I'm no WvW player, let alone a good game theory crafter. But what would people think if, for example, the amount of PPT was dependent on the coverage itself?

i.e. the less players actively fighting on your server, the larger the PPT (and rewards for completing objectives) would be

and the more players actively playing against you, the larger your PPT (and rewards for completing objectives) would be.

The former would be less potent, so as to disincentivise an attitude of "everyone else on my server, get off this map, I want more rewards".

How would it determine this? Every half hour (example numbers), the server has been doing a headcount of people who complete objective events, who kill and/or were killed by other players. This kinda ignores "scouts" but by their nature I wouldn't think that this would be a considerable number... (I know also that "scouts" have important jobs and need a reward somehow, this would need to be addressed somehow else, this is just re: event rewards and PPT).

It then plugs this number into the "how many people are active" formulas and updates it again half an hour later

The result:

Servers that win by "nightcapping", because they have sheer numbers advantage for long periods of time lose the effectiveness of that advantage... it still gets them points, but if they're playing on a filled map vs. empty maps, their PPT gets really low.

Servers that have limited populations get better event participation rewards and are more rewarded for managing to achieve and hold onto objectives while being outnumbered. (less so than the other way around, again, no "get off the map it's worse to have more players" attitude - should always be the case that more people = better time for everyone because you can achieve a lot more).