New Generation Roamers lack the Bravery of the Old Guards - Page 4 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

New Generation Roamers lack the Bravery of the Old Guards

124>

Comments

  • SpellOfIniquity.1780SpellOfIniquity.1780 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 12, 2019

    Just want to add a few thoughts after reading through more of the comments.

    I don't roam as often as I used to for many of the reasons that have already been stated, but pre-HoT I was almost exclusively a solo roamer. My goal was to be as annoying as possible which meant; solo capping towers, fully upgraded camps, contesting Waypoints, destroying siege, placing Supply Traps, harassing Yak escorts and, the rare times I got the chance, getting inside a keep by myself ( though I only ever managed to solo a keep maybe twice in off hours ).

    A lot of that was "PPT roaming" but the point is that I was able to draw a lot of fights this way while also having a pretty large impact on the map just as a single player with enough determination and patience.

    Some might say being able to solo cap a tower is bad, and to a point I agree. WvW is a large scale and team oriented mode after all, but I don't think it should be out of the realm of possibility for someone to achieve what usually requires a group. The only exception being keeps ( and Stonemist Castle ) because those are much more significant objectives. No one should be able to do that alone unless they have a significant amount of time ( like a solid 8 minutes ) on the Lord alone, uninterrupted.

    When passive upgrades were introduced this became a lot more difficult, but still doable with patience. It was when Tactivators were introduced that it became near impossible, and even made claimed Supply Camps a risky target.

    Along with elite specs and some of the ridiculous builds that became available, both then and now, and Mounts to exacerbate that pain, roaming basically became a hobby for only the suicidal or those willing to embrace the most faceroll of builds.

    I understand that WvW is a team game and that ANet is more focused on the large scale aspect of it than the small. I think that's okay, but I also think due to the length of the matches and size of the maps, ANet should put a little more consideration towards those who prefer to play by themselves or with a few friends.

    Thanks to to much of what I've said, we now have roamers congregating in certain areas where they can keep pugs perpetually engaged while they don't have a commander. Areas like between Ogrewatch and SMC in EBG, or near the spawn points in the Borderlands, etc. It isn't exciting and it doesn't offer the same strategy or fulfillment that roaming once did. Not only that, it demotivates the pugs who don't know what to do without a commander, and it annoys the roamers because they're often fighting under a heap of siege. No one wins.

    I spent about 2 hours solo roaming in EBG the other night, and I mean actual roaming. Usually I more or less "float" rather than actually going straight deep in enemy territory. Anyway, I hadn't done so in quite some time but, it was a pretty terrible experience and just reminded me why I don't bother with it. I have no trouble capping fully upgraded camps because as @Dawdler.8521 said, all it takes is knowing how to read the map. But god forbid you get tagged by Watch Tower in an area you can't avoid it, or get spotted by a single person you hoped was AFK, and you're going to be dead in the next 60 seconds. I wish I had recorded it when I had annoyed CD enough that I had at least 15 of them chase me all the way through Ogre Camp, past Ogrewatch, past north SMC and almost to Anz before I finally died. Like if people are that determined to kill one person, who was unable to avoid being spotted thanks to Tactics, unable to escape Warclaw on foot and couldn't even begin to attack a tower, I think solo roaming probably sucks. ( Also for anyone wondering how I ran for so long without being on a Mount, I was playing core Ranger with Quickdraw ).

    My Youtube: Coconut Racecar
    Necromancer | Maguuma | Diamond Legend
    [YWY] Weeping Valley | [tBag] Making Friends Everywhere I Go | [chi] Uhehehe

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 12, 2019

    @Tuna Bandit.3786 said:
    On one of the links (I am not going to disclose which host) I was spewed out and isolated for not playing a Meta class
    fyi: Due to disabilities, I CAN NOT play a meta class...
    Pathetic attitude from that host right?

    Unless you imply that your disability would go away if you where on a host server, the server being host has nothing to do with it. You'd be shunned on off-meta regardless.

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • @SpellOfIniquity.1780 said:
    I spent about 2 hours solo roaming in EBG the other night, and I mean actual roaming. Usually I more or less "float" rather than actually going straight deep in enemy territory. Anyway, I hadn't done so in quite some time but, it was a pretty terrible experience and just reminded me why I don't bother with it. I have no trouble capping fully upgraded camps because as @Dawdler.8521 said, all it takes is knowing how to read the map. But god forbid you get tagged by Watch Tower in an area you can't avoid it, or get spotted by a single person you hoped was AFK, and you're going to be dead in the next 60 seconds. I wish I had recorded it when I had annoyed CD enough that I had at least 15 of them chase me all the way through Ogre Camp, past Ogrewatch, past north SMC and almost to Anz before I finally died. Like if people are that determined to kill one person, who was unable to avoid being spotted thanks to Tactics, unable to escape Warclaw on foot and couldn't even begin to attack a tower, I think solo roaming probably sucks. ( Also for anyone wondering how I ran for so long without being on a Mount, I was playing core Ranger with Quickdraw ).

