Mabi black.1824 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 35 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said: Proportional scoring finds the distribution of total player activity on all teams across timezones. Then it values each individual skirmish based on what % of player activity each skirmish has. The score should not vary in reference to the time slot, but in reference to how many players the servers are taunting on the battlefield. And what you said and I'm quoting is not true, as the yield or income of the score should not be pre-established with respect to the time slots, but rather with respect to how you have discounted how the servers distribute their hours of play. Example: With the old mechanics of links, I used to play against some servers where the activity grew significantly after 24.00 compared to others where the activity was huge before 18.00 as you can define this a priori. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabi black.1824 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said: It is very difficult to relate to this, Mabi. I can't say I've ever logged in to a game and taken some time to contemplate the meaning of ownership before deciding whether to engage in play. Most players don't question de facto possession in a game. It's like when you play sPvP, your side is given to you. I can't argue with this consideration, but it's definitely a personal matter. But I can tell you that SPVP can't get me involved/participate for the exact same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said: The score should not vary in reference to the time slot, but in reference to how many players the servers are taunting on the battlefield. If you recall the old scoring change proposal from Anet dev TylerB, it would have varied in reference to the activity level in an individual skirmish. So a skirmish where one team had a blob and the other two teams didn't have anyone, the activity level would be "low" and there would have been no score multiplier. If the skirmish had high activity level where all three teams had plenty of players across all maps, the multiplier would have been at max. Yet even with that old proposal, the EU and NA primetime skirmish would have been locked at max even if one or two of the teams were outnumbered. This is because EU and NA prime is still the largest segment of the playing population. Which is better? I haven't formed an opinion yet. Edited July 12 by Chaba.5410 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabi black.1824 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said: If you recall the old scoring change proposal from Anet dev TylerB, it would have varied in reference to the activity level in an individual skirmish. So a skirmish where one team had a blob and the other two teams didn't have anyone, the activity level would be "low" and there would have been no score multiplier. If the skirmish had high activity level where all three teams had plenty of players across all maps, the multiplier would have been at max. Yet even with that old proposal, the EU and NA primetime skirmish would have been locked at max even if one or two of the teams were outnumbered. Which is better? I haven't formed an opinion yet. In short, there are 3 teams, the income of the score should invest all 3 in 3 different ways, in reference to how many players they field. If it's 70 vs 20 vs 20 how would you like to redistribute the score? Will you see if it's 8:30 p.m. on your watch? I don't want to believe it Edited July 12 by Mabi black.1824 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaba.5410 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said: In short, there are 3 teams, the income of the score should invest all 3 in 3 different ways, in reference to how many players they field. If it's 70 vs 20 vs 20 how would you like to redistribute the score? Will you see if it's 8:30 p.m. on your watch? I don't want to believe it That is ripe for player abuse. The team that is losing will tell people to log off so that their score increases. Edited July 12 by Chaba.5410 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 8 hours ago, Zok.4956 said: but we will probably see more Dune Rollers getting a wall/gate below 98% to contest. Dune Rollers (Charr cars) were already top of the list of hit and run and just moved up all the more. So good with that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 7 hours ago, Junkpile.7439 said: Can you kill lord without getting keep contested? Probably. 🤔 No they covered that, that will trigger swords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 6 hours ago, Gorani.7205 said: So many questions about the "new contested mechanic"... New: Several EWP are great, but can you ping them separately (Like EWP east / west /north)? From the stream you can ping them separately and they will take you to the one pinged but they all have the same name for now but will get separate names down the road. They didn't mention the why of different names yet, my guess is they are testing the anchor points to decide if they are where they want them to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 3 hours ago, Symbiosis.8729 said: I watched the stream and a few things confuse me. EU play regularly goes beyond midnight, yet these new time slots let points fall off a cliff at midnight, the US doesn't have this, this was hand waved away as 'only the dev who came up with it understands it' that does not fill me with confidence, they didn't even bother trying to get language match ups in the EU. US same, 3 main time zones, it falls off fast after the first reaches the same point. You can see it at the change of the 9 to 11 PM dips. 3 hours ago, Symbiosis.8729 said: The anti tapping is good. I am not certain this will work as expected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya Whitefire.8423 Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 14 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said: I give up. Mathematics has