Israel.7056 Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 > @"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 wouldn't work, but if there was a way to combine to NA and EU servers with the alliance system, and rotating each week which 'region' servers are being the host. So week 1 hosted via NA, week 2 via EU. Or maybe week 1 is tier 1 on NA, and week 2 is T2 hosted on NA.. So both sides of the ocean get similar issues throughout the mohths... Meh.,, I am sure it wouldn't work but... it would help the coverage to a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 > @"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 . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 > @"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. You may not win the skirmish because you dont have coverage no, but thats not an *issue* - thats 24h WvW. Whats more broken as I said is the **way** many outnumbered skirmishes are won - the stronger server sitting on its kitten ticking juicy points from T3 objectives while the other servers cant even make a "comeback" after a hard fight since a recapped T0 is worthless in comparison (and it can be several hours to break a defended T3 keep). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 > @"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 . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 wvw would be dead already if it was just a 2d team deathmatch mode. why? cuz one side would lose repeatedly, get discouraged, and log off. this already happens but objectives and map design drag it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > wvw would be dead already if it was just a 2d team deathmatch mode. why? cuz one side would lose repeatedly, get discouraged, and log off. this already happens but objectives and map design drag it out. I don't think WvW needs to be a pure deathmatch but I do think kills should count for more than they do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > wvw would be dead already if it was just a 2d team deathmatch mode. why? cuz one side would lose repeatedly, get discouraged, and log off. this already happens but objectives and map design drag it out. I agree. Especially when outnumbered. Hence, to have a kd centered much, there must be a faster time limit, and nos. must be equal. sounds like pvp is the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"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 . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimon.7840 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"TallBarr.2184" said: > fairer matchups and less steamroll from 1 side Because anet want to make money with wvw. If there was a way to balance population properly, there wouldn't be any way to get money. Just look at the current state of some servers. I'll take drakkar lake as an example. It got linked with miller's sound, both servers played their way up into tier 1. Next relink, miller got taken away, even though the other T1 servers had way higher queues. And people had to Servertrans to play with the people they met on the other server. Drakkar dropped a bit. Then drakkar dropped further and further and is now last place for the time of several relinks. Just because there are no people left at all. Getting almost no queue on any border. Maybe for reset on one map. But if you go online when primetime: no commander at any map, because everyone was frustrated, that there were no people left, so they quit being commander. Just was curious about wvw numbers. So I did my daily in wvw and just hopped over all borders to see, if any commanders played. Got two commanders: One with 11 people And one with 5 But drakkar population is definetly high or very high and doesn't need a partner to link. So any drakkar lake player, that want to actively play wvw has to trans to another server, to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemoncurry.2345 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 According to https://wvwstats.com/leaderboard even the most fight-oriented servers don't make much more than 35% of their points with PPK. Most servers sit around 20%. PPT coupled with their side effects (coverage wars etc.) are key in winning a MU. Imho raising the value of PPK _ a little_ would be beneficial for the game mode. I wouldn' go all in though, because PPT have been always an integral part of GW2 WvW and contrary to popular belief many players seem to still have fun with a PPT-oriented play style. Switching to PPK-only will probably lead to a whole set of new problems as mentioned in this thread (turtle-zergs only fighting inside structures under a massive siege cover for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 ppl transfering is ok. ppl will find their niche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"Lemoncurry.2345" said: > According to https://wvwstats.com/leaderboard even the most fight-oriented servers don't make much more than 35% of their points with PPK. Most servers sit around 20%. PPT coupled with their side effects (coverage wars etc.) are key in winning a MU. > > Imho raising the value of PPK _ a little_ would be beneficial for the game mode. I wouldn' go all in though, because PPT have been always an integral part of GW2 WvW and contrary to popular belief many players seem to still have fun with a PPT-oriented play style. Switching to PPK-only will probably lead to a whole set of new problems as mentioned in this thread (turtle-zergs only fighting inside structures under a massive siege cover for example). Decreasing the value of PPT would essentially assist with this. Not sure it's the way to go, but I would like to see the PPT value of each structure to not increase as held. - Give it a base value, that is static. - Take away the Points given for capping a structure. - and... (although this isn't a score thing) drop the HPs for each gate/wall at every level (except paper) by maybe 25%. - Lastly, require an interaction with the quartermaster to upgrade a structure. no gold, and still require the same number of Yaks etc. But would lessen the 'AFK' upgrades. (Edited for format) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funassistant.6589 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 B e c a u s e B a d p l a y e r s b o u g h t t h e g a m e t o o Or people that don't want to play for the team Or people that flame those offering criticism about their Viper Staff Tempest build Because why in the world, would the WvW development team actually attempt to make the gamemode a little bit more competitive and fun? PvP is for player vs player WvW is for toxic non-gem-buying players that are rude elitist toxic players ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"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 . . . You describe it perfectly well. You're just not understanding me or your own idea. I said "30 people playing for two hours **against absolutely no one**". Thats a total WvW population of 30 across 3 servers, or complete nighttime dominance for a server. 30 players primetime would be just 30 out at least 90 if we are having perfectly weighted servers. If thats *outmanned* we are talking about a total WvW population of 150+ across the 3 servers. Its low primetime count of course but I wanted the 30 vs 30 to be clear. In your scenario, that would most definetly mean that the 30 players playing nighttime does not equal the 30 players playing prime, as they would get longer skirmishes. Since you cant have 1 skirmish time for server A and another for server B (that would be *very* awkward), you have to go by total population even when looking from the perspective of one server. Its an extreme case yes but thats the easiest way to point out the flaws. 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 we start weighing the theoretical effiency of each individual player vs time, oh boy... thats a rabbit hole you dont want to enter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiri.4257 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > 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 . . . What if, our moms wanted to skill click and keyboard turn at night when you went to sleep? Who are you to say, their playtime is worth less than yours because it was past your bedtime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"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 . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gop.8713 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"shiri.4257" said: > > 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 . . . > > What if, our moms wanted to skill click and keyboard turn at night when you went to sleep? Who are you to say, their playtime is worth less than yours because it was past your bedtime? > I'm not following your point . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkBecks.6453 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 we have fought the number 1 server 4 weeks in a row, we cant beat their superior numbers, and probably getting more people moving to it because its a winning server. You will never change the fickleness of humans playing a game, so simple solution, if its unbeatable for 4 weeks in a row, unlink it, then at least it keeps the motivation of other servers, and cause some shift and change in balance and adjustment. I really think that Devs should take more interest in the tiers and results each week, or perma link/unlink. The linking which was supposed to be temporary to help smaller servers has become a one sided affair in every tier, every week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 I think the term "weight" could just be swapped with "impact." 30 people consistently playing an otherwise dead time zone have far more of an impact on the final outcome of a match than 30 people playing during busy timezones even if the skirmish points gained are roughly identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 just need to unlink guilds from the server and the guild leader can choose a place ti stay. unlink every 2 to 3 months. give us seasons, something growth. >.< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 Kill death ratio would favor hard core players and no one else. Casual players would have nothing to do. In pretty much any system in any game, casual players tend outnumber hard core players. Thus decisions made in favor of hard core players tend to be bad decisions over all at the expense of everyone else. If this change were made, I'd probably never go into WvW again. I'd make no more legendary weapons, and it might eventually cause me to leave the game, since legendaries are a big part of my day. I enjoy defending and capping stuff. I don't enjoy min maxing, or necessarily fighting. Some servers are very good at that but it's often a small percentage of hard core guys carrying that server, who are there all the time. I think WvW would suffer if this was implemented. It would certainly mean less for me to do in game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now