    Ah, so you're from Maguuma. With how your server has been blobbing, ppt-ing, then camping all of CD's and TC's keeps in EBG at the moment, and having you guys spawn camp us for several instances so far, any kills we can get is victory enough, even just a solo roamer. It's easy to roam when your server has several guild zergs that can take care of our already dwindling population.

    But really, frustration runs high in situations like these, you are just at a bad place at a bad time to be the receiving end of all that frustration. Try solo roaming when your server goes higher in tier as we had heard you guys are planning, and the zerg fights are more equal. It should be a bit easier and more fun, especially as a ranger.

    Back on topic. Roaming has been made harder with everything that has been stated in the thread, so much so that I simply stopped doing so and focus more on group and zerg-oriented builds, hoping to be more useful. And with the advent of builds and classes that are essentially immortal, and people who plays these builds and either spawn camps or ganks even on their own, any of these solo roamers are seen as a threat that requires more than 10 people to finally kill, only for these immortals to come back and do it all over again. Those who solo roam tend to carry these builds, so better be safe than sorry :p

  • Opal.9324Opal.9324 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kurowolfe.7124 said:

    @SpellOfIniquity.1780 said:
    I spent about 2 hours solo roaming in EBG the other night, and I mean actual roaming. Usually I more or less "float" rather than actually going straight deep in enemy territory. Anyway, I hadn't done so in quite some time but, it was a pretty terrible experience and just reminded me why I don't bother with it. I have no trouble capping fully upgraded camps because as @Dawdler.8521 said, all it takes is knowing how to read the map. But god forbid you get tagged by Watch Tower in an area you can't avoid it, or get spotted by a single person you hoped was AFK, and you're going to be dead in the next 60 seconds. I wish I had recorded it when I had annoyed CD enough that I had at least 15 of them chase me all the way through Ogre Camp, past Ogrewatch, past north SMC and almost to Anz before I finally died. Like if people are that determined to kill one person, who was unable to avoid being spotted thanks to Tactics, unable to escape Warclaw on foot and couldn't even begin to attack a tower, I think solo roaming probably sucks. ( Also for anyone wondering how I ran for so long without being on a Mount, I was playing core Ranger with Quickdraw ).

    Ah, so you're from Maguuma. With how your server has been blobbing, ppt-ing, then camping all of CD's and TC's keeps in EBG at the moment, and having you guys spawn camp us for several instances so far, any kills we can get is victory enough, even just a solo roamer. It's easy to roam when your server has several guild zergs that can take care of our already dwindling population.

    But really, frustration runs high in situations like these, you are just at a bad place at a bad time to be the receiving end of all that frustration. Try solo roaming when your server goes higher in tier as we had heard you guys are planning, and the zerg fights are more equal. It should be a bit easier and more fun, especially as a ranger.

    Back on topic. Roaming has been made harder with everything that has been stated in the thread, so much so that I simply stopped doing so and focus more on group and zerg-oriented builds, hoping to be more useful. And with the advent of builds and classes that are essentially immortal, and people who plays these builds and either spawn camps or ganks even on their own, any of these solo roamers are seen as a threat that requires more than 10 people to finally kill, only for these immortals to come back and do it all over again. Those who solo roam tend to carry these builds, so better be safe than sorry :p

    There's a build that requires more than 10 people to kill? Why don't I ever see anyone using it?

  • Ruufio.1496Ruufio.1496 Member ✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I agree most players are not willing to commit to even or outnumbered fights these days, but I do still see players running around at the north end of enemy bls. I would agree that those players are less successful than they used to be, but I'm not sure I can put my finger on a reason for that . . .

    Its too easy to be effective on a class now. For example a god awful player on a zerk longbow ranger can make a huge impact in a fight just by pressing 1 from 1500 range. No amount of "skill" on the roamers end can deal with every class and every ability being too easy/strong. This wasn't the case in the past. Ranger was once considered bad, like really really bad.

    Same with a holosmith. He can come right in your face, be annoying and then rocket boots away twice and stealth away. It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kurowolfe.7124 said:

    @SpellOfIniquity.1780 said:
    I spent about 2 hours solo roaming in EBG the other night, and I mean actual roaming. Usually I more or less "float" rather than actually going straight deep in enemy territory. Anyway, I hadn't done so in quite some time but, it was a pretty terrible experience and just reminded me why I don't bother with it. I have no trouble capping fully upgraded camps because as @Dawdler.8521 said, all it takes is knowing how to read the map. But god forbid you get tagged by Watch Tower in an area you can't avoid it, or get spotted by a single person you hoped was AFK, and you're going to be dead in the next 60 seconds. I wish I had recorded it when I had annoyed CD enough that I had at least 15 of them chase me all the way through Ogre Camp, past Ogrewatch, past north SMC and almost to Anz before I finally died. Like if people are that determined to kill one person, who was unable to avoid being spotted thanks to Tactics, unable to escape Warclaw on foot and couldn't even begin to attack a tower, I think solo roaming probably sucks. ( Also for anyone wondering how I ran for so long without being on a Mount, I was playing core Ranger with Quickdraw ).

