New Generation Roamers lack the Bravery of the Old Guards

[Dante.1763]

@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

[Gop.8713]

@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.5410]

@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.8521]

@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.

[Chaba.5410]

@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.8315]

@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.3615]

@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.

[displayname.8315]

@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.