Notify Message
Forums
Page 1
Search
#9585941 Jun 02, 2014 at 06:53 AM · Edited 4 years ago
KT Elder
598 Posts
There are numerous improvements that can be made in WvW but in the upcoming CDI I am going to propose a change to the way scoring works for the next Tournament - ideally they could implement changes sooner but the CDI is going to be focussed on WvW Tournaments which is BS but I'll save the QQ for TS/guild chat.

The reason is because I think the score is the most influential factor in persuading PvX players to take part in the match up. It works both ways, if the match if a blowout people are not interested, if the match is impossible to win people are not interested. We need a scoring system that excites people by making them feel that taking part will make a difference. The more people in WvW - good or bad - the better.

This idea has developed overtime after discussion with people like Damarus, Clock and Laura so credit where due etc.

Split each day into 4 segments of 6 hours each. The server that scores most points in each segment receives 3 points, second receives 2 and third receives 1. So the maximum number of points that can be scored in a day is 12. This will allow for much closer and exciting match-ups as a server that dominates 1-2 time zone has less chance to gain a big lead with nothing to stop them. An example:

Server A is stacked in 3 out of 4 time zones, but you can see that there is a lot of scope for Servers B and C to influence the outcome of the match-up. Servers B and C can focus Server A in one time zone to try and gain victory over the course of the week.


Seg. A B C
1 3 2 1
2 3 2 1
3 3 2 1
4 1 3 2
10 9 5


There is one potential negative that I need to point out : Lack of participation in a segment if you know the opponent has better coverage. People might think there is no point in playing if at the end of the segment they cannot influence the amount of points they will get. I think this is currently what happens anyway, however a good way around this problem is the introduction of 'bonus points' that are awarded to the Server that best accomplishes an additional daily task. For example, 5 bonus points awarded at the end of the day for things like:

- Server to hold a keep the longest
- Most dolyaks escorted
- Most stomps
- Most camps captured

These can change day to day and add an additional strategic flavour to the match-up and also allow a Second/Third placed server to 'snatch victory' by focussing on bonus points. In the above scenario for example if Server C focuses on holding one keep all day they can draw with Server A.

Even in the extreme example below where Server A is going to win the PPT game in every segment, if Server B are better at open field fighting they can win the daily match-up, if Server C focus solely on open field fighting they can still come second.


A B C
1 3 2 1
2 3 2 1
3 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
12 8 4


This would be great for the WvW community because over the course of the week it lets sub-communities shine, the dolyak escort folks win the match up on one day, the keep defenders get to shine on another day and the open field fighters become the heroes on another day too.

It also helps to encourage more varied play, a server that just wants to blob in EB all day would be giving up those 5 points to a server that spreads it's forces across 4 maps to flip camps etc.

This won't solve massive population imbalance and I don't intend to, but I believe this is a realistic, implementable change that doesn't require huge rework of underlying systems and in the majority of cases will lead to more exciting match-ups and increased participation in WvW.

The other thing this system introduces is the chance to fight for a draw. A draw is possible with the current system but the chance of it happening is pretty much impossible. Introducing the chances of a draw gives people something to fight for. Going into the last segment of a weekly match up if your server knows that going out there and getting the most stomps, or directing all effort and resources into defending that last keep will get you a draw, that's still something to fight for, even if it isn't a win.

So what do you guys think?

Edit:

So I spent my lunch break applying this to last week's match. I used the hourly average tick as base data which may be slightly skewed as SBI/BP gave up late in the week however I think the data still proves that a scoring system like the one above would work. All data from http://www.gw2score.com/server/Stormbluff-Isle?match=1


A B C D
BP 172 131 167 164
SBI 237 315 183 165
FA 285 250 345 366

A B C D Total
BP 1 1 1 1 4
SBI 2 3 2 2 9
FA 3 2 3 3 11


The first table shows the average PPT for each segment of the day (on average over the week). The second able shows how that would translate into points for the day (again, on average over the week)

Some interesting things to note: with my scoring system SBI could have challenged harder during seqment A and drawn the match up, conversely FA could have fought back during segment B. During segment C and D there is no matching FA but look how BP could have come into the matchup and fought SBI for second place.
+0
#9588941 Jun 02, 2014 at 09:39 PM
KT Squire
160 Posts
I really like this concept, especially bonus points for different sub-communities. The devs have posted in a few threads they are working on adding more statistics to add rewards for hard to quantify tasks, like defense. That has the potential to synergize quite well with this scoring proposal.