    Ah, so you're from Maguuma. With how your server has been blobbing, ppt-ing, then camping all of CD's and TC's keeps in EBG at the moment, and having you guys spawn camp us for several instances so far, any kills we can get is victory enough, even just a solo roamer.

    We don't upgrade your stuff for PPT.
    We do it because it's funny

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ruufio.1496 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    I agree most players are not willing to commit to even or outnumbered fights these days, but I do still see players running around at the north end of enemy bls. I would agree that those players are less successful than they used to be, but I'm not sure I can put my finger on a reason for that . . .

    Its too easy to be effective on a class now. For example a god awful player on a zerk longbow ranger can make a huge impact in a fight just by pressing 1 from 1500 range. No amount of "skill" on the roamers end can deal with every class and every ability being too easy/strong. This wasn't the case in the past. Ranger was once considered bad, like really really bad.

    Same with a holosmith. He can come right in your face, be annoying and then rocket boots away twice and stealth away. It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

    Well again, if you're outnumbered and in the open you're supposed to lose, bc you're fighting other players not npcs. But 1v1 all of those 'op' classes suddenly become a lot easier to kill . . .

  • EremiteAngel.9765EremiteAngel.9765 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Earlier there was a camp at our spawn that was guarded by 3 enemies with golems and siege.
    They were guarding it to upgrade their hills.
    I called out their numbers and siege.
    We had many in EBG.
    But nobody came.
    Zero.
    And I was reminded of this thread.
    Do people no longer care or are there so very few brave roamers?

    I can't help but draw comparison to QQ again because a similar thing happened last week when they were on roaming.
    I encountered two very good enemy Soulbeasts who were duo roaming and flipping our camps and I called for help.
    Two QQ roamers responded and said something along the lines of 'Leave them to us'.
    Regardless of who won (QQ won with double Herald), they responded.
    Roamers brave enough to take on a challenge.

    We need more brave roamers. Winning or losing the fight is secondary.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 23, 2020

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:
    Earlier there was a camp at our spawn that was guarded by 3 enemies with golems and siege.
    They were guarding it to upgrade their hills.
    I called out their numbers and siege.
    We had many in EBG.
    But nobody came.
    Zero.
    And I was reminded of this thread.
    Do people no longer care or are there so very few brave roamers?

    Or maybe people were doing something else and they're not your puppets so they don't need to come whenever you decide it's the best way to use their time? Just because they don't react to your calls, doesn't mean they're not fighting someone else somewhere else.

  • that's because theres so much filthy nonsense now. there weren't many obscene threats back in the core days.

    Te lazla otstara.

  • Zexanima.7851Zexanima.7851 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:
    Earlier there was a camp at our spawn that was guarded by 3 enemies with golems and siege.
    They were guarding it to upgrade their hills.
    I called out their numbers and siege.
    We had many in EBG.
    But nobody came.
    Zero.
    And I was reminded of this thread.
    Do people no longer care or are there so very few brave roamers?

    I can't help but draw comparison to QQ again because a similar thing happened last week when they were on roaming.
    I encountered two very good enemy Soulbeasts who were duo roaming and flipping our camps and I called for help.
    Two QQ roamers responded and said something along the lines of 'Leave them to us'.
    Regardless of who won (QQ won with double Herald), they responded.
    Roamers brave enough to take on a challenge.

    We need more brave roamers. Winning or losing the fight is secondary.

    Idk about others but when I play WvW I pretty much answer all calls for aid and flip/scout in between. The other day I hunted a DE on my warrior for 15 minutes that was trying to flip a camp someone was protecting solo. I finally killed him though it took forever to lock them down but felt like I actually provided value by protecting an objective and helping a teammate rather than just mindlessly rotating through empty objectives.

    Depression and anxiety are the worst...

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 23, 2020

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:
    Earlier there was a camp at our spawn that was guarded by 3 enemies with golems and siege.
    They were guarding it to upgrade their hills.
    I called out their numbers and siege.
    We had many in EBG.
    But nobody came.
    Zero.
    And I was reminded of this thread.
    Do people no longer care or are there so very few brave roamers?

    I can't help but draw comparison to QQ again because a similar thing happened last week when they were on roaming.
    I encountered two very good enemy Soulbeasts who were duo roaming and flipping our camps and I called for help.
    Two QQ roamers responded and said something along the lines of 'Leave them to us'.
    Regardless of who won (QQ won with double Herald), they responded.
    Roamers brave enough to take on a challenge.

    We need more brave roamers. Winning or losing the fight is secondary.

