Why are matchups not based on k/d solely

LetoII.3782 · October 12, 2018

@Gop.8713 said:
@Israel.7056 said:
@Gop.8713 said:Then you should be lobbying for forced transfers to even out populations and coverage, stricter pop caps on maps to guard against blobbing, etc.

I'm all for both tbh. I even made a thread proposing forced transfers once but it was not well received at the time.

Maybe they'll make the alliance limits small enough that to help them with world balancing. It's all we can hope for I guess . . .

Alliance size confirmed as 500Number of people it'd take to dominate aatch: much fewer

joneirikb.7506 · October 12, 2018

Since this turned into a full PPT vs PPK discussion:

I was initially a fan of adding PPK to the mode (In addition to the Bloodlust bonus PPK), but the more I've thought about it and seen in-game, I have changed my view. PPK does, more often than not, discourage players that doesn't feel confident about combat from trying to fight. After all, why give the enemy a free point ?

The basic idea is good, give a point/reward for doing something active/pvp in a pvp mode. The problem is that it also punishes and thus discourages players that doesn't feel confident they have a chance to win.

This also goes into both the reward system and the point system in WvW. You should reward players for being active (killing or dying!) with personal rewards, so players are encouraged to throw themselves in there and try/learn. But avoid giving personal reward (bags, pips, whatever) to only the winner. You should also avoid giving more points for something as fairly strategically insignificant as a duel at south camp or outside SMC.

Easy to say, hard to design. Yes I know.

Gop.8713 · October 13, 2018

@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Gop.8713 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Gop.8713 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Gop.8713 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Gop.8713 said:
@Israel.7056 said:
@Strider Pj.2193 said:
@Rysdude.3824 said:
@joneirikb.7506 said:
@Israel.7056 said:
@Gop.8713 said:
@Israel.7056 said:
@Chaba.5410 said:
@Israel.7056 said:
@"juno.1840" said:KDR is only half of the WvW game mode. There should be no reward for ignoring half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

Last I checked kills accounted for a relatively small percentage of total points and it's entirely possible to win the week with a negative kdr so I don't think kdr is even half of what you're supposed to do for a win.

PPT scoring is rewarded by the additional points you get for having upgraded objectives. The extra points given for taking upgraded objectives isn't enough to justify the grind to take them. I think that's one reason why PPT still beats out PPK.

100 percent. Structures upgrade automatically and upgraded structures can just sit there accumulating points for hours during low activity spots with zero interference whereas farming ppk takes a lot of time and effort and the people getting farmed can just peace out and go build siege and force attackers to endure hours of long sieges just to get one or two fights and ain't nobody got time for that.

Yes, that's the problem. Ppl getting farmed aren't willing to stick around and get farmed. So inconsiderate . . .

It's a problem if ppk is supposed to be an actual deciding factor in matches if people can just build siege and easily hide from fights.

It's a problem if the winners are supposed to be the ones winning most of their fights.

Its a problem because experienced ppt oriented players know that they don't actually need to be able to win fights to win matches so a lot of servers don't even try to fight much they just try to take stuff when everyone else is asleep upgrade them so they get as many points as possible and then defend them with siege and stalling tactics whenever they get attacked.

This is the game were playing so let's not pretend fighting is half of what's needed to actually win when ppk is more like 10 to 15 percent of the total points in most matchups.

You know, just an unformed idea in my head, but what if buildings slowly de-capped if you didn't have anyone around it (inside event range?)?

I mean, that has the potential for so much problems, but could change the passive point gain a good bit. Or a slightly less version, don't have building upgrade unless there is a player within "range" or the upgrading pause.

Or just have NPC's (centaur hordes or whatever) come and attack towers/keeps that's been undefended for 30+ min or something, just a method to return "passive" buildings to un-claimed.

Depending on perspective, I guess this would create more "active play", though others might see it as more "passive play" for those would would be "stuck" defending objects for keeping them.

People would probably end up focusing on a couple of keeps, and ignore the rest, and rather just karma train to take them back.

Timezone coverage would still be the trump card it currently is.

No system will change that. Not in a 24 hour mode which is what WvW was designed to be.

Yeah the core of the coverage issue is the 24 hr game mode.

I know this has been floated before and shot down pretty quickly but I'd be all for weighting the times of day based on average player base, probably by adjusting the length of skirmishes. Like one hour skirmishes in prime time up to maybe four hours during the slowest periods. I rarely play in prime time and I'd be fine with that . . .

It would be just as unfair as pre skirmish though. Thats why the skirmish system has already fixed it, you dont weigh time or balance by population and whatnot. 2 hours in the middle of the night is worth exactly the same as 2 hours in primetime, period (unlike before when the same time period could be worth 10x as much during the night). What you suggest is just making primetime worth more instead, reversing the scenario.

