Jump to content
  • Sign Up

The Cure For Roaming & Those Alike


Whiteout.1975
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello, My Name is Gammpulse. Though everyone calls me "Gamma" for short. I am the Guild Leader of what was Death Circus [Cirq]. Of which many have called the Best Havoc/Roaming Guild of its time on Blackgate. I've been hearing some of those whom have known us during this time. Have been missing our guild being around on BG. Though honestly it comes to balance. When you can do 4x your numbers 90% of the time. To where it feels like most people just don't try to fight you anymore. It gives you a sense like you beat the game. That's supposed to be going on basically forever. So it got boring. The enjoyment we had out of WvW was the fights. Like most would agree. But now that's lost until it has yet to be found again. However, despite this... The new Alliance system interest me as well as some others. So Thanks @Anet for attempting to change WvW for the better. Also, Believe me when I say, I speak for others you have yet to hear from, in saying that. So having said that, A question from this forum discussion page caught my Eye before https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26877/world-restructuring-faq/p1 Of which states...

@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:We wanted to create a new post that is a FAQ to the world restructuring post, and clarify a few points that some have found confusing. Please feel free to continue to comment on the world restructuring post (McKenna and I are still working through all the questions), or on this post with feedback. I just wanted these topics to be easier to find for everyone, and figured a new post would be a good way to do this.

Q. What is beneficial in this system to roamers?

Moment to moment gameplay should be similar to how it is now for roamers, except now that matches are more balanced, the objectives roamers take, and point’s roamers earn for their world will have a bigger impact on the match. When the worlds are balanced anything anyone does matters a lot more, because it is not going to be made irrelevant by the much bigger world.I’ve seen some roamers worried about this system, and I’d be interested in hearing what in this system could change to make it better for roamers in their opinions. If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account, and the system guaranteed a percentage of roamers on each world, would that feel better? Or is there anything else we could do besides use a different system. We would love to hear other ideas, and even though we haven’t been able to respond to everything we have been reading it all and taking notes.

So with that said... We need to feel of much greater value as to who we are as Roamers alike. For those that hold and take the objective's the longest. Carry the most weight when it comes to winning in WvW. Something we aren't entirely as Roamers. Even in the new restructuring system. Those that do; will hold the most weight. We can however, At least try to be good at killing our enemies...

The Cure for Roaming -

(Step:1) Defined and Assumed Roles

So I'm happy to offer everyone a Cure for Roamers & those alike :) The first Issue, is not that we know what defines us as a Roamer, Group, Zerg, etc. player, as human beings (I know I'm a Nerd). But rather the game/system itself does not know this. This can be seen where @Raymond Lukes.6305 states - "If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account" in his second answer section....The thing is that WvW needs to define You. Until You prove otherwise. In other words, I can claim to be one thing. But actions may prove otherwise.

So what would be a good change, is if WvW considered You a Roamer as soon as you log in to your world. Then furthering that, by giving you a new Title and so forth. Based on a # of allied players that are around you in a radius and vice versa. So it would go something like this...

  • https://imgur.com/FDbQEbr
  • the numbers should be pretty close, I had to bring down #'s on what is traditionally considered a Blob and Zerg for sake of keeping things even between each group.

So in one moment. I may be considered a Roamer by the game in WvW. The next moment I may be a Zerg Player. It all depends on the # of Players around me. As to what I would be considered as. Point is, if the game knows who we are, when we are. We can have a more Classified Role based upon our actions. Therefore, since we can now be defined as to what we are. We can now be equated for.

  • What should that radius be? Idk, best way is to test it like most things. I would think it would be at least 1500-2000 Range around every player though for starters.
  • Just Have a way that tells the Player as to what they currently are based upon the numbers around them. I'll touch more on this as we go...

(Step: 2) PPT VS PPK

PPT dominates. PPK helps. As a Roamer, PPK is typically what we are after. Then maybe some PPT mostly for the sake of just owning a tower. PPK should matter more to us like PPT does to larger numbers, Zergs etc., to put it short. So... Now that we are defined as to what we are and when. Through all so Glorious (Step:1). We can now make PPK unique to each group size based upon group classification. So the PPK among those groups should then go something like this...

  • https://imgur.com/iPo0s9t
  • So basically, Groups types are rewarded more heavily in PPK when fighting Larger numbers and less when Outmanning them.
  • Of Course adjust the numbers if or where they need balancing. I'm just illustrating the progression that should be taking place.