    Oh the horror of 3 guys trying to upgrade their hills! Where do they find these people who care?

    (FYI, camping a spawn camp is the best way to get some small fights.)

  • @EremiteAngel.9765 said:

    But nobody came.
    Zero.
    And I was reminded of this thread.
    Do people no longer care or are there so very few brave roamers?

    We need more brave roamers. Winning or losing the fight is secondary.

    Most nowadays likely wouldn't change out of ebg unless there was nothing to do there.

    In the days of server pride I used to care about this stuff all the time, since links we have more people around at all times yes...but hardly any of these people seem to care. I preferred having much fewer people but they all actually cared about the team and how the war was going, nowadays minus my guild I feel my server for wvw is a bunch of strangers since they rotate every two months.

  • Farout.8207Farout.8207 Member ✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    (FYI, camping a spawn camp is the best way to get some small fights.)

    Yep, free bag delivery

    ~Cleetus

  • displayname.8315displayname.8315 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 23, 2020

    @Ruufio.1496 said:
    It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Well again, if you're outnumbered and in the open you're supposed to lose, bc you're fighting other players not npcs.

    Yeah your supposed to wait around until your assigned color is no longer a dead wasteland. And if your color is locked b/c math well "you're supposed to lose" and you should embrace that and keep feeding.

  • @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    Roamers run in groups of 50+ now. Amazingly efficient.

    Fixed your mistake

    You leave me and my 50+ man havoc group alone :)

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Ruufio.1496 said:
    It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Well again, if you're outnumbered and in the open you're supposed to lose, bc you're fighting other players not npcs.

    Yeah your supposed to wait around until your assigned color is no longer a dead wasteland. And if your color is locked b/c math well "you're supposed to lose" and you should embrace that and keep feeding.

    Why not? It costs nothing . . .

    But I think you've misunderstood the point. The other poster was complaining that they were unable to win when outnumbered by 'a lot', to which I correctly replied that they are supposed to -- i.e., should expect to -- lose in that situation. If you find yourself frequently winning against a significantly larger force it should be a red flag to you that you've discovered a broken build that needs nerf . . .

    You replied as though I suggested players are supposed to seek out larger forces and fling themselves against them repeatedly. I would agree that there is no harm in that behavior, but it wasn't the subject of the posts you quoted and I would not argue that it is a situation players should actively seek out. But I would think it's actually the larger force that should quickly become bored and move on to more competitive play. Playing as the smaller group or solo player in that scenario can be very entertaining . . .

  • displayname.8315displayname.8315 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 23, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Ruufio.1496 said:
    It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Well again, if you're outnumbered and in the open you're supposed to lose, bc you're fighting other players not npcs.

    Yeah your supposed to wait around until your assigned color is no longer a dead wasteland. And if your color is locked b/c math well "you're supposed to lose" and you should embrace that and keep feeding.

    Why not? It costs nothing . . .

    But I think you've misunderstood the point. The other poster was complaining that they were unable to win when outnumbered by 'a lot', to which I correctly replied that they are supposed to -- i.e., should expect to -- lose in that situation. If you find yourself frequently winning against a significantly larger force it should be a red flag to you that you've discovered a broken build that needs nerf . . .

    You replied as though I suggested players are supposed to seek out larger forces and fling themselves against them repeatedly. I would agree that there is no harm in that behavior, but it wasn't the subject of the posts you quoted and I would not argue that it is a situation players should actively seek out. But I would think it's actually the larger force that should quickly become bored and move on to more competitive play. Playing as the smaller group or solo player in that scenario can be very entertaining . . .

    The complaint was about it being "impossible" to win when outnumbered. Whereas in past versions it was a little more based on, dare I say it, skill. Just like a real army their success is based on their training and aptitude, as well as the size of their forces.

    But all the matchups really boil down to a strange, lock-in, lockout with ever changing somewhat absurd "linkings" and transfer abuse. That's the real problem with "impossible combat"

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Ruufio.1496 said:
    It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Well again, if you're outnumbered and in the open you're supposed to lose, bc you're fighting other players not npcs.

    Yeah your supposed to wait around until your assigned color is no longer a dead wasteland. And if your color is locked b/c math well "you're supposed to lose" and you should embrace that and keep feeding.

    Why not? It costs nothing . . .

    But I think you've misunderstood the point. The other poster was complaining that they were unable to win when outnumbered by 'a lot', to which I correctly replied that they are supposed to -- i.e., should expect to -- lose in that situation. If you find yourself frequently winning against a significantly larger force it should be a red flag to you that you've discovered a broken build that needs nerf . . .

    You replied as though I suggested players are supposed to seek out larger forces and fling themselves against them repeatedly. I would agree that there is no harm in that behavior, but it wasn't the subject of the posts you quoted and I would not argue that it is a situation players should actively seek out. But I would think it's actually the larger force that should quickly become bored and move on to more competitive play. Playing as the smaller group or solo player in that scenario can be very entertaining . . .

