This is blatantly false, and the math has already been done in this thread. 5, 4, 3 is no different from 3, 2, 1.

After losing 10 skirmishes in a row, you will still be 20 points behind the first place server. And just like the 3, 2, 1, system, you cannot gain more than 2 points more than they did, which means that you would need at least 10 skirmishes in first place to make that up. Its literally exactly the same as the situation was under the 3, 2, 1 system.

Tiny nitpick, but you’re only 20 points behind first if first won all 10 times, and regardless of how you score it, If first won those 10 times and swapped 3rd with you, it will always take 10 1st place skirmishes to match them.

However, regardless of however many times they won or placed second, it would still take the same number of first place skirmishes to tie with first whether it was 5-4-3 or 3-2-1, and would still remain so even if you multiplied the difference between each number, making it a 5-3-1 or a 9-6-3 or a 52-27-2; As long as the difference between 1st 2nd is equal to the difference between 2nd and 3rd, the final placement – including the moment in the week when 3rd or 2nd place lost any chance of reaching 1st- will always be the same.

That being said, I don’t think Anet picked 5-4-3 to balloon the numbers or anything devious, I think they just fell for the same logic trap that several of the forumers here are in, thinking smaller % differences equate a greater chance for lower placed worlds to advance to a higher place before the week ends. Sadly, that’s not the case.

To do “that” (and this is another piece of wonderful backward-sounding logic related to scoring systems) you would have to make the difference between 1st and 2nd **GREATER** than 2nd and 3rd.

I know what you’re thinking now, “But Foefaller, that would mean a really good world would hit the point where no other team can beat them even sooner than they do now!” and you would be right, imaginary forumer, and that would be unavoidable. BUT, if the point is to make sure that **some** reason for competition remains for as long as possible (even if it’s just jousting for 2nd place) or in those rare situations where noone has the majority of first place wins for most of the week, it really is the best way to give the 3rd place team an opportunity to rally and improve their placing in their tier late in the week.

You want an example, imaginary person? Well, lets give you one!

Ten skirmishes into a new matchup, and your world has rated last in all of them. Meanwhile, the other two worlds have traded 1st place for most of the time, with Best world (amazing name, right!?)going 6-4 and Better world going 4-6.

Now, between 3-2-1, 5-4-3, 4-2-1 and 4-3-1, which score array would allow your world to tie for the lead with the fewest 1st place skirmishes, assuming Best world places 2nd every single time?

Well, with a 3-2-1 array, Best world would have 26 (6 3 point skirmishes + 4 2 point skirmishes wins) points, Better world would have 24 (6 2 points + 4 3 points, and your world would have 10 (10 1 point skirmishes) With the difference between 1st and 2nd being 1 point, it would take (26-10)/1 = 16 1st place skirmishes to tie with Best World.

At 5-4-3, Best would have 46 (6×5 + 4×4) Better would have 44 (6×4 + 4×5) and we would have 30 (10×3) now, 30 is a greater fraction of 46 than 10 was of 26 (.65 vs .38) however, the difference between 1st and 2nd is still one, meaning it will take (46-30)/1 = 16 1st place skirmishes to tie with Best, same as with 3-2-1

Now, for 4-2-1, in that score array, Best would have 32 (6×4 + 4×2) Better would have 28 (6×2 + 4×4) and your world would be at 10 (10×1) Now, on the surface, this looks worse than 3-2-1, because 10 is less than 1/3 of 32! However, the difference between 1st and 2nd is double that of second and third, meaning that it would take (32-10)/2= 11 1st place skimishes to tie. In fact, if your world was down by 24 points at Thursday reset, they could place first in every skirmish and win it all by the time WvW server matchups change.

So, what about something that makes the difference between 1st and 2nd smaler than 2nd and 3rd? Would that keep first closer to 3rd? and the answer is… no. In fact, the 4-3-1 array is the worst for your world. After those 10 skimishes, Best would be up by 36, Better by 34, and with your world at 10, and the difference between 1st and 2nd being only 1, it would take 26 skirmishes – more than two days of winning- to simply tie with 1st.

So, to wit; making the number bigger will not change the outcome as long as the difference between each place is the same. If Anet wants worlds that are placed at 3rd be able to rapidly improve late in the week, they’ll have to increase the difference between 1st and second place, running the risk of a runaway team clinching early in the week.