(Step: 3) Allianced: A Debuff

At This Point, an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT piece to the puzzle come's into play. A Debuff. I'm giving it the name "Allianced" in honor of the New changes to come. But call it whatever works. The way the "Allianced" debuff works is that using the radius that detects the number of players (mentioned in step:1) around you. You will firstly gain the debuff effect upon entering WvW. Then, based upon the # of allies around you. You will be treated as apart of a larger group. While You physically may not be apart of that group, or even whatever "x" amount of allied groups around you.Next, give the debuff Stacks or Tiers that dictate to the player as to what group they are currently classified under. Thus, should go something like this...

  • Example: T1: Roaming, T2: Group, T3: Zerg and T4: Blob
  • Example 2: Allianced: T1, T2, T3, T4
  • This will act similar in a sense to Borderlands Bloodlust - https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Minor_Borderlands_Bloodlust though, as I stated it will be more or less debuff instead depending on the numbers you are fighting.
  • The debuff helps stop people from taking advantage of the system. Given scenarios such as: (Roaming [5 Players]) + (Roaming [5 Players]) Against (Group of 10 Players). So the Roaming party's. In this scenario. Would have an advantage in regards PPK advantage without the existence of the debuff. But if this debuff exist, it will eliminate all possible advantages such as the given example from happening.
  • Lastly, make the deuff noticeable, add some noticeable color changes as the player More or Less consistently move's between each tier or stack. You know what I mean.

(Step: 4) (Optional) Titles: The 4 R's

You can carry a title that defines You in whatever group you are currently partaking in. Just an idea, that can help things look a little neater.

  • Example- Roamer: Roamer, Group: Raider, Zerg: Ravager, Blob: Relinquisher.
  • Make the names whatever though. By all means anyone is welcome to share some possible names here.

Conclusion

There is a Reason You still see more Zergs than Roaming groups nowadays. It's because the Zergs/Higher #'s have more of a purpose for their world at the end of the day. Despite whatever balancing is going on in the game. The good news is that this Cure I have offered, free of charge. Solely for the purpose of helping the game and the people I care for in it. Can lead to other things such as a ranking system where you can get badges like in https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_League but that discussion will hopefully be for another day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Havoc groups on BG, that's a good one. All tier one is these days is bully the third server for their points, recap whatever is on your side and then take a nap until the wave of stuff gets taken. If any attempt is made anything upgraded a zerg or blob is summoned. Still wonder why it's boring in tier one?

As for the debuff, how often is the system expected to check to calculate the appropriate ppk? If this adds even more lag to the background calculations we already have with the amount of boons and conditions flying around I'm not for it. If all we're talking about here is extra points I would just stick a higher ppk on the outnumbered buff, your group is already gaining extra points if you manage to kill that group bigger than you.

The amount of points you earn is not going to encourage players to fight more, that's just typical ppt thinking. Now if you want to use this to calculate bag rewards that drop from a dead opponent then you might get some reaction to that.

Lastly, the reason why you see bigger groups these days is because it's safer and easier. Roaming is garbage, I'm sorry but it is. With the power they've given certain classes to rule that part of the game since HoT, and the usual answer those roamers will give you is, well run with a group, well.. now people are running with a group so we can't sit here and complain about that too. Havoc groups have also died out since HoT because of the many changes and upgrades they added to structures, taking anything t2 or t3 in this game now requires huge groups or a dead side, more than enough defensive things in the game to deter attacking groups from an upgraded structure. If you're thinking havoc for fighting, that's usually just called a gank group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"XenesisII.1540" said:Havoc groups on BG, that's a good one. All tier one is these days is bully the third server for their points, recap whatever is on your side and then take a nap until the wave of stuff gets taken. If any attempt is made anything upgraded a zerg or blob is summoned. Still wonder why it's boring in tier one?

This is based upon the current and now, as you state "BG". I'm referring to the future. Being the world restructuring to come. Aside from that I totally agree. Which is why I made this thread for mainly roamers not so much zergs. As we would often try to steer clear of zergs. Not all the time but often as in 99% of the time.

As for the debuff, how often is the system expected to check to calculate the appropriate ppk? If this adds even more lag to the background calculations we already have with the amount of boons and conditions flying around I'm not for it. If all we're talking about here is extra points I would just stick a higher ppk on the outnumbered buff, your group is already gaining extra points if you manage to kill that group bigger than you.Well the goal is not Lag lol. But I get what you mean. And honestly it would have to be tested. But, honestly I don't seeing it fluctuating that much if the radius is big enough...Yes, but we should deserve a bit more PPK in fights for fighting outnumbered. As their advantage is more numbers. If anything it should be the other way around. As in them killing us. This is why we deserve a bit more of a reward. It's not Fair that a blob or zerg has a better chance at taking a tower and most likely faster. That's not fair, but I don't ask them to change PPT based around that for us...