    The complaint was about it being "impossible" to win when outnumbered. Whereas in past versions it was a little more based on, dare I say it, skill. Just like a real army their success is based on their training and aptitude, as well as the size of their forces.

    But again, we're talking about two groups consisting entirely of players, no npcs. You're not going to consistently encounter larger groups that are inferior to you. It's one of the fundamental problems of competitive game modes, everyone wants to believe they are above average and should win the majority of their fights, but that's not the way the math works. If you encounter a larger group, you should expect to lose . . .

    But all the matchups really boil down to a strange, lock-in, lockout with ever changing somewhat absurd "linkings" and transfer abuse. That's the real problem with "impossible combat"

    This thread is concerned with roaming -- individual and smallscale combat -- not server matchups . . .

  • I actually agree with population issues adding to problems, I think they do. My server has lost tons of peeps due to transfers, and the links have been very hit or miss.

    My server right now is a ghost town, its almost always lightly populated, we might have a zerg around but they almost always are on EBG. Sure we have the odd night with decent coverage and multiple zergs, but we almost always are outnumbered these days with a small handful of militia and pugs. I cant tell you how many times a small group of 4-8 will just steamroll all our camps, sentries and even towers. Its impossible to stop them with just a few pugs and militia.

    The Warclaw has been a godsend because it has allowed a tiny group of people to actually semi-cover our camps and sentries. Without it we would loose everything because its always a coordinated guild group just trashing everything of ours. Things will be even worse when the movement speed is nerfed, making it that much harder again for the outnumbered to actually defend.

    I am beyond ready for alliances, these population issues need to be addressed as they only compound the current issues of the game even further for the outnumbered side. This creates a snowball effect as well, the more you get steamrolled the harder it is to keep your players logging in, this makes outnumbered fights even more likely.

    I see very little 1v1's, or small group fights. Its all zerg or organized guilds just wrecking everything with zero competition because the other server cannot even present a comparable group anymore.

    If my server was not perpetually outnumbered, and if the competent roamers would actually log in I might have a different view of the Warclaw, but from my point of view its helping alot for the outnumbered side in defense.

  • Justine.6351Justine.6351 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I can barely login to bastion before team chat is crying for help. Me looking for a fast fight, well I end up logging out 3-5 hours later.

    Anet buff me :-(
    Make me good at game!

  • Naw we still around. Need someone to run into a Zerg knowing you gonna die? Sign me up and I will throw down confusion and null fields as I die. (Scatters folks) Need someone to go tap an enemy keep? I’ll do it happily. Need that camp flipped with speedy yaks? You name it, I’ll go for it. Some of us old school havok taught folk do exists. It’s just pixels and death.

    Sin The Alluring/Tormentor/Terrorizer/Terrible/Insane/Fragrant/Subtle/Vigilante/Explosive/Saint/Demonic/Scout/Crazy
    WVW: The Quarriors - [JADE] ~ Hide Yo Zerg Hide Yo Tag Cuz - [ICU] (if ICU UR Spotted) ~ Really Into Partying - [RIP]
    PVE: Vassals Of The Aether - [VOA] ~ Friends Vs Dungeons [FvD]

  • ilMasa.2546ilMasa.2546 Member ✭✭✭

    Well ... when i was roaming i was doing it with 2 ideas in mind:
    1. scouting for the current commanders (taking objectives and then report movements in enemy territory)
    2. draw attention to me

    My goal was to lure the enemy to my position.If they are on me they are not where my tag is or is going.
    So most of the times i would flip a camp ,build a treb and start solo siege towers till i was forced to respawn.

  • displayname.8315displayname.8315 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 24, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Ruufio.1496 said:
    It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Well again, if you're outnumbered and in the open you're supposed to lose, bc you're fighting other players not npcs.

    Yeah your supposed to wait around until your assigned color is no longer a dead wasteland. And if your color is locked b/c math well "you're supposed to lose" and you should embrace that and keep feeding.

    Why not? It costs nothing . . .

    But I think you've misunderstood the point. The other poster was complaining that they were unable to win when outnumbered by 'a lot', to which I correctly replied that they are supposed to -- i.e., should expect to -- lose in that situation. If you find yourself frequently winning against a significantly larger force it should be a red flag to you that you've discovered a broken build that needs nerf . . .

    You replied as though I suggested players are supposed to seek out larger forces and fling themselves against them repeatedly. I would agree that there is no harm in that behavior, but it wasn't the subject of the posts you quoted and I would not argue that it is a situation players should actively seek out. But I would think it's actually the larger force that should quickly become bored and move on to more competitive play. Playing as the smaller group or solo player in that scenario can be very entertaining . . .

    The complaint was about it being "impossible" to win when outnumbered. Whereas in past versions it was a little more based on, dare I say it, skill. Just like a real army their success is based on their training and aptitude, as well as the size of their forces.

