Why isnt KDR a bigger part of the war score in wvw?

[Malediktus.9250]

I wish kills would stop giving score points. I am sick and tired of most commanders just trying to farm enemy zerg all evening while all your structure are left to rot

[LetoII.3782]

@Malediktus.9250 said:I wish kills would stop giving score points. I am sick and tired of most commanders just trying to farm enemy zerg all evening while all your structure are left to rot

Did you purchase this product to flip empty towers?

[Strider Pj.2193]

Problem is @LetoII.3782 is many people on here feel like there are two camps: people either want nothing to do with fights, or they want nothing to do with capping a structure.

Reality is, most reside somewhere in between. I am sure he doesn't want to cap empty towers. But that tower has value in the game.

So does killing a player. They both should.

[LetoII.3782]

You're half right pj.There's people who realize what points are in WvW and people who haven't caught on yet.Myself, I'd happily play a proper mega-conquest. But that's not what's ever been on offer, just the illusion... Maybe after the rework it'll be a thing

[Drinks.2361]

It's all comes down to defense being too strong & it's pretty much removed both havoc & ktrain play styles from the game. Which is a real shame because that is where most new players start out in WvW

[Strider Pj.2193]

@LetoII.3782 said:You're half right pj.There's people who realize what points are in WvW and people who haven't caught on yet.Myself, I'd happily play a proper mega-conquest. But that's not what's ever been on offer, just the illusion... Maybe after the rework it'll be a thing

The only PvP I enjoyed were the death match ones.. I agree.

Love to see just that... large scale beatings back and forth...

But it's not an offering.

[moutzaheadin.4029]

This is an easy one from a long time maguuma resident.

What's left of the old mag server doesn't PPT. We will take SMC not for PPT. It makes it easy to get to the fights faster.

Why is out PPT low ? The new link (AR) is small, they are our ppters and some of the newer mag players that don't know any better.

We used to have more PPT when we had (DR) for what ever reason they loved taking empty buildings. Dr got a bunch of transfers for being linked with us because people enjoy riding mags coat tails.

Plan and simple why we are , where we are.

[DeceiverX.8361]

@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:I can't speak about everything Maguuma was doing last night in EB. What I did see was two groups, one running about 25-30 & another about 7-10 (with the usual variations over time, as WvWers come & go). Both groups would only besiege objectives if it was poorly defended; they ran from any fight where they had less than a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage. (That included camps.) They would frequently remain outside an objective, not using siege, to pick off any foes attempting to get in to defend.

Consequently, they didn't die very often and their outnumbered opponents were efficiently converted into bags.

Assuming my narrow observational data was typical, that would generate impressive KDR and almost no points-per-tick.

If KDR was a bigger part of the score, then lots of servers would adopt this sort of game play. And I think it would make the game very dull. Lots of even fights are fun for me. I do like the karma & skirmish rewards we get for purging a map clean of foes, but it's also boring.

To be clear, I don't see anything wrong or unfair about what I perceive Mags to be doing; I just wouldn't enjoy the game mode as much if that was typical of every match up, every week. Your mileage might vary.

Pretty much this exactly; Mag plays almost exclusively around their KDR stat to brag about their "skill" which usually consists of ganks. Rewarding KDR/PPK so heavily would reduce incentive to actually take any risks or fight on even numbers.

KDR isn't really indicative of what may be necessary to win greater tactical advances, either. On numerous occasions, I've led or been part of suicide groups that while largely outnumbered, smash our faces into an enemy keep/tower/fight solely just to die and do it over and over while another group takes a different keep or major objectives to force an ultimatum and to deny any ability for our enemy to react. If they run to defend the other objective, we take what we attack. If they stay, they still lose big like a T3 Keep. KDR/PPK is cool for small-scale games, but anything persistent and large-scale should reward the communication it allows for.

[Hiraldo.7954]

@"DeceiverX.8361" said:Pretty much this exactly; Mag plays almost exclusively around their KDR stat to brag about their "skill" which usually consists of ganks.

Not really, people meme about the kdr thing but it's not really something that crosses most people's mind until after the fact when we look back and are like "oh lol 4.0 kdr that skirmish, let's shitpost about it on discord"

You can't really deny that mag is stacked skill wise lol. Not as much as we used to be, since we got bandwagoned pretty hard, but theres still a clear discrepancy in terms of fighting ability.

Rewarding KDR/PPK so heavily would reduce incentive to actually take any risks or fight on even numbers.