The amount of points you earn is not going to encourage players to fight more, that's just typical ppt thinking. Now if you want to use this to calculate bag rewards that drop from a dead opponent then you might get some reaction to that.It can if they feel like they are making more of an impact. But again this is relating to the future.The bag reward thing could be a good idea as long as it doesn't turn wvw into some loot centric game mode with that as it's driving cause to WvW in the first place. Then I'm down for that as a thing too.Lastly, the reason why you see bigger groups these days is because it's safer and easier. Roaming is garbage, I'm sorry but it is. With the power they've given certain classes to rule that part of the game since HoT, and the usual answer those roamers will give you is, well run with a group, well.. now people are running with a group so we can't sit here and complain about that too. Havoc groups have also died out since HoT because of the many changes and upgrades they added to structures, taking anything t2 or t3 in this game now requires huge groups or a dead side, more than enough defensive things in the game to deter attacking groups from an upgraded structure. If you're thinking havoc for fighting, that's usually just called a gank group.I totally agree and that's why I'm trying to help make it not "garbarge". IMO, zerging is more or less garbage. I don't find it very fun "pressing one" to sum things up. And if you wanna talk about getting lag lol. I get it nearly all the time around blobs that come near. But, perhaps we have a different taste and that's ok.Though Roaming used to be fun. But if fighting is what you (as in me/others) have fun doing. And the Joy gets sucked out of that. What is left really? Well I don't find getting tower's all that fun all the time. I see them as just another place for cover when advancing through enemy territory. Which would be the main reason we would attempt to maybe get a couple at time if need be. Or the other reason was to get a response on purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your good intentions, but I’m sorry, I don’t see any realistic suggestions to improve or encourage more solo and small group play.

There are some ways to make solo and small groups more enjoyable and impactful, so let’s explore a couple of those...

-Profession, weapon and slot skill improvements, with solo and small group play in mind, so all professions have multiple working roaming builds.Most of us know what makes for a successful roaming build, so more viable options will encourage more roaming play.

-The dev team needs to make more maps with open area (not structures) objectives and events... This will create a need for players to break up into smaller groups to capture objectives and score points for your side...

The above two suggestions combined make solo or small group roaming more attractive and needed.

Edit- And let’s make some comparisons so I can explain the 2nd point more...

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:World_versus_World_map.jpg

GW2- 4 maps, mostly structure based. Peak times zergs are map hopping and mowing things down. Solo players and small groups can contribute, but don’t necessarily have a game changing impact compared to zerg play. Running the same maps over and over is boring, and the devs know this because pve gets a ton of new maps... with more maps to come.

Versus...

http://camelotunchained.com/v3/bsc-design-docs/rvr-map/

CU- Bunch of unique maps, and RvR dungeon, that will absolutely require solo and small groups to help your side be successful...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:The dev team needs to make more maps with open area (not structures) objectives and events... This will create a need for players to break up into smaller groups to capture objectives and score points for your side...

The oasis event did this. If you want to split up groups the maps need more short duration dynamic events that have objectives all over the map, with a reward directly tied into elements that increase a team's points. (Though not necessarily directly.) Perhaps there could be a series of stockpile/cashes on the outskirts of the map (where nobody normally travels) that are up for grabs once per hour, the more your team captures at the start of the hour the more damage their siege does to structures for the duration of that hour.

To clarify, these would need to be once-per-[time] events so that the same 5 people couldn't simply roll around and take them all once off RI. You would need people in different areas of the map to win these events.

The problem is both fight-oriented guilds and militia pugmanders would hate this because it encourages splitting up the group. Only the roamers would enjoy these events and there aren't always roamers online. Two sides of a coin.

~ Kovu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason people stopped playing in small scale was mostly because of profession balance being horrible and a lot of specs being anti-fun to fight by abusing cheese. The buffs to defensive play in WvW (EWP, break bars, watchtower, etc.) killed off the remaining opportunistic playstyles.

Making people split more is just going to encourage more people to play cheese/FotM OP builds. No thanks.

Is it bad I've never heard of OP's guild?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"DeceiverX.8361" said:Making people split more is just going to encourage more people to play cheese/FotM OP builds. No thanks.

In an ideal world all of the professions would have "meta" options for both roaming and large scale play.But with the exception of Mesmer (and even that's a bit of a gimmick) that is just not the case.

I do agree that lack of balance is an issue that discourages playing on the smaller scale. Nobody wants to fight cheesy thief, mesmer, druid, (holosmith? people seem to bitch about those) and warrior builds all afternoon -- which is what you're going to get.

