Weighted Skirmish Scoring Proposal.

[Roxanne.6140]

People in this thread complaining about shit like this simply did not understand what anet already implemented close to a year ago. This was the motivation for a skirmish-warscore system where scores have equal weighting throughout the day and warscore factors in player kills as part of the win. I have summarised this in as simple and concise a paragraph and if this is still not understood, prayers out to the next generation. Besides the server links gave enough coverage to generally balance all off hours except BG. It isn't as simple to walk up to the castle and take it during off hours because there are still quite a few random players on siege defending it in almost all cases. Besides, dead timezones exist throughout the day. At which point will you determine what matters and what doesnt

[obastable.5231]

@Caliburn.1845 said:

@"obastable.5231" said:

I don't think a lot of people quit over scoring issues. Maybe transferred, but probably not quit. I doubt fixing scoring will have much effect on the number of people who return to this game, not nearly as much of an effect as creating balanced match-ups is going to have. :+1:

Balanced match-ups is the ideal. But how do you get those match-ups when we only have a small population of OCX/SEA players, and they have a history of only stacking 3-4 servers at a time. And whoever gets those players wins their match-ups?

If the entire foundation of your argument is "What if they game the system?!"

Maybe you should wait to see if they game the system before deciding preemptively punish them for gaming a system that doesn't yet exist.

[Caliburn.1845]

The skirmish victory point system does help with making things more even. There is no argument there. In the old days you could see strong SEA servers ticking 695 PPT for hours on end. And that gave those servers the ability to run up the score so quick that they only need to be dominant for a few hours a night.

But even the skirmish scoring system doesn't do enough to offset off-hours skirmishes from determining the outcome of the majority of NA and EU matches.

And as noted before, when Battlegroup/Alliances were being debated several years ago weighted skirmish scoring was part of the conversation, along with a concept called "Last Stand" or "Final Stand" depending on who you asked. Which had the idea that during the last day of a week long match all scoring would be worth double or triple points.

[Roxanne.6140]

Wow, old days huh.. Yea I missed them too. I didn't feel like using "that was then this is now" yawns so cliché. Better start getting back to the present and not dream of the past anymore.

[shiri.4257]

I hope Anet won't stand for this level of persecution. These NA EST players are trying to create the 4th Reich in Tyria! When they are also of capable of stacking their own respective time zones to overrun PST, OCX/SEA, and Guatemalans alike when we are weak! After work, I enjoy a brisk breeze in the California sun. However, always despised logging in after my routine to see all my crap t0 and siege humped by EST players! First they will tell to us that we're only worth 25% of an EST player. Next they will setup internment camps to tell us when we can raid! Guatemalans, Wallabies, and PST hippies must unite!

wallabylivesmatter

sugarcanelivesmatter

[Stand The Wall.6987]

I could care less what happens during off hours. if people are stubborn enough to get bought or all migrate to a certain server and complain they don't have fights that's their problem.

what I want is good fights during na prime. let the ppt tryhards hyperventilate over who gets which off hours guild. I do like the idea though and I think it should at least be tested out for a week.

[Lucid.6018]

I vote Pangloss for that camp that we shove the Guatemalans and wallaby in. Maybe we can get a new tactivator to raise and lower a gate that lets them out when the EST players are on and doing worthwhile things or just need supply mules.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Caliburn.1845 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

Base on logic, it isn't right either. Since your prime time already has a long established history of stacking, moving, destroying every population balance quite frequently as to SEA/OCX where history of such occurrence is puny in comparison. Prime time should be heavily penalized instead.

Your logic is extremely questionable. I think a strong case can be made that the fundamental difference between the health of EU servers v. NA servers is that OCX/SEA guilds primarily play on NA servers and have over the course of more than five years propped up specific servers to the point where SoS was known as an OCX server and Dragonbrand is still known as a SEA server. Those stacked off-hour servers have had a more negative effect on population than any stacked NA server. And I am not talking about just negative effects to NA population, I am talking about many SEA/OCX guilds quitting because they either have a stacked server to fight, or just undefended doors to hit.

Yes, I understand what you are talking about. But, if accounting for frequency, NA moves a whole lot more. One must not also forget that SOR was dragged down from the top because the NA ditched it. Not to forget about the TC's fall as well. There are numerous servers that got destroyed by NA movements.