been around for thousands of years. And in these cases, where you are surrounded by a series of variables and will affect a final score, it is necessary to ''process'' these final scores through mathematical models (coefficients) that vary automatically and proportionally in reference to those variables that you want to cancel, to make a perfect and unequivocal comparison. If you don't want to do it, if you guys don't want to consult a mathematician that is able to provide you with all the knowledge that I see missing. It's impossible to get out of it. And I don't want to offend anyone. I'm sure you guys are first-rate computer technicians, but you need some help with ''mathematical thinking.'' The problem with making it adapt to actual changing conditions, is that it then becomes game-able. So what they did, is probably about as good as you can do within the constraints of a week long match. I'd prefer to see 6-8 hour matches, with the number of tiers changing based on available players in a time zone. Since I think the coverage imbalances are more important to fix, than trying to "save" wvw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabi black.1824 Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 (edited) 4 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said: The problem with making it adapt to actual changing conditions, is that it then becomes game-able I do not agree with that. Victory points can be ''processed'' every day at 24.00 or every Friday evening 60 minutes before the reset. The player can't manipulate anything. He is not aware of how many hours his team is putting in relation to his enemy over a 24-hour period rather than a 7-day period. Here we are talking about giving the player a perfectly comparable score in terms of game knowledge / Gaming Skills and get rid of quantity for good. at least in reference to the score. Because WVW's problem in terms of ''competition'' is not that the numbers of players are different. This is normal, the alternation of overcoming first and inferiority later is the characteristic of WVW. The problem is not knowing which of the 3 teams really won a game. The solution to this, in a transparent and above all unequivocal way, is to use mathematics. If you think you can get it by dissecting your WVW score into time slots, based on an assumption that can also easily not occur, it's not smart. it is too approximate and subjective. and discriminating the player because he works until 24.00 and then starts playing (and maybe he will be 2 hours outnumbered), is really not intelligent. Edited July 13 by Mabi black.1824 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disForm.2837 Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 19 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said: Perfect, so we are varying the score only and exclusively in reference to the time slots, and not in reference to the number of players. So, how 3 servers comparing 25 vs 25 vs 25 where team 1 is winning compared to 3 servers facing each other 50 vs 50 vs 50 where team 3 is winning, explain to me why those players should weigh differently? In terms of scoring? For the first 3 it was easier to capture the enemy Garry compared to the 3 seconds ? Well, it goes both ways, why 25 players should score the same as 50 for similar levels of effort? My individual contribution would be half, while I'm playing as hard. The extreme is completely off prime time. In T2/T3 you can have full maps in all BL during prime time, so easily 250 players for a single team playing, off prime time maybe what, 50? So if score was the same, a player in primetime would contribute 1/5 of those off hours. It's impossible to balance the number of players across all timezones unless they make servers global (ohh, the lag!!). So it's either OCE players having an oversized impact in scoring, overshadowing whatever happens in primetime, much more populated or having OCE players have a much lower impact in scoring. We can't have it both ways, "democratic" scoring and equal individual contribution to the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arya Whitefire.8423 Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 8 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said: I do not agree with that. Victory points can be ''processed'' every day at 24.00 or every Friday evening 60 minutes before the reset. The player can't manipulate anything. He is not aware of how many hours his team is putting in relation to his enemy over a 24-hour period rather than a 7-day period. Here we are talking about giving the player a perfectly comparable score in terms of game knowledge / Gaming Skills and get rid of quantity for good. at least in reference to the score. Because WVW's problem in terms of ''competition'' is not that the numbers of players are different. This is normal, the alternation of overcoming first and inferiority later is the characteristic of WVW. The problem is not knowing which of the 3 teams really won a game. The solution to this, in a transparent and above all unequivocal way, is to use mathematics. If you think you can get it by dissecting your WVW score into time slots, based on an assumption that can also easily not occur, it's not smart. it is too approximate and subjective. and discriminating the player because he works until 24.00 and then starts playing (and maybe he will be 2 hours outnumbered), is really not intelligent. It's really simple, if you know the enemy has a strong guild at such and such an off hours time, you just don't show up. Then the activity is lower, and the score they gain from showing up is lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 Skirmish periods were added to deal with run away matches which for the most part worked. Uneven weighting of periods will have other unintended issues. Take as a simple example of the differences in those that focus PPK and those that are more PPT focused. Most players play the full game mode but giving more weight to certain periods is not going to