None of that changes the fact that we should be looking for ways to improve and encourage roaming, beyond balancing the professions and toning down the elements that make those builds so cancerous to fight. That should just be a given.

~ Kovu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kovu.7560 said:

@"DeceiverX.8361" said:Making people split more is just going to encourage more people to play cheese/FotM OP builds. No thanks.

In an ideal world all of the professions would have "meta" options for both roaming and large scale play.But with the exception of Mesmer (and even that's a bit of a gimmick) that is just not the case.

I do agree that lack of balance is an issue that discourages playing on the smaller scale. Nobody wants to fight cheesy thief, mesmer, druid,
(holosmith? people seem to kitten about those)
and warrior builds all afternoon -- which is what you're going to get.

None of that changes the fact that we should be looking for ways to improve and encourage roaming,
beyond
balancing the professions and toning down the elements that make those builds so cancerous to fight. That should just be a given.

~ Kovu

Thanks Kovu, It's nice to see that someone gets the true purpose of this post. You could not have hit the nail on the head any harder. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but giving out extra points is not going to do it.The other problems like balance are more dire in needing of changing before roaming havoc become attractive to do again. You could hand out 100 points per kill that isn't going to make it any more fun fighting cancer thieves and mesmers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DeceiverX.8361 said:The main reason people stopped playing in small scale was mostly because of profession balance being horrible and a lot of specs being anti-fun to fight by abusing cheese. The buffs to defensive play in WvW (EWP, break bars, watchtower, etc.) killed off the remaining opportunistic playstyles.

Making people split more is just going to encourage more people to play cheese/FotM OP builds. No thanks.

Is it bad I've never heard of OP's guild?

It's Only Bad if you were in BG during 2017, [KnM] Kightmare was also good IMO in BG. [VT] violent tendencies is good, not on BG, though they would tend to hop around on servers. Last I heard, they were mostly taking a break. Trex was good, which I believe is also taking a break. Mada is Good. I saw video on the forums maybe 2 weeks ago. Had a havoc sized group I think about 8 players? maybe. Never Heard of them but they were good. Forgot the name though. Point is, is there are good guilds some heard of. Some not. Good Players that exist. I mean do you consider yourself a good player? at least others might @DeceiverX.8361 I have never heard of you till the forums. And by the way I'm not saying your not of course. You may very well be. But the purpose of this thread isn't to measure You know what's. I'll do that later if balance gets better. Aside from all that, You are right about the balance thing of course. Which is why most of the roam guilds reside elsewhere. But it's like Kovu pointed out...

@Kovu.7560 said:None of that changes the fact that we should be looking for ways to improve and encourage roaming,
beyond
balancing the professions and toning down the elements that make those builds so cancerous to fight. That should just be a given.

~ Kovu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@XenesisII.1540 said:Yeah but giving out extra points is not going to do it.The other problems like balance are more dire in needing of changing before roaming havoc become attractive to do again. You could hand out 100 points per kill that isn't going to make it any more fun fighting cancer thieves and mesmers.

Yea I definitely agree with the balance thing, but You know we just had another balance patch just recently. As far as I've been hearing things are still broken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@XenesisII.1540 said:The balance patch was mostly to address zerg stuff like firebrand healing and scourges.

Also it wasn't technically the usual balance patch, just a skills split patch.

Do you know if it addressed it enough yet though? Like is it better or is stuff mostly broken still Your opinion. Not trying to be smart btw, just genuinely curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Whiteout.1975 said:

@DeceiverX.8361 said:The main reason people stopped playing in small scale was mostly because of profession balance being horrible and a lot of specs being anti-fun to fight by abusing cheese. The buffs to defensive play in WvW (EWP, break bars, watchtower, etc.) killed off the remaining opportunistic playstyles.

Making people split more is just going to encourage more people to play cheese/FotM OP builds. No thanks.

Is it bad I've never heard of OP's guild?

It's Only Bad if you were in BG during 2017, [KnM] Kightmare was also good IMO in BG. [VT] violent tendencies is good, not on BG, though they would tend to hop around on servers. Last I heard, they were mostly taking a break. Trex was good, which I believe is also taking a break. Mada is Good. I saw video on the forums maybe 2 weeks ago. Had a havoc sized group I think about 8 players? maybe. Never Heard of them but they were good. Forgot the name though. Point is, is there are good guilds some heard of. Some not. Good Players that exist. I mean do you consider yourself a good player? at least others might @DeceiverX.8361 I have never heard of you till the forums. And by the way I'm not saying your not of course. You may very well be. But the purpose of this thread isn't to measure You know what's. I'll do that later if balance gets better. Aside from all that, You are right about the balance thing of course. Which is why most of the roam guilds reside elsewhere. But it's like Kovu pointed out...

tRex is ded, several play still but as a guild I think we mostly burnt out of the game.I don't think I remember fighting or seeing Cirq as a guild group, but I do remember the tag from a while back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Waffle.3748 said:

@DeceiverX.8361 said:The main reason people stopped playing in small scale was mostly because of profession balance being horrible and a lot of specs being anti-fun to fight by abusing cheese. The buffs to defensive play in WvW (EWP, break bars, watchtower, etc.) killed off the remaining opportunistic playstyles.

