defending or attacking is better (also it is most likely situational and there is no "doing x is always better").

1 hour ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I think it's quite natural to try to improve yourself. set yourself goals. try to do something good for your team.

Then why aren't you doing just that?

Since we have played against each other a few times, i can tell you that chasing arround solo players or a small grp with 3-10+ times as many players isn't efficient. Losing even fights or even with double to triple numbers isn't efficient. Pvdooring undefended paper structures and camps with 10+ players isn't efficient. There you've got your information, no need for any server score to figure that out, and much more accurate anyway. Feel free to use that as incentive to improve. Or continue as usual, realising that it doesn't actually matter and getting better at the game isn't what you are really looking for. Otherwise you wouldn't be so focused on something that is not impacted by your own performance. It would be an illusion, nothing else.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Zyreva.1078

[Mabi black.1824]

14 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

But we already came to the conclusion that said score won't give you feedback about how efficient you are playing, no?

I would say no. I took the victory points at the end of the week and filtered them by a coefficient determined by the flow (players and hours played) in an inversely proportional way. therefore the result I obtain is definitely much more interesting on a competitive level.

[Mabi black.1824]

15 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

There you've got your information, no need for any server score to figure that out, and much more accurate anyway. Feel free to use that as incentive to improve.

yours are just guesses. like me you have no idea how you can change your game strategy and what feedback you get from other teams. because we never had it. the result of our matches has always been overshadowed by quantity. mine is just a suggestion to give some more information to the players. nothing more . nothing less.

[Mabi black.1824]

On 10/21/2023 at 1:40 PM, Dawdler.8521 said:

So for arguments in your example of a match ending up 310 vs 300  vs 260 VPs or something like that you're saying that the winner - which barely won against the second place despite apparently needing to fight much harder than them with twice the hours put in - is actually the competetive looser?

dear dawdler, you must excuse me but I missed your reply along the way. I'll answer you with another question. Let's pretend we're comparing any two servers. one at the end of the week has a total of 300 victory points the second has a total of 250 victory points.

the first server features a weekend stream of 2000 hours played. the second server has a weekend flow of 1000 hours played. Therefore. which server played best?

[Dawdler.8521]

58 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

dear dawdler, you must excuse me but I missed your reply along the way. I'll answer you with another question. Let's pretend we're comparing any two servers. one at the end of the week has a total of 300 victory points the second has a total of 250 victory points.

the first server features a weekend stream of 2000 hours played. the second server has a weekend flow of 1000 hours played. Therefore. which server played best?

Simple answer: impossible to say because the score in relation to hours over a period say nothing about who played “best”.

For starters you picked weekend specifically for some reason - what’s the hours over the week then? Are you judging a server purely on their weekend performance? 300 vs 250 is also still fairly close - there is 85 something skirmishes if I am not mistaken which means the two has traded wins. You seem to have forgotten that WvW is 3 worlds fighting, is the third the winner? Looser? Second place? It matters due to way only 1 point differ…Then it’s just a matter of perspective - if a server need to put in twice as many hours to compete with another, which of them rose to the challenge and put in the work? As you said in the first post - its a team mode after all.

Or is your example two random worlds in different matchups (would explain why we are missing a third I guess)? In that case the comparison is absolutely useless because hours in comparison to VPs would only be comparable within a matchup because it’s using all 3 as reference points to each other to deem their “worth”, but then see the previous mentioned flaws.

Your perfect math is missing a variable or ten.

If a roamer is made of such pure awesome he can beat enemies with ease 1v5 in every fight but the enemies always engage him 6v1 because they know this, which side is playing the best? 

[InappropriateInnuendo.1395]

Most people won't care about the scoring until there is a reward incentive. If there is a reward incentive then most people will rush to join the winning server. And all the people who missed joining the winning server will come here to complain about losing.

[Mabi black.1824]

19 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Simple answer: impossible to say because the score in relation to hours over a period say nothing about who played “best”.

For starters you picked weekend specifically for some reason - what’s the hours over the week then? Are you judging a server purely on their weekend performance? 300 vs 250 is also still fairly close - there is 85 something skirmishes if I am not mistaken which means the two has traded wins. You seem to have forgotten that WvW is 3 worlds fighting, is the third the winner? Looser? Second place? It matters due to way only 1 point differ…Then it’s just a matter of perspective - if a server need to put in twice as many hours to compete with another, which of them rose to the challenge and put in the work? As you said in the first post - its a team mode after all.

Or is your example two random worlds in different matchups (would explain why we are missing a third I guess)? In that case the comparison is absolutely useless because hours in comparison to VPs would only be comparable within a matchup because it’s using all 3 as reference points to each other to deem their “worth”, but then see the previous mentioned flaws.

Your perfect math is missing a variable or ten.

If a roamer is made of such pure awesome he can beat enemies with ease 1v5 in every fight but the enemies always engage him 6v1 because they know this, which side is playing the best? 

So, when I say that a server has played better, I do so with reference to the only parameter that we have available today. Victory points. When I indicate a team's playing hours, I mean the total hours played throughout the week period, from the reset to one hour before the next reset. Keep in mind that they are random numbers that I put there just to understand the concept that such numbers lead you to. and when I compare any two servers, Certainly indenouncing two servers that played in the same game. I don't consider the third server, because I'm only comparing 2 servers at that time. I don't care how much the third server influenced that result, because all our games are 3-way, it's a variable that we all suffer in the same way no one excluded (it's also a nice moto variable in my opinion) so I don't consider it.

