Jump to content
  • Sign Up

WvW "Fix" suggestion.. What do you think ?


primatos.5413

Recommended Posts

What if .. there was scaling ppk by the numbers of players involved in a fight .. 1vs4 the team of 4 gets 1/4 point for killing 1 enemy player -could help adjusting the actual ganker meta where having more players means a lot.

Further use each servers ppk rate to increase /decrease the ppt ratio (higher ppk - higher ppt) .. could help to stop some servers nearly completly avoiding fights and hiding in sieged up t3 keeps but still winning matchups O.o .. and last but not least hardcap max ppt (offtime capping.. and NO this is NOT about putting some players in disadvantage but making matchups more fair and fun for EVERYONE ) and adjust the points earned in a matchup by a factor which counts on which fraction u have been engaging for most.. (for example .. if red and blue primary attacking green then green ppt increases) to help avoiding the boring bs out there which is: mostly 2 servers engage together on the already weakest 3d one .. completly messed up system frustrating and rewarding blobbing as well as avoiding fights imo

Could this work and help making WvW more competitive? Would u appreciate it ? Would like to hear other players opinions about my ideas :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No because it makes prediciting points even more complicated and unpredictable, which will make people bother to care less about points, making it even more pointless than it already is.

And what is ppt cap? So a dominating server (even with similar numbers) will also be capped? Or are you just targeting specific timezones? The day when a dominating server is artificially skewed by the system to have an "even", "competitive" matchup is the day i quit wvw the way it is currently and never look back. Because, how is that competitive, when you don't need to try so hard to have similar points?

Not to mention if a strong server has beaten the morale out of the other cats, they shouldn't deserve the points when those cats quit for that week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea sounds interesting in theory. In practice, it's going to be difficult to decide just what we mean by 'fight' or by 'number on each side' or by which kills count. Plus balancing those PPK ratios would be a mess, too.


What are the numbers in a fight? In a battle over garrison, the defending team might start off with 5 people. A call to arms goes out and 10 people respond. Then another 10. Then 20 more. In all, 55 players make their way to the fight.

Meanwhile, outside the keep, the attackers started with 45 split in two teams and 15 died from siege. Of those, 5 decide to call it a night, while the other 10 start the long slog back from spawn. Another 10 die in the successful assault on outer (leaving, for those doing the math, 20 in inner).

Thus, in the first 3 minutes of the battle, we went from 9:1 to 1:3 ish. Which number should be used to determine points per kill? Oh, you want ANet to keep track and calculate on the fly? Ok let's ramp up the computational power for that and add in some more culling to make up for the skill latency.

What area of the fight applies? Those 10 slogging back to garri from enemy spawn get ganked on the way. Are those second kills part of the fight to which they are headed? Or do those all count as 1v2, one at a time, as they pass through until warned off by scouts?

5 people run off to grab camps to generate supply. Are those people counted as part of the fight? Or should the game ignore them even though it's essential for both sides to control supply as the battle continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is actually a better variation to this:

  • Drastically reduce or entirely eliminate PPT all together, while simultaneously increasing the amount of PPK
  • Players hit by any type of siege do not count towards PPK (in other words, those who hide in structures under AC's won't get any score)
  • Outnumbering a group by say +5 or more in a given radius (say 4000 AoE in a fight), yields no score upon kill (in other words, you can't train over a smaller group)
  • In addition to above, PPK scales the more you're outnumbered. Up to -5 is regular score, -10 might be x2 PPK, -20 might be x3PPK (this works to roamers advantage)

why this works?

  • You can't simply K-train an undefended map and get points (There is no skill in this and thus it should not be rewarded)
  • You can't hide on another map outnumbering the forces to run over them (Again there is no points in this but more of a risk of extra points racked up against you)
  • Forces players onto maps where competition is even if they hope to gain any points at all
  • In addition to above, it is likely going to force players to transfer to other server time zones where competition is even if they want any hope in contributing points

Ultimately it comes down to just how well skilled and coordinated the group is in an even fight. We all know there are servers out there that are atrocious in an even fight (hence why they hide), this is designed to be a direct blow to them to force them out, and to get better by not outnumbering people all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@primatos.5413 said:What if .. there was scaling ppk by the numbers of players involved in a fight .. 1vs4 the team of 4 gets 1/4 point for killing 1 enemy player -could help adjusting the actual ganker meta where having more players means a lot.

Artificially inflating/deflating the score value of players doesn't make a game competitive. That just applies handicaps. The 1 is going to lose to the 4 regardless of the score (assuming all players are equally skilled). Their playing experience won't change much.

