Petition to revert the PPK change

[Sheff.4851]

4 hours ago, Luthan.5236 said:

Fore pure fighting in big zergs ... they should make different game modes. (Or EotM map maybe.) Why have the objectives in the first place when you want just a kind of a zerg death match and kills being important?

We can do this the other way too, you know. For people who like to play small scale and do 1v1s, 2v2s, etc, we can give them a separate game mode, maybe develop some custom maps, and add in a sort of automated tournament. We can even change some of the mechanics around so that individual efforts are worth more, split things into different lanes, add more capture points, that kind of thing, and then have a leaderboard pop up at the end to show you how you did.

Personally, I don't necessarily think that's a good approach, because World vs. World works best when you have multiple groups playing in different ways, but working towards a shared goal. But if you want to get into the weeds on "design intent", PPK was added extremely early on, and if the intent was for WvW to not involve pure fighting in big zergs, I imagine that the number of people that are allowed to be on one map at the same time would be much lower.

[Sheff.4851]

25 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

It benefits zergs - the larger the more. It does not benefit players who want to fight outside of zergs.

It "benefits" zergs mostly due to the fact that two points per kill wasn't a high enough number to let groups that spent most of their time fighting instead of flipping objectives contribute to warscore, which meant that which servers moved up and down tiers was mostly up to how much PPT people did outside of primetime. This led to a lot of the frustrations that players had with the tier system, like how fight guilds would want to tank matchups, because they weren't getting paired with other guilds that also wanted to fight, because their primary activity in the game mode (fighting) wasn't reflected in warscore.

The old scoring system, and old PPK contributions, basically ignored players who fought in groups.

[Zyreva.1078]

3 minutes ago, Sheff.4851 said:

This led to a lot of the frustrations that players had with the tier system, like how fight guilds would want to tank matchups, because they weren't getting paired with other guilds that also wanted to fight, because their primary activity in the game mode (fighting) wasn't reflected in warscore.

Guilds/players that don't want to fight for objectives, can fight each other at the eotm arena. At any time. Regardless of worlds and matches. So there's no need to change WvW into deathmatch for these guilds specifically, because they have their own place already.

[Luthan.5236]

57 minutes ago, H K.4057 said:

That doesn't affect people who are complaining about the PPK increase. Thy specifically play in a way that avoids fights, which means they do not defend and they only attack paper objectives. Basically, the path of least resistance. All of the changes, from the PPK increase to the increase points for capping t3 objectives, benefit people who actually fight.

That's the crux of the problem: we have a large subset of players in WvW who do not want to fight other players, and who do not want other players to benefit from fighting other players.

Well that seems like a problem then. @Sheff.4851 says that the intention is to make big groups fight each other - and that is why they added the points for kills. And of course personally I do not want to just cap and re-cap empty objectives. (And then lose then on purpose just to be able to re-ecap.) That is boring playsty-e (in my opionion) - and I still tend to do it though ... cause the rewards system actually is pushing people to do it sometimes.

I mentioned it in another thread where people complained about the matchups: I find it boring to run a lot to get a kill to replenish the timer. (I actually if the enemy camps my own spawn vs my team owning the whole map lol. Always possible to pull someone away from the group and get a kill. And in balanced matchups you can just cap a camp close to a borderlands spawn and wait for an enemy to cap it so you can re-cap ... when you want it the easy way to be safe to keep the timer/participation up.)

Zerg fighting when you run far away ... is risky. You could get pnwd without getting kill credit ... participation dropping.

The bad thing I think ... is - regarding the overalll winning/losing (and the points per kill and per tick ... that people that mainly care about personal rewards techically could ignore): When zergs fight away from objectives. Not "going for the cap". I sometimes noticed this in the past.  I admit I have not play too much in the last years.

