So let's talk Scoring

[One more for the road.8950]

3 hours ago, Safty.7326 said:

If you leave ebg once in awhile you might find the fight guild community in the borderlands 

As for useful roamer/scouts/havoc don't you mean useless as the best they can do is back cap and pvd. Where a dozen or so players could make a keep a drawn-out fight, is now just a bag farm for the other team if you bother defending.

I like your optimism, but it is not what I am seeing in match ups.

But it's still nothing to do with world restructuring, what you mention in the post before was happening before world restructuring.

[Safty.7326]

3 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

But it's still nothing to do with world restructuring, what you mention in the post before was happening before world restructuring.

Yes, agreed this is not new as nerfs have only improved the ease of blobs taking objectives. However, the frequency of these blobs has only exploded since it is much easier to do with the alliance system in what seems like all tiers. This in turn exasperates what I mentioned as reported by many.

Btw the world restructuring has been ongoing since the announcement of upcoming wvw alliances. Like any game with devs they have a vision. A road map and a lot of small changes to get there before acceleration.

Edited July 10 by Safty.7326

[Sviel.7493]

13 hours ago, Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:

Did you miss the part where the wxp gets split? If you are 1 person in a 50 man squad you get 1/50 of the wxp. No more of this zerg gets 100% credit for everything they do/kill. Killing one player that gives 100 wxp shouldn't mean everybody in a squad gets 100 wxp, its one of the reasons zergs exist, there is little to no downside.

And for anyone not in the squad...?  Or what if you have 60 people on the map?  Organizing for best WXP gain will be opposed with organizing for effectiveness.  Most likely, you end up with one real squad and some leftovers.

Adding scouts into your squad will lower the average WXP gain for everyone so that's probably not happening.  And roamers can't easily assimilate into the squad meta either.

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

8 minutes ago, Sviel.7493 said:

And for anyone not in the squad...?  Or what if you have 60 people on the map?  Organizing for best WXP gain will be opposed with organizing for effectiveness.  Most likely, you end up with one real squad and some leftovers.

Adding scouts into your squad will lower the average WXP gain for everyone so that's probably not happening.  And roamers can't easily assimilate into the squad meta either.

Rewards would be given to those who PARTICIPATED in the attack/defense event or kill, not the squad. Understanding that should answer your other And yes, organizing for wxp and effectiveness are suppose to oppose each other in this system, instead of going hand in hand like they always have during the game's lifetime. 

[Dawdler.8521]

9 hours ago, Safty.7326 said:

If you leave ebg once in awhile you might find the fight guild community in the borderlands 

As for useful roamer/scouts/havoc don't you mean useless as the best they can do is back cap and pvd. Where a dozen or so players could make a keep a drawn-out fight, is now just a bag farm for the other team if you bother defending.

I like your optimism, but it is not what I am seeing in match ups.

I am very rarely on EBG (usually only to finish weekly kills since roaming at quiet times on DBL doesnt exactly rack it up). I've gone literal months without even doing the SM cap. Ironically I've probably complete tower guardian more and even those are 0/8 most weeks due to the way it works since I'm usually too far outside the objective engaging those sieging instead of hugging the walls. So keep assuming how others play the game.

Maybe your team just have useless roamers I dont know. 🤷‍♂️

My old world had terrible ones too with basicly no smaller havocs (if we had the fortune of having DBL as HBL, we could barely defend against 5 people some days since incidentally the world also hated DBL). The team I'm in now has considerably better roamers. As mentioned, it's the same kitten players it's just that the distribution differ. If they are useless now, they where useless before.

My personal experience is that I am seeing alot more ~20-30 man groups and far less 50 mans. In fact I cant remember the last time I saw a real stacked boonblob these last weeks. The caveat is that the extra tier does really spread out overall off prime activity too thin and I do think that Anet should remove it again. Being in the middle of vacation season - where people on the forums have proclaimed WvW dead every year for the last 12 years as if it's some kind of unknown mysterious extinction event - doesnt exactly help, nor does all the other ongoing events.