@primatos.5413 said:Further use each servers ppk rate to increase /decrease the ppt ratio (higher ppk - higher ppt) .. could help to stop some servers nearly completly avoiding fights and hiding in sieged up t3 keeps but still winning matchups O.o .. and last but not least hardcap max ppt (offtime capping.. and NO this is NOT about putting some players in disadvantage but making matchups more fair and fun for EVERYONE ) and adjust the points earned in a matchup by a factor which counts on which fraction u have been engaging for most.. (for example .. if red and blue primary attacking green then green ppt increases) to help avoiding the boring bs out there which is: mostly 2 servers engage together on the already weakest 3d one .. completly messed up system frustrating and rewarding blobbing as well as avoiding fights imo

Or you know...3 way interactions aren't very competitive so again, no matter the amount of fiddling with score values (ppk or ppt) will change behaviour significantly.

@primatos.5413 said:Could this work and help making WvW more competitive? Would u appreciate it ? Would like to hear other players opinions about my ideas :)

It won't make things "competitive" beyond forcing balanced teams at fixed times if you wanted it to be that extreme. Potentially abandoning the three way and going back to two way like most "competitive" games do. Although it'd be nice if the usage of "competitive" was defined in the OP. That's going to be a point of contention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:Ultimately it comes down to just how well skilled and coordinated the group is in an even fight. We all know there are servers out there that are atrocious in an even fight (hence why they hide), this is designed to be a direct blow to them to force them out, and to get better by not outnumbering people all the time.No, ultimately it comes down to even finding players with your score design. The way it works actively discourages people to play, discourage them to form groups and makes chasing ppt against players that wont allow you get that ppt the entire game. In my personal opinion, that suggestion is complete kitten. WvW isnt organized sPvP. You dont know if there will even be players opposing you at any given time. Basing points on random chance of finding players - and not only that, just the right amount of players because it cant be too many or too few - is utter insanity and unplayable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Svarty.8019 said:

@ThunderPanda.1872 said:how is that competitive, when you don't need to try so hard to have similar points?

You can easily argue the opposite. Why does a dominated side have to work HARDER than their dominators to get the same amount of points?

I can't imagine a more anti competitive thing to do by rewarding the losing side and punishing the winning side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like drastic population differences are the cause of a lot of issues. What if the borderland maps had dynamic population limits, such as 25, 50, 75, etc.

E.g. If the defending server has only 12 players on their map, the assaulting servers can only field 25 each before they hit the limit, and once the defending server reaches 26, the assaulting servers can field up to 50 each

This could soften the differences in population and force the community to spread out among the servers to provide a more balanced wvw population.

But that's just my opinion. I'm more of a camper and roamer than a zerger anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Caprarius.4901 said:It seems like drastic population differences are the cause of a lot of issues. What if the borderland maps had dynamic population limits, such as 25, 50, 75, etc.

E.g. If the defending server has only 12 players on their map, the assaulting servers can only field 25 each before they hit the limit, and once the defending server reaches 26, the assaulting servers can field up to 50 each

This could soften the differences in population and force the community to spread out among the servers to provide a more balanced wvw population.

But that's just my opinion. I'm more of a camper and roamer than a zerger anyways.

I can understand the thought in principle, but imagine the AFK rage, and the ability for a server to game this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Caprarius.4901 said:It seems like drastic population differences are the cause of a lot of issues. What if the borderland maps had dynamic population limits, such as 25, 50, 75, etc.

E.g. If the defending server has only 12 players on their map, the assaulting servers can only field 25 each before they hit the limit, and once the defending server reaches 26, the assaulting servers can field up to 50 each

This could soften the differences in population and force the community to spread out among the servers to provide a more balanced wvw population.

But that's just my opinion. I'm more of a camper and roamer than a zerger anyways.

I can understand the thought in principle, but imagine the AFK rage, and the ability for a server to game this.

Yeah, then it'll need a shorter inactive period to kick people. I'm sure you've seen the people who just get T3 participation and just sit in spawn while the timer ticks down. Maybe they should have an actual timer in spawn, and after a certain time period they're either booted from the match or they're tossed out into the map. Cuz if the player is just hiding in spawn, they're not helping towards the map.

I think this issue is going to need a fix drastic enough that is going to piss off at least one group of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Caprarius.4901 said:

@Caprarius.4901 said:It seems like drastic population differences are the cause of a lot of issues. What if the borderland maps had dynamic population limits, such as 25, 50, 75, etc.