Agreed 100%

KDR isn't really indicative of what may be necessary to win greater tactical advances, either. On numerous occasions, I've led or been part of suicide groups that while largely outnumbered, smash our faces into an enemy keep/tower/fight solely just to die and do it over and over while another group takes a different keep or major objectives to force an ultimatum and to deny any ability for our enemy to react. If they run to defend the other objective, we take what we attack. If they stay, they still lose big like a T3 Keep. KDR/PPK is cool for small-scale games, but anything persistent and large-scale should reward the communication it allows for.

This is also true, KDR is a pointless stat a lot of the time and one that people really shouldn't worry about. Every idiot on your sever effects KDR just as much as you do, so if your kdr is good you're probably being carried by a guild on a bl somewhere, and if it's exceptionally bad, most of those deaths will be from randos doing who knows what. The game is more fun when players throw themselves at each other for fights and don't worry about pointless statistics.

[DeceiverX.8361]

I' don't believe I've ever fought Mag in any situation without being outnumbered 1.5-2 : 1 at best over the years to be honest. It's hard to read skill when your own skillgroup of five (now quit) is ever only engaged by a near-minimum of 8 to 10 of typically the FotM roaming specs, and even numbers are typically just gank groups of thieves that flee at first sight. There are excellent players there no doubt, and it's definitely been cut down a LOT by the bandwagoning, but I think the skill thing has been vastly overstated for a long time; it's more that the server doesn't have a substantial base of terrible, unorganized pugs playing bad builds than a huge skill advantage from my experience fighting against. Because they're always grouped and playing stronger selfish builds outside of the main blob, mechanical skill and game sense can fall by the wayside and still get results, as the potential to get picked and outplayed drops pretty drastically when having the people to cover anyone who goes down.

Granted, my recent escapades in WvW have suggested that the skill level of the general WvW "roamer" has drastically fallen from what I remember it used to be, so maybe the gap is substantial on a number of servers. Though it only ever seems to be on our side so I wonder if it's just our link's pugs that are bad :tongue:

[XenesisII.1540]

@DeceiverX.8361 said:I' don't believe I've ever fought Mag in any situation without being outnumbered 1.5-2 : 1 at best over the years to be honest.

Doesn't sound like you're being honest, to be honest. This sentence just invalidates everything else said afterwards.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@DeceiverX.8361 said:think the skill thing has been vastly overstated for a long time; it's more that the server doesn't have a substantial base of terrible, unorganized pugs playing bad builds than a huge skill advantage from my experience fighting against

isn't that skill then? sure, from certain perspective, plenty of mag not really that good

however, doesn't change the skill gap caused by people stacking; old players go to other servers which means destacked servers got lots of new players that just bad at everything and lack any will to get better because they are surrounded by fellow new players.

of course, this isn't just mag, a lot of servers are stacked, a lot of servers got destacked. this still a player created issues while anet fail to handle transfers balance

in any case, once the servers blow up, the skill differences should balance out, at least get a little better.

[DeceiverX.8361]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@"DeceiverX.8361" said:think the skill thing has been vastly overstated for a long time; it's more that the server doesn't have a substantial base of terrible, unorganized pugs playing bad builds than a huge skill advantage from my experience fighting against

isn't that skill then? sure, from certain perspective, plenty of mag not really that good

however, doesn't change the skill gap caused by people stacking; old players go to other servers which means destacked servers got lots of new players that just bad at everything and lack any will to get better because they are surrounded by fellow new players.

of course, this isn't just mag, a lot of servers are stacked, a lot of servers got destacked. this still a player created issues while anet fail to handle transfers balance

in any case, once the servers blow up, the skill differences should balance out, at least get a little better.

Not really; it's kind of like gloating you're a better baseball player than those in the peewee tee-ball league. There may be more skill in general because of a lack of these kinds of players, but that's not the basis for claiming there's a particular feat of skill worth gloating about.

"Man, I'm so great that I'm about as average as people would expect!" is kind of a silly thing to say, no?

[Caliburn.1845]

What if KDR were designed with a bit more creativity and aimed to encourage certain player behavior? If you kill an enemy in your T3 SMC, you get no warscore, and it doesn't add to your server's KDR. If you kill an enemy player in an enemy T3 structure you get double the warscore and KDR.

