Feedback:User/Guild Wars 3 perhaps/Changes to WvWvW Scoring

Changes to WvWvW Scoring
User	Guild Wars 3 perhaps
Categories	Player vs. Player Mechanics

Background

There's been a lot of discussion lately on Guild Wars 2 Guru regarding the phenomenon of overnight map flipping in WvWvW.

The Issue

The players in a particular timezone eventually have to sleep at some point. While they sleep, the players on an opposing server then capture all of the resources (resource camps, towers, and keeps) on the map with no opposition from real players. By the time the first server's players wake up and then login in the next evening, the server which flipped the map overnight has an insurmountable lead due to all the points they accumulated during the past 16 hours (8 hours overnight plus another 8 hours before the first server's players return from work or school). This leads to frustration and disappointment in WvWvW rather than "fun".

The players doing the overnight capturing are accomplishing this feat because they are in a different timezone. Their prime-time playing hours occur during the first server's night cycle. Alternately - and probably less of a problem than some are making it out to be - it's the "alarm-clockers" who are capturing all of the points over night. "Alarm clocking" is the strategy of waking up at an early hour - say 4 A.M. - to capture the entire map while the opposition is still asleep for another hour or two. As that's not sustainable over the long-term, it factors less into this discussion than the issue of players from different timezones accomplishing the same result.

Proposed Solutions Which Will NOT Work

I've posted extensively on this topic over at GW2Guru. There are two proposed solutions which I have dismantled due to their unintended consequences. They are:

1) Downscale the points awarded for holding resources during "off-peak" hours.

We can't downscale the points awarded based on certain hours of the day because that unfairly penalizes players who log on during those hours for whom that is their prime-time. For example, if we were to downscale point awards from midnight to 8 AM Greenwich time to satisfy the European community, that means someone playing in Sydney, Australia between 10 AM and 6 PM their time is put at a disadvantage.

2) Downscale points awarded based on the number of players present in a WvWvW round.

This suggestion seeks to balance points awarded for holding resources against the number of players actively participating in a WvWvW match. If the servers are full to capacity with players battling in WvWvW, resources award full points every 5 minutes. As the number of players dwindle (they have to go to work, school, or bed), fewer and fewer points are awarded.

Unfortunately, we're back to the same issue from the previous suggestion; this would penalize people for whom "overnight" or "off-prime-time" hours are actually their prime-time hours. So this solution isn't really viable, either.

Even if either or both of the solutions above would solve the score disparity issue, they are fundamentally a form of discrimination. For that reason alone, they would be unacceptable to those who would be negatively impacted.

My Solution

Do not award war score points on the basis of time. Points would only be scored for capturing a resource and for actively defending a resource against an assault.

The defense points could be calculated by a timer that triggers when a resource takes damage (a zerg attacks a gate, a trebuchet fires at a wall, etc.). If the resource doesn't change hands within X minutes of the structure having first taken damage, then the defenders earn some war score points for their active defense of the structure.

This could even repeat. Let's assume the timer lasts 10 minutes. If an enemy initiates an assault and hasn't captured the resource within 10 minutes, the defending team earns Y war score points. If the enemy still hasn't captured the resource after 20 minutes, the defenders earn another Y war score points, etc. The points for defense stop being awarded when there is a lull of Z minutes (maybe 5 minutes) in which the resource takes no damage.

This would discourage half-hearted attempts at capturing actively defended resources. The attackers will know that the defenders are going to earn points while defending. If the attackers don't have a coordinated plan-of-attack, the resources, and the numbers to quickly capture the structure, then their assault will drag out over a longer period of time. In that time, the defenders will be earning points for defending the structure. This will place greater value on focused sieges with the express purpose of capturing a resource rather than mindless zerging for the sake of zerging.

However, points will no longer be scored every 5 minutes for simply holding a resource. Now, points are only awarded for actively capturing and defending the contested structures. Furthermore, this doesn't penalize anyone.