Making people split more is just going to encourage more people to play cheese/FotM OP builds. No thanks.

Is it bad I've never heard of OP's guild?

It's Only Bad if you were in BG during 2017, [KnM] Kightmare was also good IMO in BG. [VT] violent tendencies is good, not on BG, though they would tend to hop around on servers. Last I heard, they were mostly taking a break. Trex was good, which I believe is also taking a break. Mada is Good. I saw video on the forums maybe 2 weeks ago. Had a havoc sized group I think about 8 players? maybe. Never Heard of them but they were good. Forgot the name though. Point is, is there are good guilds some heard of. Some not. Good Players that exist. I mean do you consider yourself a good player? at least others might @DeceiverX.8361 I have never heard of you till the forums. And by the way I'm not saying your not of course. You may very well be. But the purpose of this thread isn't to measure You know what's. I'll do that later if balance gets better. Aside from all that, You are right about the balance thing of course. Which is why most of the roam guilds reside elsewhere. But it's like Kovu pointed out...

tRex is ded, several play still but as a guild I think we mostly burnt out of the game.I don't think I remember fighting or seeing Cirq as a guild group, but I do remember the tag from a while back.

We feel the same way man. We were much smaller back then so that's probably why. We definitely did not get enough action between each other. Though it would have been fun :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kovu.7560 said:

@"DeceiverX.8361" said:Making people split more is just going to encourage more people to play cheese/FotM OP builds. No thanks.

In an ideal world all of the professions would have "meta" options for both roaming and large scale play.But with the exception of Mesmer (and even that's a bit of a gimmick) that is just not the case.

I do agree that lack of balance is an issue that discourages playing on the smaller scale. Nobody wants to fight cheesy thief, mesmer, druid,
(holosmith? people seem to kitten about those)
and warrior builds all afternoon -- which is what you're going to get.

None of that changes the fact that we should be looking for ways to improve and encourage roaming,
beyond
balancing the professions and toning down the elements that make those builds so cancerous to fight. That should just be a given.

~ Kovu

those builds are so anti fun to fight against as they often have tons of option to escape the fight at any given point, wich is needed to roam solo/duo because of larger groups.most groups of 5+ chase down every single opponent they pass by, so if you are not running in a group yourself you need to have such escapeablities because there is no way you will win 1 vs 5+ or even 1 vs 3+ if the opponents understood gamebasics. sure you can kill noobs in any number and there are plenty in WvW. but because there are groups of people that are not totally bad, you need to build that way so you dont have to run from spawn too often. thats why i do think we need either these builds to stay ( or at least in some variation) or options to fight outnumbered without totally outplaying your opponents.most people i know that dont roam, do this because they know they will get beaten up all the time and mostly by groups or simply refuse to play a class/build that can escape.for smallscale like 5-10 many solo roaming builds are worse than more group oriented builds and groups shouldnt be bothered much by roamers, they are an annoyance at most to them.

@"Whiteout.1975" said:

(Step: 2) PPT VS PPK

PPT dominates. PPK helps. As a Roamer, PPK is typically what we are after. Then maybe some PPT mostly for the sake of just owning a tower. PPK should matter more to us like PPT does to larger numbers, Zergs etc., to put it short. So... Now that we are defined as to what we are and when. Through all so Glorious (Step:1). We can now make PPK unique to each group size based upon group classification. So the PPK among those groups should then go something like this...