E.g. If the defending server has only 12 players on their map, the assaulting servers can only field 25 each before they hit the limit, and once the defending server reaches 26, the assaulting servers can field up to 50 each

This could soften the differences in population and force the community to spread out among the servers to provide a more balanced wvw population.

But that's just my opinion. I'm more of a camper and roamer than a zerger anyways.

I can understand the thought in principle, but imagine the AFK rage, and the ability for a server to game this.

Yeah, then it'll need a shorter inactive period to kick people. I'm sure you've seen the people who just get T3 participation and just sit in spawn while the timer ticks down. Maybe you should have an actual timer in spawn, and after a certain time period you're either booted from the match or you're tossed out into the map. Cuz if the player is just hiding in spawn, they're not helping towards the map.

It's easy to bypass that timer with a game allowed process. Auto run plus the heel skill on auto cast works well to keep you in map for 25-30 minutes, and the game doesn't readily recognize you as inactive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Caprarius.4901 said:It seems like drastic population differences are the cause of a lot of issues. What if the borderland maps had dynamic population limits, such as 25, 50, 75, etc.

E.g. If the defending server has only 12 players on their map, the assaulting servers can only field 25 each before they hit the limit, and once the defending server reaches 26, the assaulting servers can field up to 50 each

This could soften the differences in population and force the community to spread out among the servers to provide a more balanced wvw population.

But that's just my opinion. I'm more of a camper and roamer than a zerger anyways.

I can understand the thought in principle, but imagine the AFK rage, and the ability for a server to game this.

Yeah, then it'll need a shorter inactive period to kick people. I'm sure you've seen the people who just get T3 participation and just sit in spawn while the timer ticks down. Maybe you should have an actual timer in spawn, and after a certain time period you're either booted from the match or you're tossed out into the map. Cuz if the player is just hiding in spawn, they're not helping towards the map.

It's easy to bypass that timer with a game allowed process. Auto run plus the heel skill on auto cast works well to keep you in map for 25-30 minutes, and the game doesn't readily recognize you as inactive.

True, so it falls on us as players to fix this. Is going afk in WvW held to the same standards as going afk in a spvp match? If so, why not report the offenders and hopefully that will correct that leeching behavior? It's pretty easy to notice that one guy running in circles apart of the folks just stopping by in spawn most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Caprarius.4901 said:

@Caprarius.4901 said:It seems like drastic population differences are the cause of a lot of issues. What if the borderland maps had dynamic population limits, such as 25, 50, 75, etc.

E.g. If the defending server has only 12 players on their map, the assaulting servers can only field 25 each before they hit the limit, and once the defending server reaches 26, the assaulting servers can field up to 50 each

This could soften the differences in population and force the community to spread out among the servers to provide a more balanced wvw population.

But that's just my opinion. I'm more of a camper and roamer than a zerger anyways.

I can understand the thought in principle, but imagine the AFK rage, and the ability for a server to game this.

Yeah, then it'll need a shorter inactive period to kick people. I'm sure you've seen the people who just get T3 participation and just sit in spawn while the timer ticks down. Maybe you should have an actual timer in spawn, and after a certain time period you're either booted from the match or you're tossed out into the map. Cuz if the player is just hiding in spawn, they're not helping towards the map.

It's easy to bypass that timer with a game allowed process. Auto run plus the heel skill on auto cast works well to keep you in map for 25-30 minutes, and the game doesn't readily recognize you as inactive.

True, so it falls on us as players to fix this. Is going afk in WvW held to the same standards as going afk in a spvp match? If so, why not report the offenders and hopefully that will correct that leeching behavior?

O I agree, which is why I AFK for participation in Obsidian Sanctum.

Reporting them... for what exactly? Being AFK? They aren't botting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Caprarius.4901 said:It seems like drastic population differences are the cause of a lot of issues. What if the borderland maps had dynamic population limits, such as 25, 50, 75, etc.

E.g. If the defending server has only 12 players on their map, the assaulting servers can only field 25 each before they hit the limit, and once the defending server reaches 26, the assaulting servers can field up to 50 each

This could soften the differences in population and force the community to spread out among the servers to provide a more balanced wvw population.

But that's just my opinion. I'm more of a camper and roamer than a zerger anyways.

I can understand the thought in principle, but imagine the AFK rage, and the ability for a server to game this.

Yeah, then it'll need a shorter inactive period to kick people. I'm sure you've seen the people who just get T3 participation and just sit in spawn while the timer ticks down. Maybe you should have an actual timer in spawn, and after a certain time period you're either booted from the match or you're tossed out into the map. Cuz if the player is just hiding in spawn, they're not helping towards the map.

