An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

I was doing lots of busywork this past week seeing if I can improve the scoring system that would actually help outmanned servers and ran into a couple interesting problems

Currently there is no day to day published metric of player populations
Currently there is no minute by minute ownership report to know who owns what.

So I had to get busy making a model. Because I was dealing with lots of numbers and wanted the model to map out an entire week of gameplay I went to modeling a single map using a bunch of assumptions.

Assumption 1: Minimum amount of people online to take a keep is 12 (note that you can do it with less than that, i know)
Assumption 2: you need at least 5 people for a tower (to put down a ram and build it, and take the lord)
Assumption 3: You need a minimum of 2 people to take a supply camp
Assumption 4: None of the servers will ‘give up’ and will try to participate in roughly the same amount each day +/- about 10%
Assumption 5: All servers are of ‘equal skill’

Now obviously its a bit of a stretch to say that the above can be true in all cases, but for the purpose of this excercise it is.
Ok now to develop the population curves.
Server 1, is a popular US server with no significant help from outside its timezone, it gets really full during primetime
Server 2, is a less popular US server barely reaching queue at primetime, but has an oceanic presense.
Server 3, is an underpopulated server stuck in the matchup.

I wrote a model, ran the numbers and recorded possession on one borderlands map per team at 15 minute intervals. The odds that a server would take something from another server increased if they outpopped them. I recorded how long something was under one teams control.

Under anet’s scoring system the ending scores for 1 week of play were:
Server1: 28,375
Server2: 51,225
Server3: 17,840
Note that this is the cumualtive score for only one map, not including sentries.

Attachments:

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

A blowout, just what i wanted. Server 2 clearly won this about 3-4 days in, making the rest of the days a lame duck situation of unfunness that people generally dont like to participate in.

Next I recorded population difference and assigned a multiplier per 15 minute interval. Every 10 people a server outpopped the other two combined their multiplier went down 10%. For every 10 people you were outmanned your multiplier went up 10%.
So if server 1 had 150 people, server 2 50 and server 3 50, server 1 would get 50% of its points
Server 2 would get 100% increase in point gain same with server 3.
The lower bound is 10%, so a server cant start losing points for holding territory.
There is no upper bound.

Basically an interesting thing happened that I honestly didnt expect. Because the model was predicting that an overpopulated server would quickly take the map, the bonus had little effect in increasing the score of the other two servers. It did however lower the score of the oceanic server by almost 10k.

Results:
Server1: 28047.5
Server2: 43072.5
Server3: 17544.5

Interesting right? So putting in a multiplier seems to not effect the standing as much as we would like. Its still a blowout. Even though we made PvD worth much less points it didnt really change the outcomes all that much.

So I got to thinking (well I had the idea all along, but wanted to prove it)

What if we keep the multiplier in, because it does help tamp down on the server with the most out of prime population, but we implement a bonus system.

The rules of the bonus system:
After 1 hour for Forts and Towers and 30 minutes for camps, the longer they remain uncaptured by an enemy team per 15 minute interval the more bonus points they are worth.
After 1 hour Forts accumulate 20 bonus points per tick
Towers accumulate 8
Camps accumulate 4.

Bonus points are awarded when a different team captures the keep. The capturing team is granted the bonus ‘stockpile’ of points.

The bonus points accumulate slower than the actual points awarded. So it always a benifit to hold something as long as you can, as you get more points that way.
The result?
Here it is:
Server1: 46055.5
Server2: 50759.3
Server3: 36372.9

Bam, ‘night capping’ is eliminated. Server 1 is within 4k points for a single map at the end of the week, a catchable lead.

Also this system has a second benifit, it makes it more benificial for the 2 underpopulated servers to intentionally target the winning team. as the winning teams objectives are going to be worth more points if they were holding them overnight.
The system also make sure the point system remains fair in even population matchups
Bonus amounts can be told to and updated on the map so the player can easily see them. Multiplier can be built right into the score system. (multiplier also affects the bonus award)

Also as an aside if this model would expand to all 4 maps, it would calculate on a population of 166×4. The multi system is based on total server population in all maps in wvw, not one particular map. so you cant manipulate the system by leaving one map and jumping to another. Also I would use the rolling maximum population over the last 45 mins, to prevent organized guilds from jumping to pve to score more points before enough time has passed for a server with more wvw population to retake objectives.