help in mixing the more extreme mindsets. Fight, take and hold is the key. If it's just fight you have nothing but ganking, if it is just take you have nothing but k-trains. Uneven periods is not going to help in this back and fourth. Even if you go with different weights across times, having large spreads in certain periods is not going to create a healthy environment. Why are we behind 22 points after one skirmish? Well guild 'x' was invis, guild 'y' was the tag, guild 'z' was off ganking, guild 'a' was not present, guild 'b' was hunting a guild from the other side. And so fourth. It will be what it will be but, I think the spreads are a bit far. Again take NA, a 3rd place server that might have been out and present but loses the first 2 periods, they will need to win the next 5 periods to catch back up while keeping the server in first in third place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesione.9412 Posted July 13 Share Posted July 13 6 hours ago, Arya Whitefire.8423 said: It's really simple, if you know the enemy has a strong guild at such and such an off hours time, you just don't show up. Then the activity is lower, and the score they gain from showing up is lower. The problem with that is it means that one time zone would never show up. Off-hours are only relative to one set of time zones. Your off-hours is someone else's main or only time to play. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabi black.1824 Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 On 7/13/2024 at 2:39 PM, disForm.2837 said: Well, it goes both ways, why 25 players should score the same as 50 for similar levels of effort? My individual contribution would be half, while I'm playing as hard. My thought is that your observation is limited. in the sense that you're considering your ''personal productivity,'' and that's the mistake you're making. Victory points are delivered to the server. Not 25 rather than 50 players. In both cases that we mentioned above, players will have to commit in the exact same way if they want to earn points. So their contribution must be identical. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disForm.2837 Posted July 14 Share Posted July 14 5 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said: My thought is that your observation is limited. in the sense that you're considering your ''personal productivity,'' and that's the mistake you're making. Victory points are delivered to the server. Not 25 rather than 50 players. In both cases that we mentioned above, players will have to commit in the exact same way if they want to earn points. So their contribution must be identical. Sure, then it's fair when the vast majority of your team players contribution is nearly useless because it can be erased by a fraction of the players off hours? Team points are composed by "personal productivity", they are not created in a vacuum. It only takes a couple of strong havocs in OCE time to literally wipe any progress made by full maps in primetime. Today nobody cares, but they clearly are going towards rewards for winning. Then it becomes a problem for any shard without off hours presence. And there's just not enough players for every shard. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Routa.8592 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 (edited) On 7/14/2024 at 1:14 AM, Hesione.9412 said: The problem with that is it means that one time zone would never show up. Off-hours are only relative to one set of time zones. Your off-hours is someone else's main or only time to play. This! I´m only able to play in my time zone´s off hours. And I do care about the points. Like when you spend an evening with friends playing a board game, there´s no more incentive needed than we have right now. But with these changes in scoring going live there will be no more motivation to win anymore. Capturing or defending a structure will not matter anymore. So I´m really sad about these upcoming changes cause they don´t let me contribute anything to my team anymore throughout the week. That´s how I feel about this topic. I´d be totally fine with a dynamic scaling of victory points based upon overall activity of all 3 teams though. Edited July 15 by Routa.8592 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabi black.1824 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 (edited) 11 hours ago, disForm.2837 said: Sure, then it's fair when the vast majority of your team players contribution is nearly useless because it can be erased by a fraction of the players off hours? Team points are composed by "personal productivity", they are not created in a vacuum. It only takes a couple of strong havocs in OCE time to literally wipe any progress made by full maps in primetime. Today nobody cares, but they clearly are going towards rewards for winning. Then it becomes a problem for any shard without off hours presence. And there's just not enough players for every shard. It's right and also normal. What's your speech here? Let's take an example. If you play with all your guild friends (70 players filling the entire border map) from 20.00 to 22.00 and assuming you are very good, you win your 5 points. Your Tag goes to sleep and the whole guild disconnects. What is your claim? Have you logged out and still want to influence the score? with your previous actions? Can you see how absurd that is? Let's push ourselves to the limit, points are earned only from 20.00 to 22.00 outside of this time they are worth 0. This is definitely the best way to make the competition more believable in a 24/7 format. Not to mention that we are still handing points to the ''server'' while we just made it ''useless'', so I insist that Anet should finish the job he started and not leave it halfway by building the comparison/competition on guilds/alliances. Edited July 15 by Mabi black.1824 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrimm.5624 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 The time zones should not be fixed points that are rated on expected populations. That allows for stacking. This needs to be dynamic based on numbers at the time. Equal scoring time zones are less likely to abused. Pre-defining zone also encourages stacking. If the system is not dynamic hour by hour it can be abused. Don't favor a time zone over another. Have a dynamic system that compare's numbers are they happen. A 50 v 50 v 50 is the same as a 10 v 10 v 10. