Outnumbered

[XenesisII.1540]

28 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

But i guess you just want to punish the remaining few that dare to not stack with their blob, after all boon blobbing is the only intended playstyle in WvW ...

If 7 from the blob is over with the 3 it wouldn't be a problem now would it. In fact if that blob breaks up into 25 at each keep the defenders would be taking a vacation.

Meanwhile there are other targets they could attack that's lower profile, a keep tends to attract more defenders. 🤷‍♂️

 

28 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

That's by far not the only issue that would arise. It would often be very unfair, frustrating (because of the unfairness and because you have no control over it) and extremely detrimental for any sort of small scale. Large blobs would be the ones that care the least.

Funny that it's unfair and frustrating to the 3 but not to the 10 that have a blob 5x their size on their "home map", they have no control over that either. 🤷‍♂️

 

P.S I'm not exactly for changes like these anyways, it could be interesting affects to outnumbered, but with players mentality it would just turn toxic. If anything like this were to be implement then outnumbered should be localized to territories instead of map wide, so those 10 would get it against the 50 in bay, but not against the 3 in hills(the 3 in hills wouldn't get it either since their side has the most amount of players on the map).

So essentially outnumbered becomes two layered, you get the potential of outnumbered buff if your side is outnumbered on the map, but you would only get it if you were actually outnumbered in numbers in a territory. But anet is lazy and only bothers to throw on outnumbered now by the ticks regardless of the situation.

I still would prefer outnumber change to overwhelming, where the biggest side gets this affect that gives bonuses to their opponents that fight them, thus promoting a more healthy 2v1 situation, and not the clown 2v1 on the weakest always.

Edited April 22 by XenesisII.1540

[One more for the road.8950]

Why would anyone from the zerg go to defend a keep they probably won't even get defense participation for even if they manage to get in a kill or three instead of taking a keep and possibly a lot more kills? This is what the changes are doing.

[Zyreva.1078]

54 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

If 7 from the blob is over with the 3 it wouldn't be a problem now would it.

But it's not up to the 3 to decide what the blobbers do, so why punish them? All you do is force those 3 to join the blob in oder to take advantage of their numbers on the map (or quit the game, because they don't like blobbing).

54 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Funny that it's unfair and frustrating to the 3 but not to the 10 that have a blob 5x their size on their "home map", they have no control over that either. 🤷‍♂️

It's unfair always and for everyone and for small scale players in particular, because they are most likely to get outnumberd, regardless of whether the map is outnumbered or not.

There is no guarantee that those 10 defenders get outnumbered buff vs 50, because the 3rd server might only have 9 on the map (that then get to pvdoor or gank with perma stab or whatever buff they "deserve"). Plus, perma stab/cc immunity would make no difference for those 10 randoms vs 50 anyway (but it would make a possible 3vs10 win impossible).

There is almost always one server that gets outnumbered on a map, unless everyone is queued, regarddless of total population (yes, even servers with the highest pop will often have outnumbered somewhere) and any combat buff would make any fair fight against that server impossible and basically force players to outnumber them even harder instead of splitting up and giving them at least some opportunity for fights, ot just avoid them completely, if numbers aren't there to overcome the outnumbered buff.

I can only think of problems, but basically no realistic situation where a "free" combat buff of any significance for one side would make the game better, and that's regardless of potential player toxicity.

Like i said, if you want perma cc immunity, get organised and run good builds - it doesn't require large numbers for perma stab.

Edited April 22 by Zyreva.1078

[XenesisII.1540]

6 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

But it's not up to the 3 to decide what the blobbers do, so why punish them? All you do is force those 3 to join the blob in oder to take advantage of their numbers on the map (or quit the game, because they don't like blobbing).

It's unfair always and for everyone and for small scale players in particular, because they are most likely to get outnumberd, regardless of whether the map is outnumbered or not.

There is no guarantee that those 10 defenders get outnumbered buff vs 50, because the 3rd server might only have 9 on the map (that then get to pvdoor or gank with perma stab or whatever buff they "deserve"). Plus, perma stab/cc immunity would make no difference for those 10 randoms vs 50 anyway.

There is almost always one server that gets outnumbered on a map, unless everyone is queued, regarddless of total population (yes, even servers with the highest pop will often have outnumbered somewhere) and any combat buff would make any fair fight against that server impossible and basically force players to outnumber them even harder instead of splitting up and giving them at least some opportunity for fights, ot just avoid them completely, if numbers aren't there to overcome the outnumbered buff.

I can only think of problems, but basically no realistic situation where a "free" combat buff of any significance for one side would make the game better, and that's regardless of potential player toxicity.

And now you're just ignoring the 50 man blob sitting on that map.