Captured structures would award increasing number of points based on the value of the structure. The following are simply for illustration purposes and aren't to be taken as the literal values for this suggestion. Keep in mind these points are only awarded once; when the structure is captured. They are not a recurring award over time:

Resource Camp = 1,000 war score when captured

Tower = 2,500 war score when captured

Keep = 5,000 war score when captured

Stonemist Castle = 10,000 war score when captured

Defending a structure may award something like 5% of the capture value for every X minutes it's successfully defended. Again, these values are just for illustration. Testing and balancing would reveal what values work best.

Resource Camp = 50 war score every 10 minutes

Tower = 125 war score every 10 minutes

Keep = 250 war score every 10 minutes

Stonemist Castle = 500 war score every 10 minutes

NOTE: It was pointed out to me by a poster in GW2Guru that - using the points above - players will engage in resource trading rather than defending their structures. For example, if a tower grants 2,500 war score points on capture but only 125 war score points per 10 minutes when defended, they argue it makes more sense for a server to allow an enemy to capture the tower and then attempt to re-capture it rather than defend it. Personally, I don't fully agree with that analysis for the following reason:

• Assume scores are currently at zero for all servers.

• Server A captures a tower and earns 2,500 points. Now the score is 2,500 / 0 / 0.

• Server B assaults the tower. Let's explore the potential outcomes from all angles:

A ) Server A allows Server B to capture the tower. Now Server B has earned 2,500 war score points to tie Server A. This is not to Server A's advantage. The score now rests at 2,500 / 2,500 / 0. IF Server A is successful in re-capturing the tower, they will earn another 2,500 points; putting them back in the lead. But after having suffered loses during the tower's siege, that might be a pretty big "if".

OR

B ) Server A successfully defends the tower against Server B for 20 minutes before Server B gives up. Server A earns another 250 points for their defense of the tower. The score now rests at 2,750 / 0 / 0. A clear advantage for Server A.

OR

C ) Server A defends the tower against Server B for 20 minutes before Server B succeeds in capturing the tower. Server A still earns another 250 points for their defense of the tower. Server B has earned 2,500 war score points for the capture. The score now rests at 2,750 / 2,500 / 0. The score is still in Server A's favor.

So I do not agree that my proposed solution would result in resource trading to the extent that the other poster believes it will. Even if it did, there's a very easy solution:

• Determine how long an average resource assault lasts.

• Then make it so defending the resource for that amount of time equals or nearly equals the amount of points a server would earn if they were to capture the resource.

• Furthermore, since a resource may come under multiple attacks in any given time period, there exists the potential to earn even more points defending a resource. This would de-incentivize resource trading.

Conclusion

This suggestion confers the following benefits:

• If you're on a server in a different time zone and manage to capture the entire map unopposed, you are awarded points equal to your effort; the same points everyone else earns for the same action. It remains a valid tactic for those who wish to utilize it or, at the very least, does not lead to point discrimination across different time zones.

• Since points would no longer accumulate with time, those who were asleep while an opposing server captured the map are not penalized by waking up to such a huge point disparity that they have no hope of catching up.

• Everyone gets to play at a time that suits them without fear of point downscaling favoring one server's prime-time hours at the expense of servers in different time zones.

• Everyone earns points commensurate with their effort; there's no donwscaling favoring one time zone over another.

• No server is gaining an insurmountable advantage over the others as a result of capturing everything unopposed overnight and racking up points on a timer for 8 to 16 hours. Even if a server does capture all structures overnight, points are only awarded at the time of capture. Opposing servers can then stage a comeback by re-capturing these structures during their prime-time.

• In this scenario, points are being awarded on the basis of merit (a server captures or defends a structure). This contrasts with the current situation of exploiting a disparity in wake/sleep cycles between opposing time zones and relying on accumulating points over time; time during which there is no active opposition.

• ArenaNet has claimed offense is greater than defense in GW2. This solution dovetails nicely with that philosophy. In a situation where points are scored every 5 minutes for holding resources, that promotes defensive play. Whoever holds the most resources the longest wins. By changing the scoring mechanic to one in which points are scored only once per capture, this incentivizes offensive play. The server that pushes forward, engages in assaults, and successfully captures resources will be rewarded more than the servers which defensively "turtle" behind their walls.

Thank you for reading.

Guild Wars 3 perhaps 17:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Return to the suggestion portal.