SOS as OCX was born because of the extended period of free transfer during launch, which again is anet's faults. The same could be said for the once powerful JQ. The game would be whole lot different if anet put a little more thoughts into it. Last year, a few SEA guilds did went and stack on FA. Nevertheless, we must not forget that guilds did destacked from JQ in earlier year after repeated reminders of their stacking mentality. The initial stacking mentality is directly related to FOMO mentality which anet could have prevented while the latter stacking mentality can be said is due to sheer difficulty in recruitment and getting blobbed down which again caused by the initial stacking. Still, the new system allow easier recruitment and redistribution of populations thus I believe that same timezone guilds will be less likely to stack in same alliance. If they do, we can just shame them like how we used to do to JQ.

There is absolute no reason to penalize the entire timezones just because of a few bad eggs.

[Naix.8156]

@Caliburn.1845 said:

@obastable.5231 said:

I don't think a lot of people quit over scoring issues. Maybe transferred, but probably not quit. I doubt fixing scoring will have much effect on the number of people who return to this game, not nearly as much of an effect as creating balanced match-ups is going to have. :+1:

Balanced match-ups is the ideal. But how do you get those match-ups when we only have a small population of OCX/SEA players, and they have a history of only stacking 3-4 servers at a time. And whoever gets those players wins their match-ups?

I think you need to better define what you mean by 'balanced match-ups'. For me at least, the ideal situation would be match-ups that have the same number of players active at anyone time. Your suggestion speaks more to using the match-up score gap as an indicator.

The changes would setup a situation where it would be possible for an alliance that is stacked enough in NA could steam roll hard enough in their prime time to offset another alliance that has uniformed coverage (and hence able to PPT in the off hours). Regardless of the changes, players are going to stack alliances. In both cases it's once again all about population and coverage and not really about servers battling each other. I.e. skewing point income to make the score seem closer isn't necessarily indicative of a good quality match-up. Map blobbing with superior numbers in NA primetime isn't much more engaging minute-to-minute gameplay than the nightshift k-training empty maps imo.

The most organized and largest groups will to continue to play the bigger picture metagame in the same way they do now (coordinating coverage, 'buying' transfers etc.). For players that are involved or part of this type of metagame are understandably excited, as they have a new system to game in alliances. There really is only so much that Anet can do (willingness aside) to get similar numbers of players on a map for each side at any one time.

[Caliburn.1845]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

Yes, I understand what you are talking about. But, if accounting for frequency, NA moves a whole lot more. One must not also forget that SOR was dragged down from the top because the NA ditched it. Not to forget about the TC's fall as well. There are numerous servers that got destroyed by NA movements.

SOR's NA did ditch it. But why did they ditch it? BG bought ZDs(A Russian guild) that played offhours, and SOR's leadership felt they couldn't compete anymore. Within days SOR collapsed. The rise and fall of almost all NA servers is directly related to offhours. Either feeling they can't compete with a stacked enemy server or losing their own offhours players/guilds. It is a story that repeats itself over and over. Name a server that made it to T1 for a sustained length of time, and then look at why it dropped out.

So now I ask you, which server has clawed its way up based solely on the strength of its primetime forces on either NA or EU? Mag? Strong EU coverage. Current SoS? Strong offhours(and everyone else dodging T1).

And honestly who wins in WvW shouldn't be decided during one time zone. It should however rate the activity of all players equally. If 60% of all player activity is during NA or EU primetime, then 60% of warscore/victory points should be awarded during those periods of time. Not the 25% we have today.

When I played OCX for a year I and my guild were offered full paid transfers(and a few additional bribes for the leadership) six times. Since then, playing NA for several years, there has not been any offers. The people didn't change, the style didn't change, just the hours we played. When we were OCX we were worth something. When we play NA we are not.

[Roxanne.6140]

@Caliburn.1845 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

So now I ask you, which server has clawed its way up based solely on the strength of its primetime forces on either NA or EU? Mag?

The question to ask here is, should it?

[shiri.4257]

Perhaps this is due to a supply and demand issue? It sounds more like NA spends the majority of their time crying, wailing, moaning for off hour to take them to the promised land of various tiers than the supposed, "I'm here for the fights." That's all non NA prime players get from them. We should get a higher value for putting up with all the NA bs and playing in times no one else wants to play! Similar to night shifts employees being offered a premium for working those hours? So pay up or else go rent a dingo and ride it into the horizon sipping on some sugarcane!