Then I didn't express the idea well. What I suggested is making each play hour equally valuable, not tipping the scale towards primetime. The 1 hour/4 hour example was just that, an example, and would only hold true if the most populated hour was four times more populated than the least. If what you are saying is that play hours during less populated times should be given more weight, as they are now, then I do disagree. I don't think it's a huge crisis, but if we're going to put it in the 'good' or 'bad' column, it's def bad . . .

Play hours are not given more weight now, thats the entire point. 30 players playing for two hours against absolutely no one holding 90% of PPT and winning the skirmish is the same as 30 players playing for two hours in heated battles and just barely winning the skirmish. Thats how skirmishes work. Play time is equal.

Your

idea is what tip the scale toward primetime, as 30 players in the night could only get 1/4 the points for the server opposed to the same players playing in primetime against more opponents, in the same timeframe.

Apparently I suck at describing this :/

If primetime averaged the same number of players as nighttime, they would be weighted equally. The weight would only be shifted if the number of players playing during the different periods was unequal. So if primetime had 30 players and nighttime had 30 players, that's the same, there would be no weighting . . .

In our current skirmish setup, they are equal. Is it the cheesiest of nightcappings? Yes! Do they win the skirmish? Oh yes. But two hours for them

still

equal a two hour primetime skirmish win with 10x activity and fairly even PPT overall. For the players playing, their time is worth the same even if their effort to achieve victory is not.If ten times as many players are playing in one slot than another but both slots are weighted equally, play hours are not being weighted equally . . .

It is from the perspective of any given player. The entire point of the skirmishes is so that it doesnt matter if 500 people are online or if 5 people are online. If you are one of those 5 playing at 02:00 to 04:00 you played 2 hours, not 10 hours. The value of a 2 hour skirmish is... 2 hours. 24h hours a day. While true that the total man hours is much higher for more people, the presence of more players does not change the concept of time and its relation to a skirmish win/loss for the points given to a server.

Before skirmishes I also wished for PPT to be weighed against total WvW population so that low population times (no matter when during the day or night) didnt affect score so much. The less players, the more WvW would go into "downtime" and scale down max PPT. When the time segmented skirmishes didnt exist it was practicly impossible to achieve nightcapping PPT during daytime, thus 2h during the night could be worth so much more than 2h during the day. Come primetime it was often within 20-50 points.

Skirmishes made all of this irrelevant. We can stop worrying about weighing players or timezones.

As long as you understand the current system is weighing players' time unequally, that's fine. Whether that is a good result is an opinion question. I think it's worth looking at weighing time slots that are significantly more populated more heavily than slots that are lightly populated, but it's just my opinion. None of it really matters anyway until they can develop a system where players can be consistently relied upon to be motivated to win . . .

Gop.8713 · October 13, 2018

@LetoII.3782 said:
@Gop.8713 said:
@Israel.7056 said:
@Gop.8713 said:Then you should be lobbying for forced transfers to even out populations and coverage, stricter pop caps on maps to guard against blobbing, etc.

I'm all for both tbh. I even made a thread proposing forced transfers once but it was not well received at the time.

Maybe they'll make the alliance limits small enough that to help them with world balancing. It's all we can hope for I guess . . .

Alliance size confirmed as 500Number of people it'd take to dominate aatch: much fewer

It depends on the tools the new system gives them to design better matchups. I'll wait and see before I give up. Then I'll give up . . .

sephiroth.4217 · October 13, 2018

@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

Dawdler.8521 · October 13, 2018

@Israel.7056 said:
@"Dawdler.8521" said:Skirmishes made all of this irrelevant. We can stop worrying about weighing players or timezones.

No that is entirely illusory. Skirmishes changed the game not at all except superficially on paper. In principle everything works exactly as it did before the introduction of skirmishes. Lipstick on a pig if you will.

If you have a pet pig and apply a rule that says you may only apply lipstick to the pig 10cm from any other applied lipstick you will end up with a drastically different looking pig compared to smearing its face with layers and layers of it. If you still after that ask the question "It's still a pig. How do I fix it?" then the correct answer is what the hell kind of question is that?!.

Aeolus.3615 · October 13, 2018

@Israel.7056 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@LaGranse.8652 said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

Yes but it won't ever happen

THe game has its own rules if players want to play differently for most part, that up with them.

IMO i believe both groups that ppt and groups that search for fights on ground or going for big fights sieges are important to the server ecosystem, both need to find a middle ground to work together since they are on the same boat.

