I used to think PPT needs to be eliminated, too. However, after some long and productive discussions with other posters on this topic in the most recent WvW CDI thread, I revised my original position.
I came to see PPT as the means by which servers in 2nd and 3rd place can continue to apply pressure to the 1st place server. To illustrate, let’s assume a PPT-less system where points are awarded only on capturing and defending objectives:
- Server A gets into 1st place by capturing a majority of objectives early in the match (maybe they “nightcap”, maybe they blobbed their way to it, etc.).
- Server A – now in the lead – bunkers down, turtling inside their captured fortifications.
- Assuming neither Servers B nor C are able to dislodge Server A from their fortifications, Server A is largely guaranteed a win provided they make enough additional captures to keep pace with the captures being made by Servers B and C. However, already holding the majority of objectives, they won’t have to expend much effort in this because there’s now a smaller available pool of objectives to capture (assuming Server A continues to aggressively defend their holdings).
- So a PPT-less system favors the server that “nightcaps” or blobs to an early lead and then rewards them for turtling rather than engaging in PvP. Not too much different than what we have now.
With a modified PPT system in which servers have to actively invest in their holdings to earn their World Score (which I’ll paste below), PPT evolves into a method by which the 2nd and 3rd place servers can pressure the 1st place server to come out and fight.
The 1st place server may still capture a majority of the objectives early in the match. However, with the potential to still earn PPT, the 2nd and 3rd place servers have a method by which they can advance their score and threaten the 1st place server’s lead if 1st place doesn’t come out from behind its walls and fight.
What’s more is, with the modified system below in which PPT is only earned along a sliding scale tied to the number of upgrades built, the 1st place server is under greater pressure to maintain vulnerable supply lines across a vast territory. Sure, they may have captured the majority of objectives; but they won’t be earning anything from them if none get upgraded.
It will be very easy for the 2nd and 3rd place servers to flip camps and kill yaks to deny the 1st place server the supply they need to build upgrades and thus earn PPT. The 2nd and 3rd place servers, with smaller territories to defend, may have an easier time of it getting yaks into their fortifications to build upgrades to earn PPT themselves.
It amounts to asking which earns more: the over-extended empire of 40 unupgraded objectives or the smaller kingdom with 10 upgraded fortifications? In the system where PPT is tied to time+upgrades rather than simply time, it’s the latter. The server holding those 40 unupgraded objectives is then going to have to do something to prevent the holder of the 10 from gaining on their lead.
That “something” is either attempting to deny supply by killing yaks and flipping camps and/or attempting to capture those 10 holdings of the smaller empire. This means coming out from behind their walls and engaging in activities that are more likely to bring them and the other servers into direct conflict. In other words, playing PvP rather than PvDoor or turtling to earn PPT.
This modified PPT system has the benefit of offering multiple methods for earning World Score points:
- World Score points awarded on capturing an objective.
- World Score points awarded by defending an objective.
- World Score points awarded from PPT; but only by upgrading what is captured (which then gives the opposing servers a counter through supply denial).
Such a system supports a variety of approaches to earning or denying World Score points; the aggressive assaulter, the industrious upgrader, the stalwart defender, the cunning roamer. Contrast this with the current system where the World Score is limited to just PPT earned over time through cap and hold (not including the World Score points that come from killing yaks and flipping sentries, which would be common to both systems). No wonder blobbing currently predominates; it’s simply the most efficient method of winning under the current one-dimensional scoring mechanic.