Hey might as well just do away with outnumbered altogether cause it's not fair for anyone, and let the boon blob rampage over an empty map. 😏

[Cael.3960]

I think it would be better to remove player stat buffs altogether and alter Guild Objective Auras to improve the actual objective instead. I.e, Aura 1 improves supply capacity. Aura 2 improves fixed-siege damage. Aura 3 increases HP to structures. Etc. 

The point of spending resources on an objective should be to buff the objective, not the people inside it. This way you get your PvE advantage and clashes that occur outside the walls but inside friendly territory don't punish groups who want to fight each other on equal terms. I imagine it might also help server calculations as structures that can only be damaged by siege represent far fewer targets to make calculations.   

 

It would also help address the outcry from those who feel the latest nerfs are too damaging for them to want to continue playing. An aura or guild tactic that reduces the % required to patch a wall to 25% for example.. Much like hardened defenses or EWP, some options are more valuable on some objectives than others and this would at least give guild claimants a choice on how they want to defend their objective. 

Edited April 22 by Cael.3960

[Zyreva.1078]

8 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

And now you're just ignoring the 50 man blob sitting on that map.

Yes, because that blob is irrelevant. It isn't impacted by any sort of "outnumbered" buff anyway nor does the blob matter to anyone not inside that blob. It doesn't require a blob to proc outnumbered for someone and the outnumbered buff isn't guaranteed for whoever gets run over by said blob.

8 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

Hey might as well just do away with outnumbered altogether cause it's not fair for anyone, and let the boon blob rampage over an empty map. 😏

I don't care whether the outnumbered buff is there or not, as long it basically does nothing (which is the case right now and which is also why a removal wouldn't change anything about rampaging boon blobs).

Edited April 22 by Zyreva.1078

[TheGrimm.5624]

The goal of outnumbered is to draw players to the map. That's why it had the extra pip gain. It was removed since it was seen as drawing players to afk at spawns as people reported they were seeing. There is always people standing at spawns so I don't know if that was it or not. If it gives increased stats it would trigger the get off map syndrome. The problem remains players that stay really don't get anything for the extra risks since it requires them to succeed while being outnumbered else they lose more than they gain in the end. If they can't separate out targets then they won't get kills. If they do drop a target a larger side might be able to just rez the player back up before they are defeated. That would leave them options of back capping. By just back capping though the outnumbered side just creates more of an environment to trigger a ktrain as the larger side just has more paper targets to circle and strike again. But outnumberd only helps if the outnumbered side resorts to that, or they are left with the option of just letting the map fall which is not unheard of now which is opposite of the point of the outnumbered buff. 

So how do you draw more players of the outnumbered side to the map? 

Two ideas, one less extreme than the other.

What about while outnumbered a defense event reward or a player kill on the map rewards a buff of +1 pips in the next 5 minute period to the player. Note this is not granted on just objective capture, they already have outnumbered for that.  That way the player not only needs to be on the map but if they want the extra bit they need to be trying to stop the larger side. 

The extreme idea could be applied along with the above... Outnumbered only applies on success and we need something that encourages players to go for it and try and fight back. This would need to be a second level of outnumbered that only applies in the bigger rates of outnumbered. If outnumbered is above a certain threshold, Anet hasn't shared what numbers the outnumbered triggers on, so they would need to define that. 'Last Stand' would be that second level. When a player has 'Last Stand' they and their targets are affected by No Downstate. If they or their targets are downed, they are dead and forced to respawn. This applies to both the player with Last Stand and their opponent to balance it out of being too OP if it just applied to one side. The Last Stand player faces even worse of a fight since they can be focused down by bigger numbers so it still makes them need to play smart if they want to try and score a kill so that's the other balance to preventing it from being OP. Since both are forced to respawn both sides feel the impact of losing a fight. Now we might have a tool that would encourage people in more extreme outnumbered situations to both look to fight and try and hold since they could potentially slow a larger side down. I already fight outnumbered, but if I saw something like that it would even more encourage me to jump to that map since I would know each one I could get I could slow down a larger side. It would follow the same rule as outnumbered as only applied during the next tick but it might draw enough players in that time that Last Stand is no longer applied by the next tick since now the extreme outnumbered map has enough players to just be outnumbered. Combined with the buff above this idea might also encourage less to just vacate the map and if they don't then they get some additional potential for success if Last Stand kicks in with Outnumbered on a map they stayed on.

The first option might be enough to counter the current stigma that outnumbered has become. The second idea, some of this could be tested with a No Downstate week to see the impact of the force respawn would have on players before any consideration is made to create Last Stand. Especially since we do still outnumbered times during No Downstate weeks.

Its not an easy topic else it wouldn't still pop up overtime here. 

Edited April 22 by TheGrimm.5624
spelling

[ArchonWing.9480]

You can already do that though.

Just run as an all willbender/chrono party. That will be immune to CCs.

Edited April 22 by ArchonWing.9480