I don't understand what other math you need. You take the victory points, apply the flow coefficient to them, and you get a new ''Competitive'' points column.

[Mabi black.1824]

18 hours ago, InappropriateInnuendo.1395 said:

Most people won't care about the scoring until there is a reward incentive. If there is a reward incentive then most people will rush to join the winning server. And all the people who missed joining the winning server will come here to complain about losing.

My suggestion helps you get out of this long Toonel you described. Victory points will be filtered by a coefficient that measures how much the 'winners' train' has piled up to the impossible. with the result that they will most likely be at the bottom of the barrel in the ''competitive'' ranking. If you also put some sort of prize, we could get the interesting result that players redistribute themselves better, on their own, without weird development work. 

And if you think about it for a moment, we could also see the transfer madness scale back. Because if you hand out a reward after 12 months and then start over, it's very likely that groups of players will only choose 1 server for the season, or throw their time in the trash. in terms of competition.

[Mabi black.1824]

therefore? development guys please if you're there give it a shot. Can we have a couple more columns on our scoring system? Easy to make for you? Can you get an extra comparison tool in this PvP game mode? Mode under maintenance? Any sort of investment in WVW currently suspended?

[InappropriateInnuendo.1395]

On 10/21/2023 at 7:17 AM, Mabi black.1824 said:

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

Sorry but if we use Anet's punctual and accurate flow data and use it to filter our victory points, we are using simple math. It shouldn't bring any weird mistakes. How can you say we don't get anything out of this. when we practically cancel out the quantitative factor. What you're left with should only be a qualitative number. If you have more points at that point, for the same flow, it should tell you how much better you were (at killing enemies) rather than organized (because you brought people together) rather than effective (because you defended or attacked with cunning).

Most servers are filled with camp flippers that go limp when you attack them, their only objective is to grind Gifts of Battle. There is no reason for me to believe my server or 6/8 servers have any shot at coming in first. It would be in my best interest to jump to the server that will win. While I might not get anything for the first year, I will be more confident that I can get something next time, rather than for sure lose on my old server.

[Barraind.7324]

  

On 10/18/2023 at 8:03 AM, TheIceman.1039 said:

For example, on NA servers where everyone else competes with each other not to go tier 1 for God's sake.

Theres a large debate raging in t3 right now if we should throw and stay t3 after most people get their weekly chests done or if we want to be pushed up to a tier we have about half the activity of. 

 

The way WvW works right now just doesnt. 

[Mabi black.1824]

20 hours ago, Barraind.7324 said:

  

Theres a large debate raging in t3 right now if we should throw and stay t3 after most people get their weekly chests done or if we want to be pushed up to a tier we have about half the activity of. 

 

The way WvW works right now just doesnt. 

You're right inside the perimeter, so I'm suggesting that Anet give us an upgrade to our good old scoreboard. I'm not saying that it solves all the messes (even funny ones) that you find inside WVW, but it could help. You could put your carrot tied to that new point parameter and help/stimulate players to play the mode, rather than manipulating it.

[joneirikb.7506]

Since you started leaking over to another thread:

You want a numeric stat that basically tells you which server outnumbers each others.
* It's still irrelevant for scoring, as it doesn't change scoring in any way.
* The majority of players doesn't even care about scoring, they're not going to care about another metric that isn't even relevant to winning.
* Most players are just going to look at that, see they're outnumbered, and leave.
* Effectively, it's the same purpose as comparing kill/death ratio (only use bragging)

Considering WvW is a Team mode, and win/loss is determined by the entire team (population/coverage), metrics should be team based as well, and relevant to what wins/loses the match. So by that definition, what we should have a metric for is "Coverage". The problem with that, is that most players when up against a server that they can see has better coverage than they have, just give up and skips playing that week.

So, considering the utter lack of the average players interest in winning/losing/competing in WvW, having a "coverage metric" would be a negative thing, since then players would just play less.

Which leads to an interesting point, the average player might actually get MORE motivated to play, if ANet removed Points entirely so you can't see who wins. (This has been proven in several other types of games, that if you hide the score until the end, players are more engaged until the end.)

[ilMasa.2546]

You gotta also keep in mind that some servers  dont want to get to a specific tier because "insert any reason", and so they just forfeit that current matchup to stay where they theink have a better experience?!.
TBH I'm more interested in understanding what parameters Anet uses to decide server pairings: idk some matchups makes no kittening sense (population wise)

Edited November 6, 2023 by ilMasa.2546

[Mabi black.1824]

On 11/6/2023 at 7:01 PM, joneirikb.7506 said:

This has been proven in several other types of games, that if you hide the score until the end, players are more engaged until the end

This is certainly interesting

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

On 11/5/2023 at 4:14 PM, Barraind.7324 said:

  

Theres a large debate raging in t3 right now if we should throw and stay t3 after most people get their weekly chests done or if we want to be pushed up to a tier we have about half the activity of. 

 

The way WvW works right now just doesnt. 

Great ending statement!