[Baldrick.8967]

OP. No. Scoring one player's activity higher than another for when they happen to log on. No. Maybe score higher for fighting in smaller groups, so zerg fests score almost no points as running over 50 people and watching half of them downed in about 2 seconds doesn't need as much skill or tactics as winning a tightly fought 5v5.

I'm going to completely agree with something you said about yourself though;

/quote Since then, playing NA for several years, there has not been any offers. The people didn't change, the style didn't change, just the hours we played. When we were OCX we were worth something. When we play NA we are not. /quote.

It's refreshingly honest of you. basically all the talk of 'looking for fights' was rubbish- you were mercenaries available to the highest bidder.

Only people who really care about winning the match and will go to any lengths to win would think your proposed scoring system was 'fair'.

There's not that many people who still care about winning the overall match- most are much more interested in having fun, having decent and varied fights and objectives and wvw score and loot. Many could care less if the map turns a different colour at 5am.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Caliburn.1845 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

Yes, I understand what you are talking about. But, if accounting for frequency, NA moves a whole lot more. One must not also forget that SOR was dragged down from the top because the NA ditched it. Not to forget about the TC's fall as well. There are numerous servers that got destroyed by NA movements.

SOR's NA did ditch it. But why did they ditch it? BG bought ZDs(A Russian guild) that played offhours, and SOR's leadership felt they couldn't compete anymore. Within days SOR collapsed. The rise and fall of almost all NA servers is directly related to offhours. Either feeling they can't compete with a stacked enemy server or losing their own offhours players/guilds. It is a story that repeats itself over and over. Name a server that made it to T1 for a sustained length of time, and then look at why it dropped out.

So now I ask you, which server has clawed its way up based solely on the strength of its primetime forces on either NA or EU? Mag? Strong EU coverage. Current SoS? Strong offhours(and everyone else dodging T1).

And honestly who wins in WvW shouldn't be decided during one time zone. It should however rate the activity of all players equally. If 60% of all player activity is during NA or EU primetime, then 60% of warscore/victory points should be awarded during those periods of time. Not the 25% we have today.

When I played OCX for a year I and my guild were offered full paid transfers(and a few additional bribes for the leadership) six times. Since then, playing NA for several years, there has not been any offers. The people didn't change, the style didn't change, just the hours we played. When we were OCX we were worth something. When we play NA we are not.

Of course I know how desperate people can be for SEA/OCX.

However, there are SEA/OCX guilds that didn't ditch their server despite NA ditching it. For example, dragonbrand, tons of NA ditching it when it became full for unpredictable time due to outdated system. Not just dragonbrand, there were a few others before that for other reasons, dragonbrand just a high profile example. If the NA is having weak hands, then don't blame their weak hands on others.

Furthermore, the skirmish system already equalized and we already talked about discriminating timezone for skirmish back then. Not just only discrimination, it also encourage people to brainwash themselves that population is balanced. If population balance is not balance, then it is not, don't attempt to artificially balance it. You are just making the game worst for everyone. Population balance is population balance, it is not about winning and losing. What you are proposing is purely winning and losing. And that's why we having stacking, buying etc. Because, winning and losing is many NA ever think about.

[Caliburn.1845]

@Baldrick.8967 said:It's refreshingly honest of you. basically all the talk of 'looking for fights' was rubbish- you were mercenaries available to the highest bidder.

Only people who really care about winning the match and will go to any lengths to win would think your proposed scoring system was 'fair'.

No, I'm saying people made those offers to try to buy us. We did not take any of them. What is more important however is that when Alliances go in, people are going to care about winning again. And the mindset that had people buy guilds for seasons is going to come back with Alliances. And that will create unbalanced match-ups if scoring remains as it currently is.

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Of course I know how desperate people can be for SEA/OCX.

However, there are SEA/OCX guilds that didn't ditch their server despite NA ditching it. For example, dragonbrand, tons of NA ditching it when it became full for unpredictable time due to outdated system. Not just dragonbrand, there were a few others before that for other reasons, dragonbrand just a high profile example. If the NA is having weak hands, then don't blame their weak hands on others.