But from my observation it seemed common for guilds - especially at resets or relinks (in the old link system) to fight in the borderlands and just move around trying to gauge the strenght of the zerg ... while pushing ... then moving back ... in the field. Without trying to touch some objectives. That gives points per kill as well - but is a different "big group vs big group" than defending an upgraded objective (or capping it) - which I prefer. (Where imo it is annoying that defensive stuff got made harder and scouts would probably have to rely on that "shared participation" thing from a squad lol. To not lose participation whily staying in the background. Do people in organized groups actually use that?)

---

Now if we could get the personal rewards + that "ppk" (if they want to keep it) actually moved a bit closer towards  group events ... maybe it could get better? Like the PvE maps that have certain metas that can track participation. (Would need them to have small systems to keep track when fighting close to objectives. Where for x minutes it can tick for the defensive event. Maybe doing it similar for the attackers and every x minutes awarding the points per kill close to that objectives - and none for fighting somewhere away from objcetives. and/or while the objective is not contested.)

Personally I still would like to see something where it rewards even more the upgrading/defending. Like ... a supply structure where the dolyaks not just give supply to the objectives. I roughly had an idea that I explained in other threads (not tooo active .... must be on page 100+ in some thread on the forums maybe lol) where I thought it might be interesting to require a dolyak to visit a tower (and 2 for the keep cause they techincally get served by 2 camps) every x minutes. If not ... than give it less poitns per tick. And/or walls losing health. Or debuffs (for starters less from the guild aura that they already nerfed per default a lot).

Now you can just have the dolyaks move there until the (already smaller) supply storage is full. Then ignore camps a but ... until there actually WAS an attack and you need to empty the supplies and get them to full up. After the (first) attack. Of course the attackers can attack repeatedly trying to keep the enemy from owning the camps for long - to slowly drain the supplies. But with more stuff added ... to have the defenders trying to defend the camps from the start ... and all the time - would be more interesting imo. Especially with EBG and SM in the mid.

Edited July 23 by Luthan.5236

[Sheff.4851]

2 minutes ago, Luthan.5236 said:

Well that seems like a problem then. @Sheff.4851 says that the intention is to make big groups fight each other - and that is why they added the points for kills. And of course personally I do not want to just cap and re-cap empty objectives. (And then lose then on purpose just to be able to re-ecap.) That is boring playsty-e (in my opionion) - and I still tend to do it though ... cause the rewards system actually is pushing people to do it sometimes.

I mentioned it in another thread where people complained about the matchups: I find it boring to run a lot to get a kill to replenish the timer. (I actually if the enemy camps my own spawn vs my team owning the whole map lol. Always possible to pull someone away from the group and get a kill. And in balanced matchups you can just cap a camp close to a borderlands spawn and wait for an enemy to cap it so you can re-cap ... when you want it the easy way to be safe to keep the timer/participation up.)

Zerg fighting when you run far away ... is risky. You could get pnwd without getting kill credit ... participation dropping.

The bad thing I think ... is - regarding the overalll winning/losing (and the points per kill and per tick ... that people that mainly care about personal rewards techically could ignore): When zergs fight away from objectives. Not "going for the cap". I sometimes noticed this in the past.  I admit I have not play too much in the last years.

But from my observation it seemed common for guilds - especially at resets or relinks (in the old link system) to fight in the borderlands and just move around trying to gauge the strenght of the zerg ... while pushing ... then moving back ... in the field. Without trying to touch some objectives. That gives points per kill as well - but is a different "big group vs big group" than defending an upgraded objective (or capping it) - which I prefer. (Where imo it is annoying that defensive stuff got made harder and scouts would probably have to rely on that "shared participation" thing from a squad lol. To not lose participation whily staying in the background. Do people in organized groups actually use that?)

---

Now if we could get the personal rewards + that "ppk" (if they want to keep it) actually moved a bit closer towards  group events ... maybe it could get better? Like the PvE maps that have certain metas that can track participation. (Would need them to have small systems to keep track when fighting close to objectives. Where for x minutes it can tick for the defensive event. Maybe doing it similar for the attackers and every x minutes awarding the points per kill close to that objectives - and none for fighting somewhere away from objcetives. and/or while the objective is not contested.)