Below: Graphs!

Attachments:

(edited by Draygo.9473)

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

If you like the suggested bonus system and muliplier, please +1 the thread.

To Anet: If you want the raw data and model I can provide that.
To Community: bumps and +1’s welcome.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Dee Jay.2460

Dee Jay.2460

Holy crapper this is awesome!

I can’t imagine you invested so much work into this computer model. I really appreciate the effort because I’m much in favor of a more flexible scoring system.

However I’m not sure if I understood all the details of the model or the exact formula you were applying.

My concern however is that a very vocal part of this community believes that the scoring system doesn’t need fixing. They will probably be too close-minded to even consider the benefits of your proposal which is a real shame considering the effort you obviously invested.

Anyway, you got my +1

PS: Closer matches benefit everyone. Just look at the current Tier 1 battle which is close as hell. It’s way more fun than being the dominating force after the first night.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Fiction.6418

Fiction.6418

bump for a good idea, also it will never happen… the majority of the teams dominating other teams near the middle/lower brackets suck with even numbers.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Nabrok.9023

Nabrok.9023

Any multipliers based on population are a bad idea, you’re forgetting what the purpose of the score is.

The score is not primarily to determine a winner. There is no prize for first place.

The score is to determine a ranking to match you up against similar servers. Granted, this is currently compromised by the free server transfers, but never-the-less it’s what it’s for.

If you introduce a multiplier on low population servers to “even” things out, then you’ll end up matched against higher servers than you should be and you’ll be in a worse situation than you were otherwise.

“I’m not a PvE, WvW, or PvP player – I am a Guild Wars 2 player”
Tarnished Coast – Dissentient [DIS]
Ranger/Necromancer/Guardian

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

thats a fair point Nabrok, but if you read what I posted you would understand the multiplier does not help low pop servers win. I know its a bit long, but ill tl’dr that part here: Basically because the lower population servers have trouble taking and holding objectives multipling their score for the stuff they currently hold has a negligable effect on the overall score. Compare the Adjusted and Current pie charts for the green team, the difference with the multiplier applied is only ~296.

Negligeable.

Part of the problem of the ranking system is when a server gets 500k points it goes up 2-4 placings and then gets dominated next week because of the snowballing effect of the score right now. The multiplier curbs that quite a bit which will prevent a server from jumping up so fast only to get knocked down quickly in the next week just because their opponents didnt show up.

The muliplier curbs the top end, but doesnt help the lower population win at all.

Also the muliplier stays in to keep the bonus’s in check. So if you cap everything when the other server is mostly offline you wont get a huge number of bonus points for it.

(edited by Draygo.9473)

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: WhiteScarf.4520

WhiteScarf.4520

This actually looks really great, I would love to see this implemented.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Dee Jay.2460

Dee Jay.2460

The score is not primarily to determine a winner. There is no prize for first place.

The score is to determine a ranking to match you up against similar servers. Granted, this is currently compromised by the free server transfers, but never-the-less it’s what it’s for.

I don’t buy that. According to me and most of the community the score defines the winner. The current problem however is that a server can easily come out with twice the points of the 2nd server without actually being “twice as good”. A slight margin of player activity during certain hours in enough to secure a great lead.

Yet the actual performance doesn’t scale with the score. The score scales exponentially.

This means the leading server will just find itself in a matchup completely outclassed again.

Currently a 100% lead on another server only means you were “slightly” better or had just a few more people on every night.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Nevron.9413

Nevron.9413

Any multipliers based on population are a bad idea, you’re forgetting what the purpose of the score is.

The score is not primarily to determine a winner. There is no prize for first place.

The score is to determine a ranking to match you up against similar servers. Granted, this is currently compromised by the free server transfers, but never-the-less it’s what it’s for.