I wonder if a shorter time period (say two or three hours) might have potential. From a burn out perspective, people seem to crash after successive nights of 10 hour fights. Shorter scoring time would help break up the the long monotony and would incentivize group play. I think it would be much easier to convince PvX guild groups to play for 2 or 3 hours a couple times a week and have them see the immediate results, than a six hour period or the end of the week result. The point math would be a little more tricky, but I think it could work out.

Nice work Pocket et al.
+0
#9590054 Jun 03, 2014 at 06:36 AM · Edited 4 years ago
KT Elder
598 Posts
#9588941 Cavalcanti wrote:

I wonder if a shorter time period (say two or three hours) might have potential....



Thanks for your feedback Cav. So I re-ran last week's scoring using 3 hour segments and the results are as follows:


A B C D E F G H Total Normalised
BP 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 10 5
SBI 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 16 8
FA 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 22 11


You can see that it would have benefited BP in this instance as in segments F and G they did perform better than SBI - and this fact is masked by using 6 hour segments. The Normalised Score just halves the Total so we can compare to my previous model.

However I would not favour segments smaller than 6 hours (I originally started with 8 hour segments) because I don't think that would go far enough to cap scoring, particularly overnight.

I really like the idea that having smaller segments would encourage shorter 'sprints' in WvW though, like a 2 hour guild run with a tangible outcome. But I think that is symptomatic of another problem entirely, that Guilds are an afterthought in WvW. Anet could do so many cool things to attracts guild runs such as better claiming options and bonuses, guild leader boards (points gained, stomps, yaks run etc..) these kinds of things would really help to get more guilds playing WvW together. The idea of competing at a guild level results in collaboration at a server level.
+0
#9591316 Jun 03, 2014 at 12:39 PM
Guild Leader
1158 Posts
#9590054 Pocket wrote:

I really like the idea that having smaller segments would encourage shorter 'sprints' in WvW though, like a 2 hour guild run with a tangible outcome. But I think that is symptomatic of another problem entirely, that Guilds are an afterthought in WvW. Anet could do so many cool things to attracts guild runs such as better claiming options and bonuses, guild leader boards (points gained, stomps, yaks run etc..) these kinds of things would really help to get more guilds playing WvW together. The idea of competing at a guild level results in collaboration at a server level.




Interesting ideas when it comes to guilds not necessarily "competing" but vying for bragging rights nonetheless... I really wish there were some other benefits to things like claiming, guild siege, etc... as well. I'd love it if claiming an objective would alert guild chat if that objective is being attacked. I'd love it if guild siege was less likely to despawn (Canis' idea - 2 hour timer instead of 1).


I really like the 4-way split and the way it works out. Have you thought about/discussed what differences there would be if each segment was also a match "reset" with objectives going back to gray/unclaimed/paper as they would on Friday nights? Do you think players would be more or less likely to defend if upgrading stuff and holding it directly effected the end matchup score? Sure in EotM no one defends anything... but there's also absolutely no reward for you at the end of a match, other than supplies in your server's citadel... If upgrading cost much less (or even nothing) would people be more or less likely to upgrade and defend while playing on the actual WvW maps?

Just some ponderings, really curious to see where these ideas take us...
+0
#9593556 Jun 03, 2014 at 10:53 PM
KT Squire
160 Posts
What if we modified the scoring along this lines (I would have to play with the numbers, but I am too tired to attempt math right now to balance them properly):

Take PKs numbers and multiple by a thousand (or some number large enough to ensure that PPT would be the primary point source) per six hour timeslice . Then add in group, guild and personal oriented achievements. There could be a host of them but something like:

Guild: Claim and hold garrison for 3 hours - 100pts
Guild: Most opponent towers captured in 3 hours - 75 pts
Group: most stomps in an hour - 25pts
Group: Ninja a keep - 150 pts
Personal: Scouted Garri for 7 f-ing hours - 1billion points
Personal: Solo flipped a camp - 1 point

The idea would to encourage guilds to come in a play for a reasonable amount of time, get people who are playing solo <cough>like me</cough> to actually group up, and add some sort of bonus for people just like to roam by themself.