Groups that are serious about "fights" don't like to fight near objectives if they can avoid it, because fixed defensive siege emplacements (cannons and mortars) are very powerful. That's why they spend most of their time pushing back and forth in the field, because it leads to more even fights. And if one group starts to get stronger than the other, the winning group will end up pushing closer and closer to enemy objectives, where defensive siege helps level the playing field again, giving an advantage to the group that's losing. This, specifically, is the way that some fight groups play that really does not contribute to score at all without changes to PPK, but it's still meaningful activity. 

Not all fight groups play that way. Some push directly into objectives, while others refuse to fight near objectives at all. But I'd say it's the most common approach.

For your other question, about shared participation -- I basically only use shared participation if somebody is stuck in queue, to keep them from decaying. But I also don't include scouts, roamers, etc in my squads unless they explicitly ask for shared. If you're in a squad that I am a commander for, my expectation is that you're on tag, pressing buttons to help us defeat enemy groups. Again, just the way I choose to run things, and other squads are available if that's not your style.

[Sheff.4851]

19 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

Guilds/players that don't want to fight for objectives, can fight each other at the eotm arena. At any time. Regardless of worlds and matches. So there's no need to change WvW into deathmatch for these guilds specifically, because they have their own place already.

Likewise, roamers can go to sPvP if they want to fight honorable 1v1 and small-group fights without being bothered by a 40-man blob. Hence why that line of thinking isn't really productive. There's no need to change WvW into a solo player paradise either. The draw of the gamemode is that it affords multiple playstyles, including roaming, and including zerging.

Not to mention the issues with rewards in EotM, like not being able to progress your weeklies, earn credit for Astral Acclaim, et cetera. At least in sPvP you still get something. EotM is bereft of any tangible rewards.

[Zyreva.1078]

1 hour ago, Sheff.4851 said:

Likewise, roamers can go to sPvP if they want to fight honorable 1v1 and small-group fights without being bothered by a 40-man blob.

Roaming in WvW and playing sPvP are quite different tho (and neither is only about "honourable" 1vs1 or small grp fights). But when all you want to do is fight other guilds away from objectives, it doesn't really matter which map you are on, does it? Aside from rewards ofc, but that's something that can be changed. So maybe you should be asking for kill rewards in eotm?

1 hour ago, Sheff.4851 said:

The draw of the gamemode is that it affords multiple playstyles, including roaming, and including zerging.

Yes, exactly. But if there's nothing but a single zerg clogging up the map and sticking together no matter what, there is no room for other playstyles. And i'm not just talking about map capacity btw, tho that also plays a role ofc.

Solo players and smaller grps don't have that kind of negative impact on other players and playstyles. Which is why only pushing towards a mono blob playstyle and disincentivising everything else is so detrimental for "diversity".

Edited July 23 by Zyreva.1078

[Sheff.4851]

9 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

Solo players and smaller grps don't have that kind of negative impact on other players and playstyles. Which is why only pushing towards a mono blob playstyle and disincentivising everything else is so detrimental for "diversity".

I know dozens of organized group players that would disagree vehemently with this, and frequently do in team chat.

[Zyreva.1078]

1 minute ago, Sheff.4851 said:

I know dozens of organized group players that would disagree vehemently with this, and frequently do in team chat.

Ah yes, the famous "everyone not on tag leave the map, map is full and we want to fight and are only 47/50" from that com still standing at spawn. Prevented from moving out by those evil roamers that refuse to stack or leave ...

[Sheff.4851]

1 minute ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

Ah yes, the famous "everyone not on tag leave the map, map is full and we want to fight and are only 47/50" from that com still standing at spawn. Prevented from moving out by those evil roamers that refuse to stack or leave ...