Weight it to take into account other factors such as if they are fighting within enemy structures, and fighting outnumbered, with the intention to make megablob style less effective, and to favor groups that hunt for outnumbered fights or push enemy structures.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@DeceiverX.8361 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@DeceiverX.8361 said:think the skill thing has been vastly overstated for a long time; it's more that the server doesn't have a substantial base of terrible, unorganized pugs playing bad builds than a huge skill advantage from my experience fighting against

isn't that skill then? sure, from certain perspective, plenty of mag not really that good

however, doesn't change the skill gap caused by people stacking; old players go to other servers which means destacked servers got lots of new players that just bad at everything and lack any will to get better because they are surrounded by fellow new players.

of course, this isn't just mag, a lot of servers are stacked, a lot of servers got destacked. this still a player created issues while anet fail to handle transfers balance

in any case, once the servers blow up, the skill differences should balance out, at least get a little better.

Not really; it's kind of like gloating you're a better baseball player than those in the peewee tee-ball league. There may be more skill in general because of a lack of these kinds of players, but that's not the basis for claiming there's a particular feat of skill worth gloating about.

"Man, I'm so great that I'm about as average as people would expect!" is kind of a silly thing to say, no?

Haha, but this is wvw. A lot of players play it just to gloat how average they are while thinking they are above average, pretty much the basis of trash talks. Also part of reasons why we have stacking and tanking.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Caliburn.1845 said:What if KDR were designed with a bit more creativity and aimed to encourage certain player behavior? If you kill an enemy in your T3 SMC, you get no warscore, and it doesn't add to your server's KDR. If you kill an enemy player in an enemy T3 structure you get double the warscore and KDR.

Weight it to take into account other factors such as if they are fighting within enemy structures, and fighting outnumbered, with the intention to make megablob style less effective, and to favor groups that hunt for outnumbered fights or push enemy structures.

This is interesting, can also include weighting the number of people in the same guilds, regardless repped or not.

[DeceiverX.8361]

@Caliburn.1845 said:What if KDR were designed with a bit more creativity and aimed to encourage certain player behavior? If you kill an enemy in your T3 SMC, you get no warscore, and it doesn't add to your server's KDR. If you kill an enemy player in an enemy T3 structure you get double the warscore and KDR.

Weight it to take into account other factors such as if they are fighting within enemy structures, and fighting outnumbered, with the intention to make megablob style less effective, and to favor groups that hunt for outnumbered fights or push enemy structures.

Maybe, but I feel like it'd just encourage people to siege-hump more when on the defensive to deny PPK (no gain but no loss), and probably just make more commanders tunnel-vision to enemy-held SMC more than anything lol.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Problem is @"LetoII.3782" is many people on here feel like there are two camps: people either want nothing to do with fights, or they want nothing to do with capping a structure.

Reality is, most reside somewhere in between. I am sure he doesn't want to cap empty towers. But that tower has value in the game.

So does killing a player. They both should.

This is partly true, but at least from my experience now, it seems more people would rather let something flip as to get more fights, rather than let it upgrade preventing fights. What this equates to is, I think more people are behind PPK or fights now than they are behind PPT. We know this due to server's avoidance of T1. Both BG and SOS aren't hard to kill, but players get fed up when servers in general hide inside of upgraded structures under siege. Protect the PPT and avoid fights and we have servers that actively tank out of T1.

Players want fights, they don't want to cap empty towers, but they also don't to bang their head against the wall trying to flip something that's T3 when players just hide inside. Often stuff is attacked to just to draw people out to fight with no intention of taking the structure. Perhaps Anet's better off just removing the upgrades all together and leaving everything "paper". There certainly would be a lot more stuff attacked and flipped.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Problem is @"LetoII.3782" is many people on here feel like there are two camps: people either want nothing to do with fights, or they want nothing to do with capping a structure.

Reality is, most reside somewhere in between. I am sure he doesn't want to cap empty towers. But that tower has value in the game.

So does killing a player. They both should.

This is partly true, but at least from my experience now, it seems more people would rather let something flip as to get more fights, rather than let it upgrade preventing fights. What this equates to is, I think more people are behind PPK or fights now than they are behind PPT. We know this due to server's avoidance of T1. Both BG and SOS aren't hard to kill, but players get fed up when servers in general hide inside of upgraded structures under siege. Protect the PPT and avoid fights and we have servers that actively tank out of T1.