[Safty.7326]

5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I am very rarely on EBG (usually only to finish weekly kills since roaming at quiet times on DBL doesnt exactly rack it up). I've gone literal months without even doing the SM cap. Ironically I've probably complete tower guardian more and even those are 0/8 most weeks due to the way it works since I'm usually too far outside the objective engaging those sieging instead of hugging the walls. So keep assuming how others play the game.

Maybe your team just have useless roamers I dont know. 🤷‍♂️

My old world had terrible ones too with basicly no smaller havocs (if we had the fortune of having DBL as HBL, we could barely defend against 5 people some days since incidentally the world also hated DBL). The team I'm in now has considerably better roamers. As mentioned, it's the same kitten players it's just that the distribution differ. If they are useless now, they where useless before.

My personal experience is that I am seeing alot more ~20-30 man groups and far less 50 mans. In fact I cant remember the last time I saw a real stacked boonblob these last weeks. The caveat is that the extra tier does really spread out overall off prime activity too thin and I do think that Anet should remove it again. Being in the middle of vacation season - where people on the forums have proclaimed WvW dead every year for the last 12 years as if it's some kind of unknown mysterious extinction event - doesnt exactly help, nor does all the other ongoing events.

I really hope this is what the majority of players in wvw mode are experiencing and the echo chamber of forum complaints are the minority.

As for me raid logging, till the 4-week cycle gives me something of what you're seeing is fine. 

Plus plenty of time to do more map completion, there is always a positive.

[igmolicious.5986]

5 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

My personal experience is that I am seeing alot more ~20-30 man groups and far less 50 mans. In fact I cant remember the last time I saw a real stacked boonblob these last weeks. The caveat is that the extra tier does really spread out overall off prime activity too thin and I do think that Anet should remove it again. Being in the middle of vacation season - where people on the forums have proclaimed WvW dead every year for the last 12 years as if it's some kind of unknown mysterious extinction event - doesnt exactly help, nor does all the other ongoing events.

This was (with like 1 exception) my experience too, until our team got up to t1. Now, during most of the main time I play (new prime time hours in the pop weighting from the stream), it's 50-person enemy zergs in all but maybe 1 map, and our team just doesn't have the people to fight them in more than 1 map (maybe a few days on 2 maps), so most of our solo/small guild people just cap objectives that we can and try to get respawns from fights between the enemy zergs and every one else joins whatever major guild is zerging until that map queues. Again, this is the the only tier that's been like this (had one other that was very large population difference, but that was ONLY during prime time, and usually only for part of that), so I am hopeful that when we get resorted there will be better information for better team distributions.

 

Side note: the enemy team that is less stacked is set to be moving down, but only really due to the more stacked enemy team's largest guild deciding to only work against them to sort of sabotage them out of t1.

Edited July 10 by igmolicious.5986

[Cameirus.8407]

so....not only is wvw made worse as an experience by the restructure thing, they now want to make it unrewarding.

So, not only do we have the direct destruction of casual wvw play and easy of entry by the restructuring, but now you have to basically play the busy hours, when there are queues, to make any impact at all. off hours play will be even more deserted. I cant honestly think why anet only seem to listen to the most "hardcore" organised group players and ignore everyone else and seem to want to destroy every community every casual players experience.

just delete it altogether anet, its obviously your long term aim.

Edited July 11 by Cameirus.8407

[Chaba.5410]

17 hours ago, Cameirus.8407 said:

now you have to basically play the busy hours, when there are queues, to make any impact at all. off hours play will be even more deserted. I cant honestly think why anet only seem to listen to the most "hardcore" organised group players and ignore everyone else and seem to want to destroy every community every casual players experience.

If you came across something ingame that was considered overpowered, like a skill on a single profession doing massive amounts of damage or "impact", wouldn't you want it nerfed?

[Solvar.7953]

This seems like something of an odd change - I suppose it is to make it so that a small group playing at extreme off hours who flips most of the map doesn't get as much of a reward.

But it seems to me, they should try to encourage playing off hours, and not discourage it.  This change could have the effect of making off hours even more dead.