That’s like saying that a breathalyzer isn’t to determine who’s drunk, it’s to determine who’ll spend the night in the drunk tank.

Guild – Shadow of Apophis [SoA]

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Aurainsoph.5426

Aurainsoph.5426

Seems like a complicated system to explain to players. Anet could just limit a server’s ability to out man the other servers with population controls on the maps.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

Aurainsoph, I do not think thats an option.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Aurainsoph.5426

Aurainsoph.5426

You should explain why that is not an option.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

Regardless of the score deciding where servers rank, closer scores keep players playing, period.

+1

Also consider the following:

Its thursday, scores are near tied. But your fort has been capped for over 3 days and so has their garrison on their BL. They are both fully upgraded.

If either server manages to cap the other servers garision while pops are competative it might give enough points for your server to win the matchup.

Puts lot more volitility into the scores near the end, and I think the better server will win.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

You should explain why that is not an option.

It’s the general feeling i get when I read Witters post. He did post that improving the scoring system is on the table, and didnt feel … well just read it.

We feel that everyone should have the ability to contribute no matter what time of the day it is. How we’ve came to this conclusion is that no player’s time is more valuable than another. Everyone has different off peak hours for whatever reason. Players should not be punished or unable to experience and view the same content as everyone else because they play at a different time. They too are paying customers.
This is not saying that we are against any adjustment to scoring, or against developing another mechanic to improve the capping system. This is simply saying that we will not be changing WvW based on some players’ idea of off time hours.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Luriyu.6873

Luriyu.6873

> Assumption 3: You need a minimum of 2 people to take a supply camp

i don’t really agree with this…

i can take an unupgraded supply camp as a single player by just isolating 1-2 enemies, have a bear tank and justPvE tank and Spank. minimum required is 1 but the time required to take a camp is negatively exponential.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Aurainsoph.5426

Aurainsoph.5426

Populations unbalances isn’t just an off peak hours issue, some servers will always out number other servers they play during all hours.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

> Assumption 3: You need a minimum of 2 people to take a supply camp

i don’t really agree with this…

i can take an unupgraded supply camp as a single player by just isolating 1-2 enemies, have a bear tank and justPvE tank and Spank. minimum required is 1 but the time required to take a camp is negatively exponential.

I am aware you can take it with 1. But you would have to account for the fact not ‘everyone’ can do this and its likely when only 1 person is on the map that they wont be taking a supply camp.

Often I dont see supply camps flip on a map until there are at least 5. But because that assumption is applied to all 3 servers in the data, it doesnt really affect the outcome of the model.

Same thing with towers and keeps, you CAN do it with less people, its just unlikely that less total people will be on the map when you do it.

For example you attack a keep with 7 people and take it, but while you were doing that there were 3-10 randoms running around on the map for your team.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Metavex.4027

Metavex.4027

The problem with WvWvW isn’t the scoring system, the problem is that winners win more. As a strong server captures more and more stuff, it becomes easier for them to steamroll their opponents.

Regardless of what the score is, if one server owns 95% of the map and all they need to do is play whack-a-mole it is depressing and makes me not want to play. Furthermore it also kind of breaks your “bonus” system since shortly after losing teams recapture something it just gets taken back again by overwhelming numbers. In practice, losing teams do not hold onto stuff for very long, only winning teams. I suggest you take your algorithms into question.

Here is how you balance population differences:

Why is it that the WINNING team gets +15% health and 150 all stats from orb bonuses, while the LOSING teams get extra xp / mf / karma from outmanned? All this does is allow the winning teams to pull further ahead, making for steamrolls when we want close games.

My solution is to give players increased damage vs players/gates/guards and reduced damage from players/gates/guards. This bonus should be directly proportional to the current population difference. If your server has 1/5 the players in WvWvW to another, you should be able to fight players 1v5 and have it be a roughly equal fight. If for some crazy reason you are the only person online on your server, you should be able to solo keeps or even stonemist if your opponents don’t make a decent effort to defend.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: thievery.2701

thievery.2701

You have a really good scoring model here Draygo. Perhaps even better than the one Anet has currently for wvw. Unfortunately you can’t factor player morale into any equation. I think that even in the way off chance that Anet did implement this, the scores would still be one sided because the majority of the player population gives up way too easily in wvw.