  • https://imgur.com/iPo0s9t
  • So basically, Groups types are rewarded more heavily in PPK when fighting Larger numbers and less when Outmanning them.
  • Of Course adjust the numbers if or where they need balancing. I'm just illustrating the progression that should be taking place.

you might be after PPK. i am mainly a roamer myself and i think i am little more after PPT, but like to kill ofc. structures give my opponents a reason to fight me so i like to fight in and around them, doing that i often solo flip any size of structure. the only thing i rarely flip is SMC as i am not too often on ebg and i get interrupted at lord mostly :Di do know several roamers on my server who mainly roam structure based, they might not be as strong in a fight as our duellists but provide alot more points to the server and know alot about attacking / defending structures with low numbers and they still win fights mostly against average WvW opponents.i do think PPT should remain an important part for any group size.

however i do think kills in roaming could be awarded more, interms of PPK and especially loot. many also do not roam because the rewards are trash compared to blobbing, tho if you roam structure based you need to think alot more then those in comparison rather brainless blobs. for this i think any type of reward should not be based on participants but on the target and then divided by participants. for instance 1 kill = 25 heavy loot bags , kill that poor guy with 50 and only every 2nd will get a bag , kill him solo and you get em all. flipping a tower awards lets say 4000 wxp , do that solo earn it all or in group and share it. scaling doesnt have to be linear ofc. some could be done with kills the more people hit the target the less points it will grant, this would give reasons to fight in smaller groups. probably optimal would be then 5-10 people for maximum rewards and points, wich is also a good size to be efficient for PPT purpose as you can flip anything in a reasonable time and dont have to run from every group you run into.

(Step: 3) Allianced: A Debuff

At This Point, an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT piece to the puzzle come's into play. A Debuff. I'm giving it the name "Allianced" in honor of the New changes to come. But call it whatever works. The way the "Allianced" debuff works is that using the radius that detects the number of players (mentioned in step:1) around you. You will firstly gain the debuff effect upon entering WvW. Then, based upon the # of allies around you. You will be treated as apart of a larger group. While You physically may not be apart of that group, or even whatever "x" amount of allied groups around you.Next, give the debuff Stacks or Tiers that dictate to the player as to what group they are currently classified under. Thus, should go something like this...

  • Example: T1: Roaming, T2: Group, T3: Zerg and T4: Blob
  • Example 2: Allianced: T1, T2, T3, T4
  • This will act similar in a sense to Borderlands Bloodlust - https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Minor_Borderlands_Bloodlust though, as I stated it will be more or less debuff instead depending on the numbers you are fighting.
  • The debuff helps stop people from taking advantage of the system. Given scenarios such as: (Roaming [5 Players]) + (Roaming [5 Players]) Against (Group of 10 Players). So the Roaming party's. In this scenario. Would have an advantage in regards PPK advantage without the existence of the debuff. But if this debuff exist, it will eliminate all possible advantages such as the given example from happening.
  • Lastly, make the deuff noticeable, add some noticeable color changes as the player More or Less consistently move's between each tier or stack. You know what I mean.

i dont think stats should be affected by how many players are around and definitely not by how many are on the map, this would lead to alot of toxic behaviour towards players who are not known to be among the best. for instance you fight 5 vs 1 and the 4 on your side are really trash but they scale your stats down so its a handicapped 1 vs 1. further if the stats are so low that they do not change the outcome of a fight, they just make for a pointless reason for toxic behaviour and if they can change the outcome of a fight, then they can probably be abused.or do you want that 'debuff' just to show how many people are in the area or participating in the fight ? then i do think it could be used to see how many are in your area while fighting, but not for the map. i dont want a debuff for my rewards when i fight 1 vs 3 only because there is a blob of mine ralling at spawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"Whiteout.1975" said:

(Step: 2)
PPT VS PPK

PPT dominates. PPK helps. As a Roamer, PPK is typically what we are after. Then maybe some PPT mostly for the sake of just owning a tower. PPK should matter more to us like PPT does to larger numbers, Zergs etc., to put it short. So... Now that we are defined as to what we are and when. Through all so Glorious
(Step:1)
. We can now make PPK
unique
to each group size based upon group classification. So the PPK among those groups should then go something like this...
  • So basically, Groups types are rewarded more heavily in PPK when fighting Larger numbers and less when Outmanning them.
  • Of Course adjust the numbers if or where they need balancing. I'm just illustrating the progression that should be taking place.

you might be after PPK. i am mainly a roamer myself and i think i am little more after PPT, but like to kill ofc. structures give my opponents a reason to fight me so i like to fight in and around them, doing that i often solo flip any size of structure. the only thing i rarely flip is SMC as i am not too often on ebg and i get interrupted at lord mostly :Di do know several roamers on my server who mainly roam structure based, they might not be as strong in a fight as our duellists but provide alot more points to the server and know alot about attacking / defending structures with low numbers and they still win fights mostly against average WvW opponents.i do think PPT should remain an important part for any group size.