    But again, we're talking about two groups consisting entirely of players, no npcs. You're not going to consistently encounter larger groups that are inferior to you. It's one of the fundamental problems of competitive game modes, everyone wants to believe they are above average and should win the majority of their fights, but that's not the way the math works. If you encounter a larger group, you should expect to lose . . .

    But all the matchups really boil down to a strange, lock-in, lockout with ever changing somewhat absurd "linkings" and transfer abuse. That's the real problem with "impossible combat"

    This thread is concerned with roaming -- individual and smallscale combat -- not server matchups . . .

    Yeah I've seen that logic from players who only express "small scale" concerns. Just running away when its a few people.. Not responding to anything because that's not "their business".

    Small scale and individuals can do plenty to effect a big group. Often more than the ones staying behind a tag pirate shipping. No of course you don't just run on in and die with their first push.. if you've played before.

    Roamers and skill people are the ones you see front line and still alive with their stacks after all the puggies died.

    All these thing are good and well until you get into the extremes of the broken servers. Like 60+ all day vs servers with 20hr dead zones. That's no bueno.

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Ruufio.1496 said:
    It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Well again, if you're outnumbered and in the open you're supposed to lose, bc you're fighting other players not npcs.

    Yeah your supposed to wait around until your assigned color is no longer a dead wasteland. And if your color is locked b/c math well "you're supposed to lose" and you should embrace that and keep feeding.

    Why not? It costs nothing . . .

    But I think you've misunderstood the point. The other poster was complaining that they were unable to win when outnumbered by 'a lot', to which I correctly replied that they are supposed to -- i.e., should expect to -- lose in that situation. If you find yourself frequently winning against a significantly larger force it should be a red flag to you that you've discovered a broken build that needs nerf . . .

    You replied as though I suggested players are supposed to seek out larger forces and fling themselves against them repeatedly. I would agree that there is no harm in that behavior, but it wasn't the subject of the posts you quoted and I would not argue that it is a situation players should actively seek out. But I would think it's actually the larger force that should quickly become bored and move on to more competitive play. Playing as the smaller group or solo player in that scenario can be very entertaining . . .

    The complaint was about it being "impossible" to win when outnumbered. Whereas in past versions it was a little more based on, dare I say it, skill. Just like a real army their success is based on their training and aptitude, as well as the size of their forces.

    But again, we're talking about two groups consisting entirely of players, no npcs. You're not going to consistently encounter larger groups that are inferior to you. It's one of the fundamental problems of competitive game modes, everyone wants to believe they are above average and should win the majority of their fights, but that's not the way the math works. If you encounter a larger group, you should expect to lose . . .

    But all the matchups really boil down to a strange, lock-in, lockout with ever changing somewhat absurd "linkings" and transfer abuse. That's the real problem with "impossible combat"

    This thread is concerned with roaming -- individual and smallscale combat -- not server matchups . . .

    Yeah I've seen that logic from players who only express "small scale" concerns. Just running away when its a few people.. Not responding to anything because that's not "their business".

    Small scale and individuals can do plenty to effect a big group. Often more than the ones staying behind a tag pirate shipping. No of course you don't just run on in and die with their first push.. if you've played before.

    Roamers and skill people are the ones you see front line and still alive with their stacks after all the puggies died.

    All these thing are good and well until you get into the extremes of the broken servers. Like 60+ all day vs servers with 20hr dead zones. That's no bueno.

    servers teaming up against one server is fun too. TC seems to be pretty dead at all hours now, tried to break out of the first two camps on both Borderlands and had small groups (2-3 players) hunt me down whenever id try to capture something. Not having stealth is fun /s

    Amana Silentchild; My Main
    Ember Wandertooth; The Kingslayer, Kianda Redpaw; The Blazing Light
    Why GW is Called Guildwars

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Ruufio.1496 said:
    It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Well again, if you're outnumbered and in the open you're supposed to lose, bc you're fighting other players not npcs.

    Yeah your supposed to wait around until your assigned color is no longer a dead wasteland. And if your color is locked b/c math well "you're supposed to lose" and you should embrace that and keep feeding.

    Why not? It costs nothing . . .

    But I think you've misunderstood the point. The other poster was complaining that they were unable to win when outnumbered by 'a lot', to which I correctly replied that they are supposed to -- i.e., should expect to -- lose in that situation. If you find yourself frequently winning against a significantly larger force it should be a red flag to you that you've discovered a broken build that needs nerf . . .

    You replied as though I suggested players are supposed to seek out larger forces and fling themselves against them repeatedly. I would agree that there is no harm in that behavior, but it wasn't the subject of the posts you quoted and I would not argue that it is a situation players should actively seek out. But I would think it's actually the larger force that should quickly become bored and move on to more competitive play. Playing as the smaller group or solo player in that scenario can be very entertaining . . .