In my experiences, I have been in situations both where I am on the spawn trapping side and on the spawn trapped side. So many times when I am on the spawn trapping side the side that is spawn trapped actually has way greater numbers than the people trapping them there. They don’t seem to want to win as badly as the winning team. Now, think now about the times in military history where an army backed into a corner facing overwhelming odds actually snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. The opposite happens in a video game it seems, because retreat is still always a couple clicks away. Not to mention there is no real fear of death, and these days it’s too easy to defect to the winning side anyways. Other than bragging rights and pride when your server actually does win there is no incentive for players to stay with the losing servers. I think we can all agree that free transfers need to end.

Also, I’m not sure how I feel about the losing teams getting buffed this dramatically. Whether or not a wvw match up is won in the first few days, and match length in general, are other matters for debate. But if that is the case then tough luck, come back and do better next match. It sucks losing, but not everyone can win either. That’s what makes winning feel so good. And frankly, when I am winning I don’t want to know my work is being rewarded any less.

Just look at the tier one match up this week. In spite of all the problems with wvw in its current state (culling, free transfers, night capping, hacking, etc.) it’s still a very close match up and everyone seems to be enjoying themselves. I think it can be attributed to high morale on all sides. Although I do think the scoring system could use some minor tweaks, that match up seems to be evidence to the contrary: That there is nothing wrong with the scoring system, and the player morale is what causes losing teams to be blown out to begin with.

(edited by thievery.2701)

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

The scoring system I proposed here would not affect even matchups like whats going on in teir 1 right now. It will add some tense and wild things by making objectives that have been held for a long time worth points to capture, so you will see teams defending and attempting to take fortified keeps up until the last moments.

Anet is looking to address the camping situation in a different way to allow camped teams to push out. And score does affect morale, my goal is to prevent situations where people simply get depressed when they look at the score thinking they cannot do it or cannot make up the difference, that its pointless.

The system I am proposing here lets comebacks happen, doesnt let servers sit in lame duck or kingmaker situations that are poison to a good system.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Newbienice.1923

Newbienice.1923

So, in your opinion, how do you think this would affect a matchup that looks like this?

http://puu.sh/1hm1h

I doubt anything, other than flooding the other two servers with players, would solve this, but I am interested in anything that might make it slightly better.
Similar thing happened last week. It’s not very fun.

(edited by Newbienice.1923)

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Light.3976

Light.3976

Your bonus system is a huge snowballing mechanic, and in fact a worse one than orb and downed state combined.

I have no idea how you model all the details like population fluctuation, time period, etc, but from the close and small final numbers, I’m going to guess that you model the tower and keep to change hands more often that is currently the case in WvWvW.

I’ll just illustrate the snowball happening here by taking EB as example. In fact, I’ll only look at the 3 keeps. Despite lacking in NA prime time presence (but not sorely lacking), server 2 should be able to hold its keep at all times. What’s the bonus score after a single day? It’s at least 20*24 = 480 points, 2 days and its at least 960 points. Now during the first oceanic prime time, server 2 will be able to cap all other keeps, thus resetting the bonus points for all other servers to 0. So by the second day, server 2 will be enjoying a 480 bonus points on its keep while every other server’s bonuses are small. It gets worse and worse as the match progresses.

So, unless you publish in more details your model, I have a hard time buying your proposal.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: thievery.2701

thievery.2701

Don’t get me wrong, as I stated at the beginning of my post I think you do have a really scoring system put together. But there are some pretty radical things proposed in it that would still affect evenly matched games. For example, your scoring system rewarding teams more for capturing objectives would make for juicy targets late in a close game. Transversely, it would also make recently lost objectives less attractive targets, which would make the better choices of where to attack also the more predictable choices. I’m not sure if this is a good thing, as I haven’t seen it in practice, but I definitely get the impression that it would make things odd, to say the least.