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joneirikb.7506 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 The problem with the idea of "dynamic" changes to scoring, is that there are a lot of different ways that can be done, and the quicker it is to adjust, the easier it is to be gamed. If you have a system that changes the current skirmish depending on the current number of players. Then you have a system that encourages the losing players to log off, just to deny the opponent VP. If it changes for the next skirmish, you have a similar situation, where a team will try to stack their prime time, and then just tell everyone to log off afterwards, so the enemy doesn't get more points back while they're off. A dynamic system would need to be "broad" enough in scope that it won't react quickly enough for 1-2 teams. So it would probably end up having to dynamically adjust to "all teams average" anyways, which would basically be the static version we got now. Still not sure what I think of the system yet, but I can see some good reasons for why they did it the way they did. Still a few things I'm undecided about though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabi black.1824 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 50 minutes ago, joneirikb.7506 said: If you have a system that changes the current skirmish depending on the current number of players. Then you have a system that encourages the losing players to log off, just to deny the opponent VP. Let us be a little honest and transparent. A player logs out when they no longer have access to content. there's no one (either on your side or on the enemy side) so I disconnect. If my free time window is 2 hours, I go online and play. Of course I don't give up on this because I have to deny points, especially if I see a tag, rather than defense/attack calls rather than announcements of guild raids in preparation etc etc. On top of all this, I'd like to know what an individual player knows about the hours of gameplay that their server is manifesting for the next 120 minutes. on 4 different maps. What reference can you have? I don't see anyone in EB better to dislodge themselves to deny the points to the enemy? Maybe you have a guild tag hidden on the home border with 60 players? And then if you're outnumbered, the few points you earn will be processed by a good multiplier. So it's worth trying. other than disconnecting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabi black.1824 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 A dynamic points system capable of truly expressing which team is winning, because it frees itself from the variable ''Amount of players'' is what you also need to get out of the Toonel that Anet has taken. Continuing to look at the differences of players lined up, constantly alternating between them as a 'problem'' when it is clearly a ''feature'' of our game mode. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disForm.2837 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 3 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said: The problem with the idea of "dynamic" changes to scoring, is that there are a lot of different ways that can be done, and the quicker it is to adjust, the easier it is to be gamed. If you have a system that changes the current skirmish depending on the current number of players. Then you have a system that encourages the losing players to log off, just to deny the opponent VP. If it changes for the next skirmish, you have a similar situation, where a team will try to stack their prime time, and then just tell everyone to log off afterwards, so the enemy doesn't get more points back while they're off. A dynamic system would need to be "broad" enough in scope that it won't react quickly enough for 1-2 teams. So it would probably end up having to dynamically adjust to "all teams average" anyways, which would basically be the static version we got now. Still not sure what I think of the system yet, but I can see some good reasons for why they did it the way they did. Still a few things I'm undecided about though. Even with 24h scope wouldn't be the same we have today. A day round average of players activity is different than static VP generated every 2h. Take a hypothetical team, couple of solid havocs in OCE time and very little else. With the current system, you'd score quite high, since you'd dominate unimpeded during 1/3 of the day. That same team under the new system would score significantly lower, even with 24h average, since they are just a few players. That's exactly the problem with today scoring, if you want to win skirmishes, you need day round activity. But players activity is not uniform, game servers are not global for WvW. NA activity fall off a cliff after 11:30 pm EST. Some players are complaining their contribution won't matter, well, that has been the reality for most players for years. Didn't see them complaining about it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenesisII.1540 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 (edited) T3 Garrison worth 80 capture points. Boon blob enters. Boon blob farms kills for 20 mins. Boon blob eventually gets chased away. Congratulations, you've "denied" your enemy 80 points, and anet thinks that's good motivation for defending. Meanwhile the boon blob racked up 30-100+ kills for....... 90-300+ points. 🤭 /slowclap Maybe next time let them have that keep and deny them the kills instead. 🤔 Anet needs to stop thinking in boon blobs point of view only. 🙄 Edited July 15 by XenesisII.1540 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now