Yea, we want kills. That's what we would mostly go for in our guild. But, also we want it to be fun in doing so. If things get to be to simple. I lose interest. Same for others. Besides that, yea, so there are times where we have to take a structure in hopes of getting a reaction. Same as you said. And I agree with the PPT thing you stated. Which is why I'm not trying to say we should alter it in any negative way.

however i do think kills in roaming could be awarded more, interms of PPK and especially loot. many also do not roam because the rewards are trash compared to blobbing, tho if you roam structure based you need to think alot more then those in comparison rather brainless blobs. for this i think any type of reward should not be based on participants but on the target and then divided by participants. for instance 1 kill = 25 heavy loot bags , kill that poor guy with 50 and only every 2nd will get a bag , kill him solo and you get em all. flipping a tower awards lets say 4000 wxp , do that solo earn it all or in group and share it. scaling doesnt have to be linear ofc. some could be done with kills the more people hit the target the less points it will grant, this would give reasons to fight in smaller groups. probably optimal would be then 5-10 people for maximum rewards and points, wich is also a good size to be efficient for PPT purpose as you can flip anything in a reasonable time and dont have to run from every group you run into.

First off, Thank You. Gonna quote you on this. "many also do not roam because the rewards are trash compared to blobbing". This statement is so important. Beside's that, thanks again for offering your input as a whole here.

(Step: 3)
Allianced: A Debuff

At This Point, an
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
piece to the puzzle come's into play.
A Debuff
. I'm giving it the name "
Allianced
" in honor of the New changes to come. But call it whatever works. The way the "Allianced" debuff works is that
using the radius that detects the number of players
(mentioned in step:1)
around you
. You will firstly gain the debuff effect upon entering WvW. Then, based upon the # of allies around you. You will be treated as apart of a larger group. While You
physically
may not be apart of that group, or even whatever "x" amount of
allied groups
around you.Next, give the debuff
Stacks
or
Tiers
that dictate to the player as to what group they are currently classified under. Thus, should go something like this...
  • Example:
    T1
    :
    Roaming
    ,
    T2
    :
    Group
    ,
    T3
    :
    Zerg
    and
    T4
    :
    Blob
  • Example 2
    :
    Allianced
    : T1, T2, T3, T4
  • This will act similar in a sense to Borderlands Bloodlust -
    though, as I stated it will be more or less debuff instead depending on the numbers you are fighting.
  • The debuff helps stop people from taking advantage of the system. Given scenarios such as: (Roaming [5 Players]) + (Roaming [5 Players]) Against (Group of 10 Players). So the Roaming party's. In this scenario. Would have an advantage in regards PPK advantage without the existence of the debuff. But if this debuff exist, it will eliminate all possible advantages such as the given example from happening.
  • Lastly, make the deuff noticeable, add some noticeable color changes as the player More or Less consistently move's between each tier or stack. You know what I mean.

i dont think stats should be affected by how many players are around and definitely not by how many are on the map, this would lead to alot of toxic behaviour towards players who are not known to be among the best. for instance you fight 5 vs 1 and the 4 on your side are really trash but they scale your stats down so its a handicapped 1 vs 1. further if the stats are so low that they do not change the outcome of a fight, they just make for a pointless reason for toxic behaviour and if they can change the outcome of a fight, then they can probably be abused.or do you want that 'debuff' just to show how many people are in the area or participating in the fight ? then i do think it could be used to see how many are in your area while fighting, but not for the map. i dont want a debuff for my rewards when i fight 1 vs 3 only because there is a blob of mine ralling at spawn.

Right, So to answer your question. Yes. The Debuff has nothing to do with stats. For the same reasons you stated pretty much. It's Just something to show the player what group they would be classified as. Then award them for fighting outnumbered only in terms of PPK, but offer less PPK when they outman an enemy group with their allies. For whatever time in a fight this is taking place. However, If they are considered the same group size as their opponents. Nothing changes.Though, like you and maybe a couple other's before mentioned something about loot and perhaps other things. This be a possibility too. So thanks to you and the others for offering more Idea's around this :)

The Important thing to remember Is the game does not have a way of differentiating between who is who and when they are. In relation to what we are talking about. Just Like I Pointed out. When @"Raymond Lukes.6305" stated "If you could mark your account as a WvW roamer account" in his second answer section.Take for instance capture point areas. Such as tower, camps ect. How do you get credit from lets say a tower? Well more or less, You end up having to stand in a blue ring in the lords room to get the credit. However Player's obviously aren't so stationary, their environment changes and to cut things short here. They need to be treated a bit differently. Which is where the radius idea come's into play.