Players want fights, they don't want to cap empty towers, but they also don't to bang their head against the wall trying to flip something that's T3 when players just hide inside. Often stuff is attacked to just to draw people out to fight with no intention of taking the structure. Perhaps Anet's better off just removing the upgrades all together and leaving everything "paper". There certainly would be a lot more stuff attacked and flipped.

Oh I get that perspective. What is interesting, is some of the 'fights' servers run from even numbers often as well.

Well, it will be interesting with the upcoming changes, if alliances truly even out populations, then will be interesting which guilds hide in an upgraded SMC fighting only under siege.

[MedievalThings.5417]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Problem is @"LetoII.3782" is many people on here feel like there are two camps: people either want nothing to do with fights, or they want nothing to do with capping a structure.

Reality is, most reside somewhere in between. I am sure he doesn't want to cap empty towers. But that tower has value in the game.

So does killing a player. They both should.

This is partly true, but at least from my experience now, it seems more people would rather let something flip as to get more fights, rather than let it upgrade preventing fights. What this equates to is, I think more people are behind PPK or fights now than they are behind PPT. We know this due to server's avoidance of T1. Both BG and SOS aren't hard to kill, but players get fed up when servers in general hide inside of upgraded structures under siege. Protect the PPT and avoid fights and we have servers that actively tank out of T1.

Players want fights, they don't want to cap empty towers, but they also don't to bang their head against the wall trying to flip something that's T3 when players just hide inside. Often stuff is attacked to just to draw people out to fight with no intention of taking the structure. Perhaps Anet's better off just removing the upgrades all together and leaving everything "paper". There certainly would be a lot more stuff attacked and flipped.

Oh I get that perspective. What is interesting, is some of the 'fights' servers run from even numbers often as well.

Well, it will be interesting with the upcoming changes, if alliances truly even out populations, then will be interesting which guilds hide in an upgraded SMC fighting only under siege.

I have been on TC since launch and faced every server. Every "fight" server I have faced was about sheer numbers. If they can't outnumber you, they won't "fight". They have 20 guys camping the area north of SMC (but always in range of SMC for the buff). You show up with 20 and start killing them they just retreat inside the fully sieged/fortified castle. You don't even have to attack the castle, but guaranteed the next time you see the 20 it's 50-70.

Granted, there is nothing fair about wvw. People want to win and will do whatever it takes to win (which is why someone pulls all of TC's tactics just about on cooldown every day). The stat they have chosen to claim they win is KDR, but they use that to justify being in a lower tier then they should be based on population/coverage. And, it's much easier to "win" when you face fewer numbers most of the day in the lower tiers...expecially facing servers that have imploded and are back at the bottom.

Only Anet knows how they intended the game mode to be played. If they envision wvw as BG does, then it will be about taking and holding structures. It seems like this is what Anet wants because of the way scoring works. PPT is more important because they designed it that way and it is how they want wvw played. If that truly is the case (and not just to prevent trading kills) they should just remove scoring from kills. They are constantly adjusting the other game modes to force players to play how they envision content, they need to establish a clear direction for wvw so that all of the people playing that game mode are focused on the same "idea" for how it should be played. The way it is now we have 1 clear winner, a couple unhappy people who face them (due to imbalance), and people who should be facing them but don't care about the "score" they just want to farm bags of people they can outnumber.

Alliances may fix the population imbalance some, but if they don't give wvw a single, clear direction, not much is going to change.

[aarias.4016]

After this long playing GW2 it's pretty clear that some/most of the servers have gained a server culture that favors one type of play or another, and the server's reputation generally reflects that culture.

Over time more people have gravitated to Mag who like to fight, are kinda trollish, and don't care much for the PPT game. "Carebear" PUGs who are super casual and not particularly skilled get turned off by the culture of servers like Mag and leave to go to another server. Conversely, on a server like BG, people know it's a "PPT" server. Of course there are people on BG who prefer fights, but the core of the community enjoy the "PPT" game - not to say that they are all scrubs and hate to fight, but they either also enjoy PPT play, or like to generate their fights through the overall PPT structure.

There's also coverage. Mag has ALWAYS had a very strong EU and early NA. Lots of people, lots of skilled players. Most other servers, BG included, have a relatively weak EU. Maybe an EU guild or two, but generally small, and not much in the way of skilled PUGs. Mag historically can leverage their numbers advantage during EU and use that time to cap stuff they want (usually on EB) or engage in spawn camping shenanigans and the like. It's not uncommon for Mag to be blobbing around EB during EU complaining that they don't have anyone to "fight". Most servers can't field those numbers during EU. Plain and simple. If they can it's mostly random PUGs who can't really fight anyway. Honestly, if the Mag EU blob split up into smaller groups and did some "PPT" you'd probably find more fights for yourselves since most opposing servers have SOME players who like to fight, they just can't match Mag's numbers.