I'm glad you bring up Dragonbrand, it is a good example of exactly why the old scoring system and to a lesser extent the new skirmish system are unbalanced. Dragonbrand, more than any server in NA has been up and down the rankings, its NA population has grown to massive numbers at least five times that I can think of, and quickly imploded. Dragonbrand's stacked SEA always drew NA guilds to stack that server in the hopes of getting carried up and not having to worry about those timezones. But it never worked. I was on Dragonbrand for a long time, attended the servers meetings, heck I led the server meetings a couple times. The community was toxic, and unstable and has not benefited from all the ups and downs that server has endured. Having a stacked SEA server such as Dragonbrand destroyed other mid-tier servers, such as Darkhaven, and put Dragonbrand itself in a constant cycle of becoming a bandwagon than imploding again and again.

Now, if weighted scoring were in the game. The weight and expectations on the OCX/SEA folks, the idea that they have to carry the PPT burden for their servers, would be reduced, and they could divide up among more servers to create both a more balanced offhours population, and a more fun WvW experience overall.

[Baldrick.8967]

You've moved servers how many times? Clearly a mercenary guild- but the buying stopped when people lost interest in the mode and winning.

Will it come back? Probably. There are always people willing to do anything in order to 'win' and claim they are 'the best'.

Any weighted scoring by time zone won't encourage people back to the mode, nor would it encourage players to split between servers. This is the same argument that 'fight guilds' in the five years they have had, are all equally spread across the servers now, because that would have been the best way to achieve the stated aim- but of course we all know that's rubbish, they bandwagon. Same as will happen with alliances- it's just that Anet will have more control over the bandwagonning and will be able to directly alter the bandwagon.

[Caliburn.1845]

If your argument is that weighted scoring won't work because fight guilds have never been able to spread themselves around the servers, then you're rather unaware of the current disposition of NA "fight guilds". Bullyfoot's GvG tourny guild list would perhaps be the most recent and current example(although a fair number of guilds are not participating, so the split is actually even better). Krta-SBI, Kpk-NSP, BAN-DH/CD, BOO-YB, DEF-HoD, TBT-SoS/BP, PB-DB(?), CoSa-SBI, BANE-YB, RISE-DR, CL-everywhere, TORK-YB, TAG-DH/CD, PYRO-MAG, DC-SBI, ODF-JQ, BAY-EBay, RED-YB, KnT-BG, ONE-SBI, MM-SoS/BP, TTD-MAG, Hate-SBI, BMO-SoS, BOMB-FA, SIN-SBI.

For those counting at home that means every NA host server is represented save one, and a fair number of guest servers are represented as well. Where is the stacking exactly?

But my specific idea is not weighted scoring by time zone, it is weighted scoring by activity level. I agree with you that Alliances will create bandwagons. The point is would weighted scoring add to the bandwagon effect or hinder it? Let us say that all the guilds listed above went to one Alliance, a massive bandwagon. Would that help them? No, because they would have no one to fight, thus creating no activity while they play, and gaining no weighted scoring advantage. Thus encouraging them to split up.

[Baldrick.8967]

I'm not on NA, but fight guild isn't the same as GVG guild. They can be the same guild, but it's two different things. If things were really as spread out as you claim, there wouldn't be a huge difference between the world scores at prime- but there clearly is, and most stacked servers will have several 'fight' guilds whereas the bottom ones will struggle to field more than one. Even on your listing, there are 6 guilds listed as being on SBI- that's hardly spread out!

How will you measure activity level? One decent scout (who contributes nothing in terms of kills) is worth much more than several members of a blob, despite not being defined as 'active' by Anet's measurements.

Not all the guilds would stack one server due to the restrictions on number of guilds in an alliance, so they can't be a massive bandwagon by themselves. But I can see 2-3 bandwagon alliances forming and the requirements being the usual toxic elitism.

We'll have to wait and see!

[shiri.4257]

LMAO NA fight guilds spread out to tier lock and stroke epeens. Then they get emo, disband, and reform after their tantrums for off hour guilds to put in work and maintain their tier status fail. Bless Anet for introducing links, 1 up/1down, and soon to be alliances. NA fight guilds are just epeen trash from wood league up to tier 1.

Don't discriminate against the wallabies and sugarcane population. Pay up for doing the work NA guilds can't do themselves.

[Euryon.9248]

@Roxanne.6140 said:People in this thread complaining about kitten like this simply did not understand what anet already implemented close to a year ago. This was the motivation for a skirmish-warscore system where scores have equal weighting throughout the day and warscore factors in player kills as part of the win. I have summarised this in as simple and concise a paragraph and if this is still not understood, prayers out to the next generation.