Thanks for the great feed back :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"MUDse.7623" said:i dont think stats should be affected by how many players are around and definitely not by how many are on the map, this would lead to alot of toxic behaviour towards players who are not known to be among the best. for instance you fight 5 vs 1 and the 4 on your side are really trash but they scale your stats down so its a handicapped 1 vs 1. further if the stats are so low that they do not change the outcome of a fight, they just make for a pointless reason for toxic behaviour and if they can change the outcome of a fight, then they can probably be abused.or do you want that 'debuff' just to show how many people are in the area or participating in the fight ? then i do think it could be used to see how many are in your area while fighting, but not for the map. i dont want a debuff for my rewards when i fight 1 vs 3 only because there is a blob of mine ralling at spawn.

Debuffing is a poor way to implement mechanics, yes... it cannot be done intelligently. Being near a zerg doesnt automatically mean you are fighting with an advantage - even if your zerg ultimately wins. Am I suppose to be punished for roaming when a zerg comes near? What if the zerg roflstomps 50v10 but you happen to be left right next to it doing a 1v2 and the zerg just doesnt care about your fight? You would be punished for it because suddenly the game would think well there are 51 of you and 2 enemies, you must be scaled down! This isnt how reality is.

People have argued for a "zerg debuff" in the past and its always been just as stupid as an idea. You do not punish people for wanting to play the game together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"MUDse.7623" said:i dont think stats should be affected by how many players are around and definitely not by how many are on the map, this would lead to alot of toxic behaviour towards players who are not known to be among the best. for instance you fight 5 vs 1 and the 4 on your side are really trash but they scale your stats down so its a handicapped 1 vs 1. further if the stats are so low that they do not change the outcome of a fight, they just make for a pointless reason for toxic behaviour and if they can change the outcome of a fight, then they can probably be abused.or do you want that 'debuff' just to show how many people are in the area or participating in the fight ? then i do think it could be used to see how many are in your area while fighting, but not for the map. i dont want a debuff for my rewards when i fight 1 vs 3 only because there is a blob of mine ralling at spawn.

Debuffing is a poor way to implement mechanics, yes... it cannot be done intelligently. Being near a zerg doesnt automatically mean you are fighting with an advantage - even if your zerg ultimately wins. Am I suppose to be punished for
roaming
when a zerg comes near? What if the zerg roflstomps 50v10 but you happen to be left right next to it doing a 1v2 and the zerg just doesnt care about your fight? You would be punished for it because suddenly the game would think well there are 51 of you and 2 enemies, you must be scaled down! This isnt how reality is.

People have argued for a "zerg debuff" in the past and its always been just as stupid as an idea. You do not punish people for wanting to play the game together.

I respect your opinion on that. It's a position that I find to be interesting even. Though out of that same respect. I would have to disagree based upon what a debuff in itself is...A debuff is one of many form's of what is known as a Limitation. A Limitation is made so that the game has direction in a means to achieve balance.This can be seen, though Territories at which can allow you to use your glider in WvW in the area's you own, Seige Deployment radius & Seige Cap, (moving further) Certain Professions Skills (WvW compared to other game modes) etc.The goal here is no different and that's to achieve direction & balance.

The scenarios you give are currently subjective. As the radius has yet to be determined here. But Yes, It should be balanced in reason. As most limitations in general and regarding radius's, strive to be.

WvW allows for so many... this number of Players vs this number of Players. It's not fair that a more populated group get's a greater likely hood to take more bigger objective's and crush other groups that may happen to be significantly or just smaller than them. Thus in doing so, get more rewards for it. I mean after all isn't that what people more or less criticize my current server of doing/being? That's what it can feel like as a Roamer, some big group getting more rewards just for carrying more numbers than you in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Whiteout.1975" said:The scenarios you give are currently subjective. As the radius has yet to be determined here. But Yes, It should be balanced in reason. As most limitations in general and regarding radius's, strive to be.

That would just open up a whole can of worms with what's a "good" range. If it's too short it's just gonna lead to zergs covering a larger area and if it's too long it's gonna grief everyone around the zerg. And trust me, it's always gonna be one or the other no matter the range. That's not the kind of gameplay or argument you want when just trying to enjoy the game.

The point is that debuffing players is the wrong kind of limitation. You want to debuff the other things instead - score, objective buffs, outnumbered, etc. For example an incredibly simple "debuff" against the zerg is... show them on the minimap. Not just the swords indicating where 25+ hit a single target, but instead just like armies kicking up dirt in their path, when there are too many close to each other their movement start to become apparent on the map. We've already automated most of the scouting, might as well take the full step. If people want to "hide" then run smaller groups. This would have zero chance to interfere with anything that roamers, havoc or even guild groups do. It simply shows zergs. And there you go, a debuff that doesnt punish individual players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...