You all say you don't PPT because "no one wants to throw themselves against a T3 keep/tower with a pile of siege humpers" while at the same time act surprised that BG and other servers just ignore you when you have T3 SMC, siege everywhere, and people all over the place ganking or whatever. People avoid Mag when they have T3 SMC for all the same reasons that Mag avoids "PPTing". The single minded focus on SMC essentially makes you irrelevant to the matchup as a whole and prevents you from ever having a chance to win in T1. In the mind of most T1 server players "just ignore them and they'll be gone at the end of the week".

To say that Anet should change match scoring to reward servers like Mag who basically focus 100% of their attention on a single objective in WvW is honestly laughable. If Mag wants to move up in the tiers, they will need to leave SM and cap some stuff. It's not rocket science. The truth of the matter is that if you spread your force rather than focusing on a single objective you risk losing that objective, and also losing more fights since you find yourself outmanned more than you would otherwise - KDR will likely suffer.

[Kilo.2539]

@NooB.9702 said:This is just an example, I am not trying to throw anyone under the bus here...

Right now Maguuma is in t3 and it looks like they are gonna stay. Their kdr is 2:1, Tarnished Coast has a kd of 0.66, and Crystal Desert is at 0.88. Last night, during prime time, we had a zerg trying to form in eb. Maguuma's kdr jumped to 4:1 and the zerg dispersed because they could not get started. Maguuma just watched, outnumbered, and slaughtered anyone coming from the keep, leading to the dispersion. So, why is Maguuma apparently struggling to move up? They have war in gw2 perfected and no one in t3 can even come close to matching them. Yet they are low in score for t3. I feel that a lot of guilds do not run when against Maguuma, this cost anet money because people quit for full weeks every other week when they face Maguuma. Some players lose interest and do not return. By making KDR a bigger part of warscore, servers that try to stack will go to t1, if they get too stressed they will move servers and generate anet money. At this time, maguuma can hold a waypointed smc against bg (the defacto and so far permanent t1 server), and keep kdr far above 1:1 while in t1. Allowing such a stong server to go into low teirs, where it is not a challenge for them, would seemingly cost Anet money. So why allow a superior server, who can hold a wp against bg in t1, with a high kdr while in t1, into t3 where absolutely no one can defend against them? This is supposed to be a competition, shouldn't the strongest server win?

MAG has a high KDR because they concentrate all their players in SMC, siege the crap out of it, and hit and run anyone dumb enough walk too close to the outer walls. MAG will always be a perfect example of why this game mode is dying.

[XenesisII.1540]

Some people forget that is a pvp game mode, this isn't some kind of city building simulation where you just watch your structures get to tier 3.Scoring was implemented as a way to determine rankings for new matchups, hence the glicko system. Which was also determined to be broken from the very first week of the game because of population coverage issues. The other rvr modes that wvw was based off of didn't even have scoring.

You are you free to play wvw however you want with however many numbers around you, whether that be solo roam, small group havoc, zerg, ppting, ppking, scouting, building and tapping, zerg busting, gvging, blobbing under one tag. That's the beauty of it, it isn't just a 10 min spvp conquest match, it's so much more than that. There is no set definitive way to play this game mode, that's the problem some of you have is just sitting on the train and letting it take you to wins, like that means anything other than setting up the rankings for the next weeks matchup. Wake up already.

Siege the crap out of smc, man some of you are so clueless in not seeing the servers that will put 3 acs on top floor for every gate, 2 acs on the bottom and a treb to cover that gate with catas up by the cannon too. The problem here is in a matchup with mag they won't let you do those things. Problem with this game mode is people running from virtual deaths and just ppting, I've seen entire zergs just run into a tower to cap the lord while another zerg is eating at their tail, like they think they can cap the tower before they're all dead, so sad.

[Shagaliscious.6281]

I say everyone goes on a EBG strike when facing Maguuma. Just let them have the entire map, uncontested.

[Regimentz.3471]

@Shagaliscious.6281 said:I say everyone goes on a EBG strike when facing Maguuma. Just let them have the entire map,I think sbi is listening to you