It's easy to bypass that timer with a game allowed process. Auto run plus the heel skill on auto cast works well to keep you in map for 25-30 minutes, and the game doesn't readily recognize you as inactive.

True, so it falls on us as players to fix this. Is going afk in WvW held to the same standards as going afk in a spvp match? If so, why not report the offenders and hopefully that will correct that leeching behavior?

O I agree, which is why I AFK for participation in Obsidian Sanctum.

Reporting them... for what exactly? Being AFK? They aren't botting...

In most competitive modes in other games, going afk in a match with a limited population is a reporting offensive. Why should WvW be any different? If you're joining a map or match, you should be active to play. Especially when there's a queue, because there's a line of players waiting on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Caprarius.4901 said:

@Caprarius.4901 said:It seems like drastic population differences are the cause of a lot of issues. What if the borderland maps had dynamic population limits, such as 25, 50, 75, etc.

E.g. If the defending server has only 12 players on their map, the assaulting servers can only field 25 each before they hit the limit, and once the defending server reaches 26, the assaulting servers can field up to 50 each

This could soften the differences in population and force the community to spread out among the servers to provide a more balanced wvw population.

But that's just my opinion. I'm more of a camper and roamer than a zerger anyways.

I can understand the thought in principle, but imagine the AFK rage, and the ability for a server to game this.

Yeah, then it'll need a shorter inactive period to kick people. I'm sure you've seen the people who just get T3 participation and just sit in spawn while the timer ticks down. Maybe you should have an actual timer in spawn, and after a certain time period you're either booted from the match or you're tossed out into the map. Cuz if the player is just hiding in spawn, they're not helping towards the map.

It's easy to bypass that timer with a game allowed process. Auto run plus the heel skill on auto cast works well to keep you in map for 25-30 minutes, and the game doesn't readily recognize you as inactive.

True, so it falls on us as players to fix this. Is going afk in WvW held to the same standards as going afk in a spvp match? If so, why not report the offenders and hopefully that will correct that leeching behavior?

O I agree, which is why I AFK for participation in Obsidian Sanctum.

Reporting them... for what exactly? Being AFK? They aren't botting...

In most competitive modes in other games, going afk in a match with a limited population is a reporting offensive. Why should WvW be any different? If you're joining a map or match, you should be active to play. Especially when there's a queue, because there's a line of players waiting on you.

That's the thing... there is rarely a queue any more. A weeklong match SHOULD be different. If we got to what people have asked about being 2-3 hour matches, or mini tournaments then maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Caprarius.4901 said:It seems like drastic population differences are the cause of a lot of issues. What if the borderland maps had dynamic population limits, such as 25, 50, 75, etc.

E.g. If the defending server has only 12 players on their map, the assaulting servers can only field 25 each before they hit the limit, and once the defending server reaches 26, the assaulting servers can field up to 50 each

This could soften the differences in population and force the community to spread out among the servers to provide a more balanced wvw population.

But that's just my opinion. I'm more of a camper and roamer than a zerger anyways.

I can understand the thought in principle, but imagine the AFK rage, and the ability for a server to game this.

Yeah, then it'll need a shorter inactive period to kick people. I'm sure you've seen the people who just get T3 participation and just sit in spawn while the timer ticks down. Maybe you should have an actual timer in spawn, and after a certain time period you're either booted from the match or you're tossed out into the map. Cuz if the player is just hiding in spawn, they're not helping towards the map.

It's easy to bypass that timer with a game allowed process. Auto run plus the heel skill on auto cast works well to keep you in map for 25-30 minutes, and the game doesn't readily recognize you as inactive.

True, so it falls on us as players to fix this. Is going afk in WvW held to the same standards as going afk in a spvp match? If so, why not report the offenders and hopefully that will correct that leeching behavior?

O I agree, which is why I AFK for participation in Obsidian Sanctum.

Reporting them... for what exactly? Being AFK? They aren't botting...

In most competitive modes in other games, going afk in a match with a limited population is a reporting offensive. Why should WvW be any different? If you're joining a map or match, you should be active to play. Especially when there's a queue, because there's a line of players waiting on you.

That's the thing... there is rarely a queue any more. A weeklong match SHOULD be different. If we got to what people have asked about being 2-3 hour matches, or mini tournaments then maybe.

Yeah, the only time I see a queue is during the weekend and it settles down during the week. I can only get on for about 1-3 hours during a weekday myself due to schoolwork. Though I don't believe changing the length will do much, it'll allow you to have an immediate reward but it doesn't solve the main issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...