Klipso.8653 · October 13, 2018

@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

Strider Pj.2193 · October 13, 2018

@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

Thing is: No one is doing just one thing. Staying with hockey: if you don't hit the other team you are playing it wrong too. The best teams do both. Successful teams have had players that were good at hitting ('goons') and some that were far more finesse.

Telling the 'goons' to stop hitting doesn't work either. They don't score well.

Klipso.8653 · October 13, 2018

Clearly,I'm not saying Ktrain is the way to go, I'm saying that only fighting while ignoring that everything around you flips to the wrong color is not the way to go either

Israel.7056 · October 13, 2018

@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

Imagine a 24 hr hockey game where some teams got to have players on the ice scoring uncontested goals for hours at a time every single day putting the score completely out of reach for any team that didn't have players on to at least guard the net 24/7.

Imagine getting on the ice every day to find yourself 50 goals behind and still outnumbered and knowing that even if you can come from behind and score 25 goals they're just going to score another 50 when you go to bed.

What sense would it make to focus on scoring at that point when it's clearly a game that cannot realistically be won without insane unpaid overtime and likely burnout and maybe not even then?

Why not just focus on hitting because it's fun and it's something you can actually control and win at in the moment?

sephiroth.4217 · October 13, 2018

@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

subversiontwo.7501 · October 13, 2018

While I don't mind that people are talking, these are discussion forums after all, the discussion here strikes me as very odd.

We already know all the issues with timezone imbalances - or the issues of a 24hr mode divided into regions (likely, for taxation reasons). The core design is flawed, the concepts of 24hr coverage and regional division simply does not match. Anet knows them too by now (even if it took them some time to aknowledge and begin to adress).

We also know how Anet are attempting to adress it - even if we have no timframe on its implementation. They are trying to adress it by making it easier for all servers to gain access to off-hour friends by increasing player control over the composition of a "server", splitting said composition into smaller pieces for a more even puzzle, removing transfer costs in gems and by shuffling the board more regularily.

Many of us also know that their approach may not be the most effective when dealing with timezone imbalance as it doesn't regulate it directly - it simply gives players more tools to regulate it, indirectly. It will get better but we do not know if it will be good enough. What we do know is that it allows Anet to also give more responsibility to the playerbase with it. It allows them to sit back and tell us to fix the results as we are given more influence over the results.

With that most of us also know that alot of the work they are doing is circumventive (both in terms of process and approach, they are reinventing the wheel and adressing outlying issues) where they could instead have gotten rid of the queue system and directly scaled map scoring to the active populations of any procedurally generated map (making more equally populated maps contributing more score). They already have the tech for that so it could have been more easily implemented and been far more effective at adressing population- and timezone imbalances tied to score. That would have allowed them to put more development focus on other aspects of the social guild-oriented side of the game for WvW or otherwise (such as map events like missions, the Guild Halls or better designed WvW Arenas than GH as it stands, OS or the new EotM one etc., all of those are great ideas from Anet but underdeveloped).

However, they have already made their decision and they have worked on it for like a year and a half already, so, while we can discuss things, maybe we should keep our discussion to the future and the decisions made. I get that it is hard to keep talking about it with so little information comming out of Anet (no updates since july 2nd) but it is also rather odd that we talk so little about Alliances here and so much about moot topics like known and aknowledged issues with scoring as is, or solutions that are not on Anet's radar while they have spent so much time already on something they have already decided on.

LaGranse.8652 · October 13, 2018

People that favor PPK seem to complain about score gained during the off hours in the night when much fewer are playing.

If you focused on getting your own structures to T3 in preparation for the night as well as degrading the opponents your night shift would have a much easier time keeping your structures and flipping enemy ones. You don't need to go full on PPT just strike at enemy structures and you will get your fights.

subversiontwo.7501 · October 13, 2018

@"LaGranse.8652" said:People that favor PPK seem to complain about score gained during the off hours in the night when much fewer are playing.
If you focused on getting your own structures to T3 in preparation for the night as well as degrading the opponents your night shift would have a much easier time keeping your structures and flipping enemy ones. You don't need to go full on PPT just strike at enemy structures and you will get your fights.

Your problem is that you assume a "night shift" to be normal. It isn't.

Plenty of servers completely dominate the normal regional hours, do ALL the things you suggest, and still do not win weekly matchups.

As long as the game is designed around regions it is also problematic and irresponsible to design a mode that does not take regular sleeping and working hours into consideration. If the game had no regions your argument would be fair, you could assume a night shift. Alliances will in part adress this. As things stand however your entire argument is moot because having a "night shift" is abnormal and irresponsible design. It is completely counter productive to building a good game, something that Anet is otherwise pretty good at. Again, your argument is something that the Alliance system will partly make valid, it may become normal then, but in the current system the argument is rather daft as it's already done and has been proven ineffective or inherently broken.