    The complaint was about it being "impossible" to win when outnumbered. Whereas in past versions it was a little more based on, dare I say it, skill. Just like a real army their success is based on their training and aptitude, as well as the size of their forces.

    But again, we're talking about two groups consisting entirely of players, no npcs. You're not going to consistently encounter larger groups that are inferior to you. It's one of the fundamental problems of competitive game modes, everyone wants to believe they are above average and should win the majority of their fights, but that's not the way the math works. If you encounter a larger group, you should expect to lose . . .

    But all the matchups really boil down to a strange, lock-in, lockout with ever changing somewhat absurd "linkings" and transfer abuse. That's the real problem with "impossible combat"

    This thread is concerned with roaming -- individual and smallscale combat -- not server matchups . . .

    Yeah I've seen that logic from players who only express "small scale" concerns. Just running away when its a few people.. Not responding to anything because that's not "their business".

    Small scale and individuals can do plenty to effect a big group. Often more than the ones staying behind a tag pirate shipping. No of course you don't just run on in and die with their first push.. if you've played before.

    Roamers and skill people are the ones you see front line and still alive with their stacks after all the puggies died.

    All these thing are good and well until you get into the extremes of the broken servers. Like 60+ all day vs servers with 20hr dead zones. That's no bueno.

    Okay, but what I'm trying to express to you is that this is a thread about roaming. So we're not really discussing population balance or large scale combat. By which I do not mean to say that you shouldn't be talking about that if you want to, I'm just saying that the original posts you quoted were on that smallscale subject. So the references to 'impossible odds' and being expected to lose were referring to, for example, a 1v6 situation, and only that one encounter, not the larger matchup or how either could affect the other . . .

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dante.1763 said:
    TC seems to be pretty dead at all hours now

    That's an odd comment to make about a server currently first in it's match.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Dante.1763 said:
    TC seems to be pretty dead at all hours now

    That's an odd comment to make about a server currently first in it's match.

    Same way how WvW is dead yet theres probably around half a million kills this week.

    gaggle - /ˈɡaɡ(ə)l/ - noun
    A disorderly group of Asura.
    "The gaggle of Asura tried to agree on whether a phase-shifted thermonuclear energy matrix was sufficiently powerful for a device capable of heating bread"

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Dante.1763 said:
    TC seems to be pretty dead at all hours now

    That's an odd comment to make about a server currently first in it's match.

    Same way how WvW is dead yet theres probably around half a million kills this week.

    "Individual results may vary"

    I guess it illustrates why readers (and Anet) don't take these kinds of threads seriously.

  • displayname.8315displayname.8315 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 24, 2020

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Ruufio.1496 said:
    It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Well again, if you're outnumbered and in the open you're supposed to lose, bc you're fighting other players not npcs.

    Yeah your supposed to wait around until your assigned color is no longer a dead wasteland. And if your color is locked b/c math well "you're supposed to lose" and you should embrace that and keep feeding.

    Why not? It costs nothing . . .

    But I think you've misunderstood the point. The other poster was complaining that they were unable to win when outnumbered by 'a lot', to which I correctly replied that they are supposed to -- i.e., should expect to -- lose in that situation. If you find yourself frequently winning against a significantly larger force it should be a red flag to you that you've discovered a broken build that needs nerf . . .

    You replied as though I suggested players are supposed to seek out larger forces and fling themselves against them repeatedly. I would agree that there is no harm in that behavior, but it wasn't the subject of the posts you quoted and I would not argue that it is a situation players should actively seek out. But I would think it's actually the larger force that should quickly become bored and move on to more competitive play. Playing as the smaller group or solo player in that scenario can be very entertaining . . .

    The complaint was about it being "impossible" to win when outnumbered. Whereas in past versions it was a little more based on, dare I say it, skill. Just like a real army their success is based on their training and aptitude, as well as the size of their forces.

    But again, we're talking about two groups consisting entirely of players, no npcs. You're not going to consistently encounter larger groups that are inferior to you. It's one of the fundamental problems of competitive game modes, everyone wants to believe they are above average and should win the majority of their fights, but that's not the way the math works. If you encounter a larger group, you should expect to lose . . .

    But all the matchups really boil down to a strange, lock-in, lockout with ever changing somewhat absurd "linkings" and transfer abuse. That's the real problem with "impossible combat"

    This thread is concerned with roaming -- individual and smallscale combat -- not server matchups . . .

    Yeah I've seen that logic from players who only express "small scale" concerns. Just running away when its a few people.. Not responding to anything because that's not "their business".

    Small scale and individuals can do plenty to effect a big group. Often more than the ones staying behind a tag pirate shipping. No of course you don't just run on in and die with their first push.. if you've played before.

    Roamers and skill people are the ones you see front line and still alive with their stacks after all the puggies died.

    All these thing are good and well until you get into the extremes of the broken servers. Like 60+ all day vs servers with 20hr dead zones. That's no bueno.