The warscore system did help to an extent. But it wasn't enough, as usually the servers with the best OCX/SEA coverage are still the ones winning.

Besides the server links gave enough coverage to generally balance all off hours except BG. It isn't as simple to walk up to the castle and take it during off hours because there are still quite a few random players on siege defending it in almost all cases. Besides, dead timezones exist throughout the day. At which point will you determine what matters and what doesnt

You clearly haven't played on NSP. We have never had more than a skeleton OCX/SEA crew (unless it was many years ago before I arrived). I got up early one morning (EST) several weeks ago and checked our K/D. For the skirmish that was just about to end, it was 27/18. Over the course of 2 hours, we had 27 kills and 18 deaths. Yes, for opposing servers it is as easy as walking up and taking a T3 keep when you have that kind of coverage. It's a major victory when we have anything T3 for more than 24 hours during the week.

And I doubt NSP is the only server with this issue.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Caliburn.1845 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:Of course I know how desperate people can be for SEA/OCX.

However, there are SEA/OCX guilds that didn't ditch their server despite NA ditching it. For example, dragonbrand, tons of NA ditching it when it became full for unpredictable time due to outdated system. Not just dragonbrand, there were a few others before that for other reasons, dragonbrand just a high profile example. If the NA is having weak hands, then don't blame their weak hands on others.

I'm glad you bring up Dragonbrand, it is a good example of exactly why the old scoring system and to a lesser extent the new skirmish system are unbalanced. Dragonbrand, more than any server in NA has been up and down the rankings, its NA population has grown to massive numbers at least five times that I can think of, and quickly imploded. Dragonbrand's stacked SEA always drew NA guilds to stack that server in the hopes of getting carried up and not having to worry about those timezones. But it never worked. I was on Dragonbrand for a long time, attended the servers meetings, heck I led the server meetings a couple times. The community was toxic, and unstable and has not benefited from all the ups and downs that server has endured. Having a stacked SEA server such as Dragonbrand destroyed other mid-tier servers, such as Darkhaven, and put Dragonbrand itself in a constant cycle of becoming a bandwagon than imploding again and again.

Now, if weighted scoring were in the game. The weight and expectations on the OCX/SEA folks, the idea that they have to carry the PPT burden for their servers, would be reduced, and they could divide up among more servers to create both a more balanced offhours population, and a more fun WvW experience overall.

I will appreciate if you don't selectively read. Your last paragraph already rebutted and I will repost for your benefits. Also, you already agreed that NA moves a lot, regardless there is SEA or no SEA. You also already agreed that DB was stuck in-between tiers due to lack of NA which means you subconsciously agreed that offhours can't push up the tier just by themselves which henceforth invalid a point you made in some of your posts in this thread.

Furthermore, the skirmish system already equalized and we already talked about discriminating timezone for skirmish back then. Not just only discrimination, it also encourage people to brainwash themselves that population is balanced. If population balance is not balance, then it is not, don't attempt to artificially balance it. You are just making the game worst for everyone. Population balance is population balance, it is not about winning and losing. What you are proposing is purely winning and losing. And that's why we having stacking, buying etc. Because, winning and losing is many NA ever think about.

Those who frequent the forums should know that I always advocate about populations balance and what you are proposing has nothing to do with populations balance.

[Roxanne.6140]

Yes pls go ahead to double the weightage of NA scores. Who cares.

[Caliburn.1845]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

I will appreciate if you don't selectively read. Your last paragraph already rebutted and I will repost for your benefits. Also, you already agreed that NA moves a lot, regardless there is SEA or no SEA. You also already agreed that DB was stuck in-between tiers due to lack of NA which means you subconsciously agreed that offhours can't push up the tier just by themselves which henceforth invalid a point you made in some of your posts in this thread.

Furthermore, the skirmish system already equalized and we already talked about discriminating timezone for skirmish back then. Not just only discrimination, it also encourage people to brainwash themselves that population is balanced. If population balance is not balance, then it is not, don't attempt to artificially balance it. You are just making the game worst for everyone. Population balance is population balance, it is not about winning and losing. What you are proposing is purely winning and losing. And that's why we having stacking, buying etc. Because, winning and losing is many NA ever think about.

DB has been carried up to T1 on the back of its SEA population several times over the years. However to stay in T1 you need more than one TZ coverage. DB's NA gets frustrated and burnt out, and the server implodes. Rinse, repeat. DB is not alone in this regard, many servers have endured this fate.