While I love Canis's two-hour expiration on guild siege, I am not so hot on the idea of a reset at the end of each time slice, but for strictly practical reasons. They would have to greatly increase the siege drop rate (or dramatically reduce the cost from the vendor) in order to keep it viable. I know it isn't uncommon for our defenders to go through several gold worth of siege a night. If the siege reset, at current prices, I don't think anyone would even bother except for a flash mob situation.

However, I think there is merit to a shorter match, like three days. I also wonder if a variable match might work. Something like a roughly weekend match (call friday noon EST to monday noon EST) and a weekday match. I think the concept of a variable length match up might be interesting. Have a short intense matchup on the weekends when more people can play and a longer, more strategic matchup during the week when the population is down.
+0
#9594410 Jun 04, 2014 at 06:17 AM · Edited 4 years ago
KT Elder
598 Posts

Have you thought about/discussed what differences there would be if each segment was also a match "reset" with objectives going back to gray/unclaimed/paper as they would on Friday nights?

I would not favour a 'reset' at the end of each segment, Cav made some good points on it. I think it punishes the server with less coverage which is the main problem we're trying to solve here.


Do you think players would be more or less likely to defend if upgrading stuff and holding it directly affected the end matchup score?

I don't think there should be a change to points for things you already own. In the past I've been in favour of extra points for upgraded towers or an increasing amount of points per tick the longer you hold something. But more lately I feel that this would encourage a 'hold what you have' mentality. I think attacking should always be rewarded more than defending. At the moment there is no reward for defending; within the current WvW mechanics, personal rewards for upgrading/defending is the way forward I think.


Then add in group, guild and personal oriented achievements. There could be a host of them but something like:

I think objectives such as these could do a lot to encourage group/guild play. However I’m conflicted about whether they should contribute to the match score. I feel that they dilute the ability of a server to rally around the effort to snatch the bonus points. This would end up punishing lower coverage servers and hand the initiative back. The main aim of introducing a daily objective in my proposal is to give a server that can't win the PPT battle an alternative means to score points. I fear that the more the bonus points are diluted, the less a server can rally around them, I could be completely wrong on that though. I think a better reward for guild play would a reward track systems like the one they introduced in PvP, the more objectives a guild completes in WvW the more rewards they get, such as banners, boosts, guild siege etc. Points should always be awarded at the server level IMO.


However, I think there is merit to a shorter match, like three days. I also wonder if a variable match might work.

Interesting, I think weekday/weekend could work especially for tournaments. Generally I like weekly as it gives time for a rivalry or 'story' to develop, we need some WvW drama. Also I think a lot of the burnout associated with weekly matches is driven by the fact that a lower coverage server knows that by day 3-4 the match is lost. Capped scoring however has the potential to keep the match alive for longer.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, talking about WvW is more fun than playing WvW lately :P
+0
#9597460 Jun 04, 2014 at 09:29 PM · Edited 4 years ago
Guild Leader
1158 Posts
What about, instead of encouraging a "play for second" kind of attitude between the lower two servers in a matchup, it was changed to more of a "1 winner, 2 losers" system?

Instead of the 3-2-1 points, what if it was more like 3-2-2 or 2-1-1 or even 3-1-1? Maybe then the 2v1 that's supposed to happen against the top dog would occur more naturally.

Just spitballing a bit more! ^^
+0
#9597608 Jun 04, 2014 at 10:25 PM
KT Squire
160 Posts
Okay throwing out more ideas, what if it was a two-tiered type scoring system.