Exactly, but their feelings and experiences in the game aren't automatically less legitimate because of how they choose to play.

[Zyreva.1078]

2 minutes ago, Sheff.4851 said:

Exactly, but their feelings and experiences in the game aren't automatically less legitimate because of how they choose to play.

You really want to tell me a zerg can't play with less than 50 players? Srsly?

[Sheff.4851]

3 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

You really want to tell me a zerg can't play with less than 50 players? Srsly?

You can look at any of the videos that I have on my Twitch for confirmation. We usually run 35-40 on reset (because nobody else in our alliance runs reset except for Novahh), and 15-25 on weekdays. It's all documented on my vods channel as well, sheffplaysgames vods, or as background footage in any of the videos that I make on the main channel.

[Zyreva.1078]

13 minutes ago, Sheff.4851 said:

You can look at any of the videos that I have on my Twitch for confirmation. We usually run 35-40 on reset (because nobody else in our alliance runs reset except for Novahh), and 15-25 on weekdays. It's all documented on my vods channel as well, sheffplaysgames vods, or as background footage in any of the videos that I make on the main channel.

Yea, so how exactly are roamers and small grps a problem for you? Or zerg play in general?

Are they lagging the entire map so you can't press any buttons? Are they filling entire maps, so you can't fit your 15-40 people there anymore? Are they killing all your enemies or all your allies including you, or are they capping all their (or your) stuff, so you don't have anything left to do? Are they spawncamping you? Are they drawing all enemies and allies to one spot, so the rest of the map is empty?

What exactly are small grps and roamers doing, that is detrimental for zerg play?

[Reztek.7805]

7 hours ago, Luthan.5236 said:

Fore pure fighting in big zergs ... they should make different game modes. (Or EotM map maybe.) Why have the objectives in the first place when you want just a kind of a zerg death match and kills being important?

This was suggested at least 11 years ago. 🙃 But instead of listening, they added the arena in the obsidian sanctum in 2013. They also disabled bloodlust on that map, because there was a lot of complaining about how unfair that buff was ... - In the end, this arena wasn't used a lot. Too small. And it's no fun for "fight-guilds" to really fight. 😉

Who could have known? 🙃

[Sheff.4851]

21 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

Yea, so how exactly are roamers and small grps a problem for you? Or zerg play in general?

Are they lagging the entire map so you can't press any buttons? Are they filling entire maps, so you can't fit your 15-40 people there anymore? Are they killing all your enemies or all your allies including you, or are they capping all their (or your) stuff, so you don't have anything left to do? Are they spawncamping you? Are they drawing all enemies and allies to one spot, so the rest of the map is empty?

What exactly are small grps and roamers doing, that is detrimental for zerg play?

They are not a problem for me, but that is not a perspective that I share with some other players that I know. For that perspective, you should ask those players what they think. I mentioned that they would vehemently disagree with your statement, but I didn't say that I was one of them, and it's not my responsibility to explain their thinking for them.

If you like, I can mention this post to them so that they can respond directly.

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/22/2024 at 11:47 AM, Sheff.4851 said:

It's possible, but if you spend all your time running from fights that you might lose you're still not generating any warscore from PPK, so you're going to sink lower in tiers to get matched with all the other groups that spend all their time running from fights that they might lose.

Will wait and come back at this tomorrow, but on the surface this reads pretty bad. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/23/2024 at 10:49 AM, Sheff.4851 said:

The old scoring system, and old PPK contributions, basically ignored players who fought in groups.

lol, no it didn't. They were awarded PPK and PPT points for taking and holding. Play the game mode. You need to do both, not just run away from harder fights. Even before the siege nerfs standing in AC fire was kind of laughable. And I asked pugs in chat to do the same after they and they still took while defenses were up. Strong disagree. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/23/2024 at 1:40 PM, Sheff.4851 said:

They are not a problem for me, but that is not a perspective that I share with some other players that I know. For that perspective, you should ask those players what they think. I mentioned that they would vehemently disagree with your statement, but I didn't say that I was one of them, and it's not my responsibility to explain their thinking for them.