Klipso.8653 · October 13, 2018

@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

Sovereign.1093 · October 13, 2018

there's always streetfighter games for button mashing. =p

sephiroth.4217 · October 13, 2018

@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem...

WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky teletubby rainbow farm

Strider Pj.2193 · October 14, 2018

@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem...

WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky

teletubby

rainbow farm

I can't believe you pulled out that reference....

Respect...

Dwindling....

CrimsonRise.7650 · October 14, 2018

I don't think it would matter anyway, there is no reason to win, server pride is meaningless with communities these days and the populations that hop into available each day are lower, compared to what you would see six years or even a year ago. Even during the WXP we just had, there were rarely queues or just short queues on a T1 server.

The game mode is currently still all about coverage and numbers. Many people I know, have quit or split onto different servers, apart from their original ones. So generally, servers should not care what tier they're in or about winning matchups, because it is determined by the population of players left and whether they play for different matchups or not.

sephiroth.4217 · October 14, 2018

@Strider Pj.2193 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem...

WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky

teletubby

rainbow farm

I can't believe you pulled out that reference....

Respect...

Dwindling....

I have a daughter and she was watching teletubbies at the time of my posting, could have said baby jake? Cuz that was on just before the teletubbies

I think the real headline here is that someone actually respected me ?

Gop.8713 · October 14, 2018

@CrimsonNeonite.1048 said:I don't think it would matter anyway, there is no reason to win, server pride is meaningless with communities these days and the populations that hop into available each day are lower, compared to what you would see six years or even a year ago. Even during the WXP we just had, there were rarely queues or just short queues on a T1 server.
The game mode is currently still all about coverage and numbers. Many people I know, have quit or split onto different servers, apart from their original ones. So generally, servers should not care what tier they're in or about winning matchups, because it is determined by the population of players left and whether they play for different matchups or not.

They can't give us incentives to win before they generate tools that ensure balanced matchups. Ppl think bandwagoning is bad now, imagine if winning had benefits . . .

juno.1840 · October 16, 2018

@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.

But there are some servers who dont focus on capturing objects at all and only fight, atleast on EU. Wouldnt it be better to pair these servers together because they dont focus on objectives.

They're just playing the mode wrong then, and shouldn't win.

Its like wondering why you didn't win an sPvP match by only fighting on roads, because you didn't take the points.

Its impossible to play WvW "wrong"...

If you want to pretend its pve and just focus on fighting tower lords then thats ok, just like focusing on fighting players is ok... thats what WvW is.

Except ignoring objectives is exactly playing it wrong.

If you played a hockey game, and completely ignored the puck, all your team did was go for hits. You are playing it wrong, you will never win no matter how much fun you're having.

Fun does not mean you are playing correctly, and ignoring the objectives of a game mode means you're playing that mode wrong.

killing players IS an objective, it's part of WvW and it always has been...

Fun is playing correctly, if you're not having fun playing a video game then that's a problem.

This is an endless rabbit hole so this is the last post from me, killing players happens, but it is not the objective required to win. If we aren't having fun playing the game then the problem is bad game design.

No, the problem is that you don't like the design and expect it to change, if you're not having fun but thousands of players are, then that's not a game design problem, that's a you problem...

WvW has always been about killing players, taking and holding objectives from said players... WvW is not Queensdale or some other happy go lucky teletubby rainbow farm

You wandered all over the place in your argument... really not sticking to the original point.

You stated "it is impossible to play WvW wrong"... and that is not accurate depending upon the goals. If the goal is to win (which is a compelling goal since it is a competitive game mode) then it is possible to play it wrong. I'm not sure why you chose to fight a battle over that, because it's clear as the sky is blue. If your goal is to have fun, then I guess you can say someone is playing it "wrong" if they are not having fun... that's a bit pedantic though.

Right now I'm on a server that plays it "wrong". They are interested only in fights so their score is mostly PPK and not PPT. This same server has no patience for sieging a structure for defense. This server has no patience to break down a well defended T3 structure. Half the time, players don't even man siege when required. Nobody puts down supply traps... and yet they get mad when walking into opposition supply traps (like it's some kind of horrible play). After losing, the excuse is "this tier is cancer".

sephiroth.4217 · October 16, 2018

@juno.1840 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@sephiroth.4217 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:
@TallBarr.2184 said:
@"LaGranse.8652" said:Because the points gained for killing enemy players are less than the ones gained from holding structures?
A server might have a higher k/d ratio however winning the open-field battle means nothing when the enemy just took control of your castle.