    Okay, but what I'm trying to express to you is that this is a thread about roaming. So we're not really discussing population balance or large scale combat. By which I do not mean to say that you shouldn't be talking about that if you want to, I'm just saying that the original posts you quoted were on that smallscale subject. So the references to 'impossible odds' and being expected to lose were referring to, for example, a 1v6 situation, and only that one encounter, not the larger matchup or how either could affect the other . . .

    1v6 isn't much of a scenario and not really "small scale" combat. 6:1 odds is a result of mismatches. Now if you scale up 3:2 odds or around there like 15v45, or 3:1 - 1v3, 10v30, 30v60..yeah if your guys are good its totally possible. No need for adjustment IMO.

    The 6:1 scenario like 10v60.. that's a problem that speaks to balancing. Especially if it happens all day long in 20 hour cycles.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @displayname.8315 said:

    @Ruufio.1496 said:
    It's disgusting. It's impossible to win if you're outnumbered by a lot now.

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Well again, if you're outnumbered and in the open you're supposed to lose, bc you're fighting other players not npcs.

    Yeah your supposed to wait around until your assigned color is no longer a dead wasteland. And if your color is locked b/c math well "you're supposed to lose" and you should embrace that and keep feeding.

    Why not? It costs nothing . . .

    But I think you've misunderstood the point. The other poster was complaining that they were unable to win when outnumbered by 'a lot', to which I correctly replied that they are supposed to -- i.e., should expect to -- lose in that situation. If you find yourself frequently winning against a significantly larger force it should be a red flag to you that you've discovered a broken build that needs nerf . . .

    You replied as though I suggested players are supposed to seek out larger forces and fling themselves against them repeatedly. I would agree that there is no harm in that behavior, but it wasn't the subject of the posts you quoted and I would not argue that it is a situation players should actively seek out. But I would think it's actually the larger force that should quickly become bored and move on to more competitive play. Playing as the smaller group or solo player in that scenario can be very entertaining . . .

    The complaint was about it being "impossible" to win when outnumbered. Whereas in past versions it was a little more based on, dare I say it, skill. Just like a real army their success is based on their training and aptitude, as well as the size of their forces.

    But again, we're talking about two groups consisting entirely of players, no npcs. You're not going to consistently encounter larger groups that are inferior to you. It's one of the fundamental problems of competitive game modes, everyone wants to believe they are above average and should win the majority of their fights, but that's not the way the math works. If you encounter a larger group, you should expect to lose . . .

    But all the matchups really boil down to a strange, lock-in, lockout with ever changing somewhat absurd "linkings" and transfer abuse. That's the real problem with "impossible combat"

    This thread is concerned with roaming -- individual and smallscale combat -- not server matchups . . .

    Yeah I've seen that logic from players who only express "small scale" concerns. Just running away when its a few people.. Not responding to anything because that's not "their business".

    Small scale and individuals can do plenty to effect a big group. Often more than the ones staying behind a tag pirate shipping. No of course you don't just run on in and die with their first push.. if you've played before.

    Roamers and skill people are the ones you see front line and still alive with their stacks after all the puggies died.

    All these thing are good and well until you get into the extremes of the broken servers. Like 60+ all day vs servers with 20hr dead zones. That's no bueno.

    Okay, but what I'm trying to express to you is that this is a thread about roaming. So we're not really discussing population balance or large scale combat. By which I do not mean to say that you shouldn't be talking about that if you want to, I'm just saying that the original posts you quoted were on that smallscale subject. So the references to 'impossible odds' and being expected to lose were referring to, for example, a 1v6 situation, and only that one encounter, not the larger matchup or how either could affect the other . . .

    1v6 isn't much of a scenario and not really "small scale" combat. 6:1 odds is a result of mismatches. Now if you scale up 3:2 odds or around there like 15v45, or 3:1 - 1v3, 10v30, 30v60..yeah if your guys are good its totally possible. No need for adjustment IMO.

    The 6:1 scenario like 10v60.. that's a problem that speaks to balancing. Especially if it happens all day long in 20 hour cycles.

    10 vs 60 means lack of tough on developing the gamemode, same how sistem allowed queue vs empty server.

    Slayers [XD] NSP Guild
    Yao Chen Herald/Ventari
    Ying Wuxian Renegade/Demon

  • displayname.8315displayname.8315 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 24, 2020

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @Dante.1763 said:
    TC seems to be pretty dead at all hours now

    That's an odd comment to make about a server currently first in it's match.

    Same way how WvW is dead yet theres probably around half a million kills this week.

    61k in my matchup and it was pretty lame.. mostly just picking tails and and some random times when stuff happens. That's weekend stats or should be. T2 "fights" tier really showing off..

    Pretty empty most of the time. Everyone talking relinks for the last 2 weeks. WvW not dead is just broken.. into too many tiers.