If you like, I can mention this post to them so that they can respond directly.

You need to invite these none vocal partners to join the forum. All are welcome. Tell them to get off their group think discord forums and join us here. They are welcome. And we can all have a chat versus give them a sound chamber to all agree with no counter points. Please give them this post as a link and invite them in. We all look forward to an open dialog. Forum Wars 2 invites all in for a conversation. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

Anet, each time you use a content provider or a private discord as feedback, you limit feedback. You have an official forum, center on that. It exists for a reason. Use your own resources and focus players there so that you have feedback versus an echo chamber. Group think is easy.  Just saying.

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/23/2024 at 1:40 PM, Sheff.4851 said:

They are not a problem for me, but that is not a perspective that I share with some other players that I know. For that perspective, you should ask those players what they think. I mentioned that they would vehemently disagree with your statement, but I didn't say that I was one of them, and it's not my responsibility to explain their thinking for them.

If you like, I can mention this post to them so that they can respond directly.

They are all welcome here. Right now they sound like they need to 5 v 1 to fight as Zyreva said. Maybe they need to split up more. But all are welcome on Forum Wars 2. Invite them in to the discussions. All are welcome.

[TheGrimm.5624]

Xen, I admit, I am losing at my attempts to being neutral. How goes your matches? I have been teaching more Havoc moves, encouraging roamer motions and typemanding more. Been interesting times and been waving to lots bye since have no idea where the next landing will be. Meet lots of fun peeps as I went. How did your sort land my friend?

[Sheff.4851]

30 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Anet, each time you use a content provider or a private discord as feedback, you limit feedback. You have an official forum, center on that. It exists for a reason. Use your own resources and focus players there so that you have feedback versus an echo chamber. Group think is easy.  Just saying.

Do you believe that the forums may also be a bit of a group think echo chamber? Or do they reflect a neutral, unbiased discussion about World vs. World that doesn't occur in other communities?

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/25/2024 at 6:41 AM, Sheff.4851 said:

Do you believe that the forums may also be a bit of a group think echo chamber? Or do they reflect a neutral, unbiased discussion about World vs. World that doesn't occur in other communities?

Discord forums are already limited, where as the forums are open to all. So yes, I guess. I think Discord will be more group think. Or have you seen where the forums are all backing the same idea? As Roy said, sometimes on the forums where players are not complaining it's a sign of something is working. That is due to less group think, in my opinion. So again, welcome all your sources here for a conversation. And yes I have seen guild leads ask all their numbers to upvote their points here to support them, but that is an easy tell.  So again, open forums, all welcome!

[XenesisII.1540]

On 7/25/2024 at 6:32 AM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Xen, I admit, I am losing at my attempts to being neutral. How goes your matches? I have been teaching more Havoc moves, encouraging roamer motions and typemanding more. Been interesting times and been waving to lots bye since have no idea where the next landing will be. Meet lots of fun peeps as I went. How did your sort land my friend?

I haven't played in like 5 weeks. 🤷‍♂️

[H K.4057]

On 7/23/2024 at 9:59 AM, Zyreva.1078 said:

Guilds/players that don't want to fight for objectives, can fight each other at the eotm arena. At any time. Regardless of worlds and matches. So there's no need to change WvW into deathmatch for these guilds specifically, because they have their own place already.

The thing is, those guilds/players don't go to guild halls or eotm arenas. They insist on camping out on a BL or sometimes even EBG, the same way duelers hang out by middle sentry instead of going back behind the windmill. If those guilds and players insist on affecting the experience of other players in the matchup, then their contributions should be reflected in the score. This leads to better matchups in the future where servers that like to fight get matched up with other servers that like to fight.