Also, as someone who is clearly good with numbers, I would expect you to know that even in your system there will come a point in every match up where winning is mathematically impossible for the losing team. And while these numbers are unclear to me as I don’t have the exact equations for calculating scores in either your system or Anet’s on hand, you don’t have to be mathematically sound to get a sense that you are at that point as the losing team. Although your system would increase morale by keeping the scores closer, your assumptions are also assuming that the losing team is being uncontested while taking a supply camp, tower, keep, etc.

There is also the problem of teams that may intentionally play from behind, or find some other way to exploit the scoring. History has proven that gamers will always find a way to exploit a given system. Like the once great Mike Tyson said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.” If implemented, your system would fix a lot of a problems, but it would cause a lot of problems as well. The real question is would it fix more than it solved.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

Correct Thievery.

I am having a hard time trying to find exploits in the system. Assume worst case where a team just gives up all its points and doesnt participate

and the other two servers somehow got into an even fight where none of them took anything.

Then on the last day thursday that server took everything everywhere.

In that case they get 80%ish of the total points. I really dont see that happening. Because holding points is always worth more than taking and leaving, its not to the advantage of a team to take and leave.

Also would juicy targets in a close game be a bad thing? If you are losing going all out for a hard to take well fortified objective might be the gambit you need, you can also fail flatly to take it.

Right now the model is using a 2% chance to take a fort in a 15 minute period if pops are even. Chance goes up the larger the population gap. Lowers if you outpop. its something I can configure on the fly, and i played with it a bit to get something that seemed realistic.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

@Newbienince the score model i’m using has one server take over almost all the map in oceanic time each day. Let me see if i can pie chart that.

Below is the snapshot at +18 hours in the model.

If you want the exact details on the model, pm me and ill see a if I can get it to you.

Attachments:

(edited by Draygo.9473)

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: ParaldaWind.4523

ParaldaWind.4523

The biggest problem I see is that there will be a big rush in the morning/afternoon, and whomever has the best Europeans will start winning in the same way that Oceanics are now, point-wise.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

How so? Remember its based on population difference not time slot as far as the scoring goes.

You rush europeans when no one is on you wont get as many points if you took something during primetime.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: ParaldaWind.4523

ParaldaWind.4523

The bonuses that keeps accrue the longer they’re held. You see, Maguuma, my server, has a large European presence. So we dominate pretty much 95% between noon and 3 PM EST. Our Europeans would get all of the bonus points that the Oceanic players had built up between 5 AM and noon EST, giving us huge bonuses.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

Not if the bonus is reduced 90% because you are PvD’ing.

For example the Oceanic server is capping everything during oceanic prime, and isnt getting many points off it. You will get probably ~200-300 more points per day. I can rerun the model on a euro timezone advantage if you like.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: BaldricBlack.4359

BaldricBlack.4359

Your model seems to say that oceanic caps are less valid than prime time caps, is that your intention?

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

no
It says that PvD is worth less than PvP

If an oceanic server fought an oceanic server, the scoreing would be equivilant to prime.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: BaldricBlack.4359

BaldricBlack.4359

Okay so you only get the points if you’re actually playing against a similar population, no matter what time of day it is? Sorry I found your post a bit wordy and wasn’t entirely sure.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Snido.4827

Snido.4827

The problem with your model has already been pointed out. ANet has clearly stated that no one group of people’s time is to be worth less than another simply becuase their prime time is different. Your model essentially makes Oceanics worth less than prime time players, which won’t fly.

The current scoring system is fine, orb and outmanned could be switched but its not that bad; the broken part is free transfers. In more than one situation the population for WvW was spread nicely, and due to free transfers some servers got stacked and some servers became ghost towns which is what is really ruining matchups; and no scoring system is going to fix that. They need to announce the close of free transfers, at that point people will make their final choice, and the population spread out some. And if that doesn’t work they could offer incentives to transfer to lower rank servers.