Tier 1: Pocket's system
Tier 2: A guild/personal leader board where individuals, groups and guilds can earn points for accomplishing tasks throughout the match. These could be scored and ranked somewhat like the pvp leaderboard system. Then at the end of the day, the servers would be awarded with bonus wvw points equal to one time-slice in the tier one system based on the number of guild points earned.

The guild points could be awarded almost like the pvp track system, and if the guild complete a track, they get bonus guild points, influence and guild merits. This would help wvw focused guild keep up their influence and merit counts without having to rely on PvE guild missions.

If the WvW tracks have some level personal reward system going with it, it would help keep wvw population up and give a larger incentive for new players to try it out. Which is an issue since, right now, WvW is the least rewarding of the three play modes.
+1
#9598549 Jun 05, 2014 at 05:43 AM
KT Elder
598 Posts

What about, instead of encouraging a "play for second" kind of attitude between the lower two servers in a matchup, it was changed to more of a "1 winner, 2 losers" system?

I think my proposal does the exact opposite. It opens up a chance for second to challenge first, and for third to challenge second - and potentially threaten first when focussing on bonus points.


Instead of the 3-2-1 points, what if it was more like 3-2-2 or 2-1-1 or even 3-1-1? Maybe then the 2v1 that's supposed to happen against the top dog would occur more naturally.


I think you have to award different number of points for 1st, 2nd and 3rd based on performance because that is fair.

3-2-2 is bad because it doesn't differentiate between second and third, this is important because you want to keep the match alive, if it is clear that Server A has better coverage, then Servers B and C would totally ignore PPT and just focus on bonus points, because both would be guaranteed 2 points, this would not be fair on the Server that performed well enough to come second.

3-1-1 is worse because of the above plus it rewards Server A more by playing less.

Cav - I would encourage you to put your ideas into a CDI post too cause these sound great and guild based WvW rewards are needed.

However I’m not sure about guild activity translating into actual WvW points in the way you described:


Then at the end of the day, the servers would be awarded with bonus wvw points equal to one time-slice in the tier one system based on the number of guild points earned.

Firstly, it puts a gate in front of scoring points, you need WvW focussed guilds, you need them playing together, they have to be focussing on those objectives etc. I think all WvW scoring should be at the server level so that a zerg of 50 or an individual roamer can equally contribute with no other pre-requisites. Secondly, I think it 'hides' current performance. It's important to always see how well you are performing. I fear this would result in a whole load of points being accumulated behind the scenes with a huge WTF moment at the end.
+0
#9600134 Jun 05, 2014 at 01:52 PM
KT Squire
160 Posts
#9598549 Pocket wrote:



[quote]
Then at the end of the day, the servers would be awarded with bonus wvw points equal to one time-slice in the tier one system based on the number of guild points earned.

Firstly, it puts a gate in front of scoring points, you need WvW focussed guilds, you need them playing together, they have to be focussing on those objectives etc. I think all WvW scoring should be at the server level so that a zerg of 50 or an individual roamer can equally contribute with no other pre-requisites. Secondly, I think it 'hides' current performance. It's important to always see how well you are performing. I fear this would result in a whole load of points being accumulated behind the scenes with a huge WTF moment at the end.


Sorry, I completely messed up what I meant say. I meant to say that the cumulative number of bonus points at the end of the day would equal one time slice. The bonus points themselves could be awarded on a more frequent basis to keep people engaged.

The real key to this is setting up a reward structure that doesn't reward off hours coverage. Having an off-hours guild flip undefended maps and getting a metric crap tonne of bonus points would actively work against your proposal.
+0
#10121817 Oct 08, 2014 at 08:35 AM · Edited 4 years ago
KT Elder
598 Posts
Anet finally made a post to discuss the way scoring works in WvW:

https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/wuv/wuv/Scoring-Discussion

I haven't bothered to contribute my original post from this thread as it appears to be a common idea that has already been mentioned. I did however make a post to raise the idea of including 'special objectives' for servers playing catch-up:

https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/wuv/wuv/Scoring-Discussion/page/3#post4473746

If you care about WvW (or any part of the game) then please contribute to these CDI style threads.
+0
Page 1