But on to the equalization question. The skirmish system on one level equalized things, but on another level it did not. Lets take the example of our NSP friend.

@Euryon.9248 said:You clearly haven't played on NSP. We have never had more than a skeleton OCX/SEA crew (unless it was many years ago before I arrived). I got up early one morning (EST) several weeks ago and checked our K/D. For the skirmish that was just about to end, it was 27/18. Over the course of 2 hours, we had 27 kills and 18 deaths. Yes, for opposing servers it is as easy as walking up and taking a T3 keep when you have that kind of coverage. It's a major victory when we have anything T3 for more than 24 hours during the week.And I doubt NSP is the only server with this issue.

And this point is at the core of the weighted scoring argument. Is it balanced or equal that a skirmish where a server gets 27 kills and 18 deaths over the course of two hours has the same value as a two hour block of time where a server gets 1500 kills and 1463 deaths?

You're marginalizing the bulk of the population who play WvW, and calling it equality.

[Subversion.2580]

I'm on record here making and pointing to similar suggestions made in the past.I favour a "relative weighted system" though where, instead of balancing score based on total numbers as in a "weighted system" as proposed in this thread, you balance it on relative numbers (active numbers, mechanically tied to map) in order to have all time zones spread thin but without punishing the thinner time zones.

Eg., instead of splitting scoring over total amounts of players or kills (10-100, or 1000-2000-3000 etc.) you split it on relative amounts of players (1:1:1=10:10:10=100:100:100=100% map value, vs. 1:2:1 or 1:2:2 = 50% map value, etc.). No bonus for undermanned play and simply a cutback for everyone (map-wide) as imbalances occur in real time. It could make a losing side drop off to preserve score to when they can come back and compete instead of continously losing even-numbered fights (eg., encouraging tag-swap pauses and tag/guild dodging etc.), but is that really a bad thing score-wise or something that doesn't happen already?

It would incentivize thin time zones like OCX to spread as thin as US and still contribute as much on 10/10/10 maps as US prime would do on 100/100/100. At the end of the day the imbalance nightcapping creates does not come from fewer players impacting score overall (10/10/10 being as impactful as 100/100/100) it tends to come from off-hour communities, like OCX in US or french-canadians and south-americans in EU, clumping up on too few servers creating 50/0/0 scenarios night time (in their off-hour prime) and fighting doors.

Some additional game-design musings under the spoiler.

! Not only does that create coverage issues when it comes to scoring and letting the mode itself be competetive. Those servers also tend climb in ranking yet spend day-time being crushed by much larger or better organized servers prime and never get or provide fun competetive similar-numbered fights. Thus everybody loses, long term as no good content is produced in either timezone. We often get two bad timezones partly balanced in score but content is lacking all day around.

! Much like the OP, it think the new World restructre system is nice as it will give active and organized players more room to shape the worlds but it also lacks in how it does not adress coverage issues so as players get organized they will have to organize alliances and shape worlds from other time zones (it's likely we'll see alot of active recruitment of US guilds to EU in order to balance out the age-old french/canadian and south-american/spanish language migrations from US to EU).

! Another limitation of the world restructuring as proposed is that Anet has already produced tech that could be used to build a much more flexible system (akin to PvE worlds/maps but with weighted balance for score). Alliances etc., would have been awesome after the first dip in players back in 2014 but by 2018 they have more precise systems already built for other game modes that could be used in a WvW-restruction to avoid queues and actively scan for players on maps, etc. With that, I would much have favoured a (relative-) weighted system not only as a complement to alliance-oriented restructuring but rather as the foundation for a full system where additional maps could spawn for personal rewards (wxp) without imbalancing war scores. If relative weight gets put in we don't need alliances and we won't have queues or coverage.

! That is the best appeal of a relative weighted system, that the tech is already here (multiple-instanced maps, outnumbered buff etc.) and just needs to be adapted to WvW scoring by making imbalanced maps affect war score less without punishing individual rewards or thin-timezone players.

[Caliburn.1845]

I like some of the features of a relative weighted system, but I prefer activity based weighting. Mostly due to a gut feeling that relative weighting would be easier to game, and could lead to toxic behavior. "You're not doing anything! Get out of here you newbie!" Etc.

But either system would be substantially better than what we have today.