TL;DR Free transfers are the problem not scoring, these transfers are whats imbalancing coverages and causing 90% of the current issues. Thats what needs to be solved NOT scoring

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Gordunk.7289

Gordunk.7289

The point is obvious with the Oceanic players’ time not being worth the same as American players’ time. This goes against what A-Net has said regarding night capping.

Even as it stands Night capping isn’t an issue. The issue is that servers consistently win WvW matchups by more than double the points of the other two servers combined. And this model does nothing to address that.

Props though on doing all that numbers work and research. This is very well thought out, and it’s awesome to see community members going all out like this.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: deviantbeef.9671

deviantbeef.9671

I wholeheartedly agree with the op. This is by far the best idea to fix wvw I have read so far.

To those who are saying there is a time value issue, Draygo has accounted for that in his model. It’s in the second post.

@Draygo
It wasn’t clear but is there a cap to the bonus points for holding key areas? If there isn’t i have to agree with some of the posters that it can get ugly once things start snowballing.

(edited by deviantbeef.9671)

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Avalon.4809

Avalon.4809

I really liked your model Draygo. Everybody makes some comment in either positive or negative way, but we can’t know the exact result without trying this. I personally don’t play WvW when my team is heavily outmanned that week. I think your score model can bring solution to this and give me the fun i miss in WvW.

“the longer they remain uncaptured by an enemy team per 15 minute interval the more bonus points they are worth.”
Also, I loved this idea, because it will completely remove the zerg mentality and people will start to defend their towers and keeps in my opinion. Currently people doesn’t care about losing a tower, they say “never mind, we can capture it again”.

+1

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: ParaldaWind.4523

ParaldaWind.4523

What I’m saying is that the bonus points accumulated per tick after one hour would heavily favor the primetime immediately after Oceanic: European.

Look at the Darkhaven/Maguuma/NSP battle right now. Darkhaven totally controls all three maps for about 6-8 hours (normally starting around 5 AM EST). That means that the next prime time (which would be Europeans during the afternoon) will get all of those bonus points. Maguuma always controls about 75%-90% of the map around 2 PM EST. So, they get all of the juicy bonus points that Darkhaven has accrued overnight. Which, by your system, is around 2000 bonus points every day. That eventually accounts for over 14k more points for Maguuma.

I’m not saying it’s a bad system, but it unfortunately heavily favors servers with a European presence since they will probably retake the maps entirely, and it will be less risky for them, because they will hold those points for less.

Unless I’m misunderstanding you, and servers get more bonus points for holding something longer, not making their keeps worth more? If that’s the case, then you’re still rewarding night capping.

I’m not against this idea… but I see a few holes in it. If I’m misunderstanding, I’m sorry. I can tell you put a lot of work into this idea.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Mamric.8143

Mamric.8143

>The rules of the bonus system:
>After 1 hour for Forts and Towers and 30 minutes for camps, the longer they remain uncaptured by an enemy team per 15 minute interval the more bonus points they are worth.
>After 1 hour Forts accumulate 20 bonus points per tick
>Towers accumulate 8
>Camps accumulate 4.
>So it always a benifit to hold something as long as you can, as you get more points that way.
>The result?
>Here it is:
>Server1: 46055.5
>Server2: 50759.3
>Server3: 36372.9
>Bam, ‘night capping’ is eliminated. Server 1 is within 4k points for a single map at the end of the week, a catchable lead.

I may be reading this wrong but it looks like you’re saying that the longer you hold something the more points you get. Doesn’t that mean that the server that holds 100% of everything 24/7, which seems to be a popular theme, would exponentially get more and more points?

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

What I ment to address that you get more points for holding something than intentionally losing it, to recapture it later.

You get 25 points a 15 min interval for forts right now, the bonus system only racks up +20 per 15 min interval after 1 hour has passed.

That and the other server might take it before you do means its better to hold an objective than to let someone take it.

The bonus system is letting a server take something back that was capped overnight and recoup part of the points for it, preventing the score from snowballing because a server has a population advantage at particular hours (not just oceanic).