Though I'd be tempted to do something extreme like reverse pip scoring based on placement - last place gets more pips, first place gets fewer, to encourage those in last place to join the battle, and not encourage even more folks to join when their team is in first place.  Or change scoring so capping/killing on the last place team gets one less points than capping/killing the first place team.

 

[Cameirus.8407]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

If you came across something ingame that was considered overpowered, like a skill on a single profession doing massive amounts of damage or "impact", wouldn't you want it nerfed?

I dont get your point? its absurd if its what I think it is.

You are penalising people for having the same life schedule as others. If you play in off hours, you get penalised, your contribution is less. Its not saying "you can use this ability, but between the hours of 9am to 4pm it does 80% less dmg ok?",

the way to "fix" this is not scoring penalties. its changing how objectives work, and how blobbing and kill counts interact with scoring and distort is absurdly.

Its a cheap, lazy "fix" that will cause many issues.

[DeWolfe.2174]

18 hours ago, Cameirus.8407 said:

I cant honestly think why anet only seem to listen to the most "hardcore" organised group players and ignore everyone else and seem to want to destroy every community every casual players experience.

Pretty much this! The dev's appear to be listening to a handful of tags/streamers who want turn WvW into some super sweetie competitive mode that only matters for a fraction of the day.

PvP is a dead mode even after giving them so much more than WvW.
Raids/Strikes are a tiny community even after given them so much more than WvW.

Yet, the dev's seem to be trying to change WvW into a mode for only the PvP/Raid types.
It makes zero sense 🙄

[DeWolfe.2174]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

If you came across something ingame that was considered overpowered, like a skill on a single profession doing massive amounts of damage or "impact", wouldn't you want it nerfed?

Every hour of the day contributed equally. It was perfectly balance as it was equal.

Now players who live in other parts of the world are being discriminated against as they value less than other players.
That's toxic for any company!

[Chaba.5410]

5 minutes ago, DeWolfe.2174 said:

Every hour of the day contributed equally.

Not true.  If you didn't play in off-hours, you were worthless.

[Chaba.5410]

21 minutes ago, Cameirus.8407 said:

You are penalising people for having the same life schedule as others.

Primetime skirmishes are penalized for being more populous than off-hour skirmishes just because of where someone lives.  Lower populated skirmishes are OP in the current scoring system.  It's like your skill damage increases because you play off-hours.  If you're currently doing 80% more damage between 9am and 4pm compared to primetime, it should get nerfed.

Edited July 11 by Chaba.5410

[DeWolfe.2174]

18 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Not true.  If you didn't play in off-hours, you were worthless.

Who's "off-hours"????? 🤔

Your night is their day.
Their day is your night.

There's no such thing as "off-hours" at all!!!

They dev's have been bullied into discriminating and valuing their paying customers differently based on geographic location. If that's the case then those discriminated against should be getting a discount on the purchase price of the game, the gems store, and gem prices.

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/10/2024 at 3:01 AM, Safty.7326 said:

As for useful roamer/scouts/havoc don't you mean useless as the best they can do is back cap and pvd. Where a dozen or so players could make a keep a drawn-out fight, is now just a bag farm for the other team if you bother defending.

This depends on a number of factors. The effectiveness of the havoc groups and roamers. The visibility of tags. The willingness of each group to work together. Whether or not the tag is one that will split their group up based on the numbers they are facing and, communication between groups. It's also about player morale, do they think they can do it and therefore try.

Another side of the the question here is it is easiest to just go with the numbers.  

The other two sides that are in work are, does it matter to win and is there no value in efficiency. We don't know these last two.

I leave out fun, since in however you play if you aren't having fun then, you are doing something wrong in your choices. 

[Chaba.5410]

5 minutes ago, DeWolfe.2174 said:

Who's "off-hours"????? 🤔

Your night is their day.
Their day is your night.

Not this again...

If you can't tell the difference between skirmish population levels across a set of regional worlds, I don't know how to make this clear to you.