Basically if you want to move ahead in score under this system you have to do better than average at all hours, including night hours than your population is expected to do. Servers with oceanic guilds still have large advantages, this aims to tampen down the score disparity between competing servers.

Also Oceanics are not worth less. I am just using an oceanic timezone advantage in the example, but essentially if your server at any time is PvD’ing your points are going to be worth less for that time period.
Plus things that are captured tend to stay captured if your server has good coverage.

Anet can easily tweak the system to put in caps on bonus point accumulation for example, or tweak any one of the variables to adjust how harsh this system applies its rules.

Oceanics are still a good thing to have, they still get you a lot of points, they just dont give you an explosive lead.

To the person saying that oceanics would be ‘worth less’. Thats hogwash. Currently they are worth much more than a primetime player, this brings their worth in line, makes it equal. And rewards effort against fighting advisories while still giving an advantage to a server with more people.

And yes sorry marm i should be more clear. Bonus is granted on capture to the capturing team.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Ernesto.7894

Ernesto.7894

So according to your model:

If another side is beating you, the best tactic is to log out, because then they gain less points?

  • So in a few days you will see mapchat filled with randoms yelling in caps: LOG OUT YOU FFF YOU ARE BETTER USE WHEN NOT INGAME
  • You can follow that up with: No point in going to WvW, Server X doesn’t have anyone online anyway so we can’t get score.
  • Noone is allowed to go into WvW unless it’s Y o clock. Zoning in alone will hurt the server, etc etc.

You cannot fix this by making it unfair, you will just break it even more. – A little more though has to be put into it.

Ernesto
Leader of Ginnunga [Gin] on Henge of Denravi
Titan Alliance

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

Ern if you can somehow get the other server in the matchup to also log out, that might be detrimental.

getting your own server to log out only hurts your server.

To illustrate: This is what would happen to the adjusted+bonus score if server 3 did what you said above:

It loses, badly, as expected.

Attachments:

(edited by Draygo.9473)

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

What i’m saying is I already thought of that.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Viro.8976

Viro.8976

This is pretty amazing, I wish more developers posted things like this for me to play around with. Defiantly in favor of changing the current structure.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

Just to be clear, I’m not a developer for arenanet.

Its late, ill try to answer more questions tomorrow, if you want a look at the raw data I’m working with, send me a PM and be availible to get on teamspeak.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Pixel.6397

Pixel.6397

I like some of your ideas, and definitely something has to be done about wvw scoring system, so +1

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Ernesto.7894

Ernesto.7894

Alright then, so if your server has no players on, or few players on, they will lose badly, per your new graph – Earlier however you said that would not be the case?

You mean that not only do they gain less points when we are outmanned, they also crush us when we are outmanned?

I don’t get it.

Either you have an even (linear) curve, or you don’t. In an uneven curve, there will always be an equilibrium of perfection, where you have less people that them, and any added people to your zone will decrease your pointgain, or their pointloss, whatever way you wanna see it.

Ernesto
Leader of Ginnunga [Gin] on Henge of Denravi
Titan Alliance

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Draygo.9473

Draygo.9473

Ernest, thats what I thought at first too when I first did a multiplier only.

I found out that the multiplier itself had little effect on outcomes. Because when you have less people you have less stuff. You tend to take stuff back once you start fielding the population capable of taking things back.

You still have to field people, the idea is to normalize it a bit so that one servers population curve being different isnt the sole reason they win their matchup. They have to compete, or attempt to compete in all time slots. If your overall population is down, it is likely that you will lose the matchup. And thats just fine. This scoring system aims to prevent snowballing when one servers population curve is significantly different than the other servers in the matchup.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Goinstadi.2185

Goinstadi.2185

A well thought out and balanced system. It promotes more fights and causes the matches to be closer, which will overall cause the system to be used less.

Elegant. Well done.

An alternate scoring system. Accounting for population differences.

in WvW Discussion

Posted by: Tucta.8156

Tucta.8156

Please, please implement something like this. The snowball effect of WvW scoring is really getting old.