[DeWolfe.2174]

Just now, Chaba.5410 said:

Not this again...

Yes, Hi logic again. You want special treatment and others valued less than you. That shouldn't exist.

[Chaba.5410]

6 minutes ago, DeWolfe.2174 said:

Yes, Hi logic again. You want special treatment and others valued less than you. That shouldn't exist.

Off-hours already get special treatment and want players in the most populated skirmishes valued less than them.  That shouldn't exist.  Just using your logic here.

Edited July 11 by Chaba.5410

[TheGrimm.5624]

Just now, Chaba.5410 said:

Off-hours already get special treatment and want primetime valued less than them.  That shouldn't exist.

It is a 24x7 game. Skirm periods already account for this. Anet indicated they are working on balancing the time of play part of the equation. They also created their own kind of limitation though with the comm guilds since these guilds should already be accounting for time of play in their own mix. That shouldn't mean penalizing them for that. But that also may mean adjusting the sorts to account for this causing imbalances in other time zones to try and balance more time zones across the 12 periods in a given day. Using their take away notes it sounds like there is already a bit off they found in their logic for accounting for time of play factors that they are adjusting. 

I don't think scoring should try and balance this, scoring should be even across all 12 periods. 

[Chaba.5410]

33 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

scoring should be even across all 12 periods. 

Skirmish victory points are like a fiat monetary system.  One can perfectly balance across all 12 periods and you'd still have this problem.  You see 4 dollars and think it's equal to 4 dollars from another time.  But when more money is printed, the value drops.  Still says $4 on it, but it doesn't buy you as much.  When more people play in a skirmish, the value drops.  Off-hours players are playing in pre-inflation dollars.  Adjusting the printed score based on skirmish population values corrects this issue.

Edited July 11 by Chaba.5410

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Skirmish victory points are like a fiat monetary system.  One can perfectly balance across all 12 periods and you'd still have this problem.  You see 4 dollars and think it's equal to 4 dollars from another time.  But when more money is printed, the value drops.  Still says $4 on it, but it doesn't buy you as much.  When more people play in a skirmish, the value drops.  Off-hours players are playing in pre-inflation dollars.  Adjusting the printed score based on skirmish population values corrects this issue.

Did you see the scoring change they went with? Just did and is by far even worse than what I would have expected.

[Chaba.5410]

27 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Did you see the scoring change they went with? Just did and is by far even worse than what I would have expected.

Yes.  It's proportional scoring rather than an activity-level based multiplier that TylerB once outlined (even in his proposal both NA and EU primetimes would be locked at max multiplier).  It's proportional to the populations of other skirmishes rather than based on the population in a single skirmish.  TylerB's proposal still would have locked EU and NA prime skirmish at max multiplier regardless of the population in that single skirmish in order to fudge proportionality.

There's an EU player that does a much better job than I at explaining the proportional scoring using data he's pulled from the API for EU matches going back 6 months.  Anet has, of course, the accurate data on play times and hours.  He explained it this way: if 20% of EU activity is in the EU primetime skirmish, then they now will contribute 20% of the VP to the team.  Before they were contributing less than that.

Edited July 11 by Chaba.5410

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Yes.  It's proportional scoring rather than an activity-level based multiplier that TylerB once outlined (even in his proposal both NA and EU primetimes would be locked at max multiplier).  It's proportional to the populations of other skirmishes rather than based on the population in a single skirmish.  TylerB's proposal still would have locked EU and NA prime skirmish at max multiplier regardless of the population in that single skirmish in order to fudge proportionality.

There's an EU player that does a much better job than I at explaining the proportional scoring using data he's pulled from the API for EU matches going back 6 months.  Anet has, of course, the accurate data on play times and hours.  He explained it this way: if 20% of EU activity is in the EU primetime skirmish, then they now will contribute 20% of the VP to the team.  Before they were not contributing as much.

Glad you like it. I must admit they are moving me to the glass half full in the conversations I am sorry to say. Will watch the video but I fear I am going to find even less I like about the logic they use to come to their decisions in game direction. But will add to that after listening to it.