Guild Wars 2

Catisa.6507:

A. fly hacking has never been dealt with so robs would just be hacked back and forth again as they were before, so no thanks.
B. If you think orbs ever brought balance then you have clearly forgotten how bad matches were when we had them.

Matches being unbalanced when orbs existed being blamed on orbs is false cause. There is a screenshot of HoD with +710 and 3 orbs against BG and NSP. I don’t pretend for a second that the instance shown in the screenshot was because of orbs. That is because it wasn’t orbs that caused that, it was a flat out population imbalance 24 hours a day to the point where people stopped playing. Extreme population imbalances and volatile tier matchups were why matches were “imbalanced”, not orbs. Most players also had barely scratched the surface of strategy back then, but now is a different story. Bottom line is orbs need to come back and give something meaningful that has to be played for.

As far as hacking, there are NUMEROUS, simple solutions that could be implemented to prevent it that have been mentioned in just this thread, much less elsewhere.

Esoteric.5490:

I’m not from the #1 server in my tier and I don’t care if the first place server had all the orbs, it would force 2nd and 3rd to both try and get them back.

This is where your ‘logic’ fails completely. 2nd and 3rd place often battle each other now because they have a better chance of beating each other then the 1st place team in the tier. Make the 1st place team in the tier stronger with orbs will only make 2nd and 3rd AVOID 1st even more then now.
Nothing you can do will force 2nd and 3rd to ally up and attack 1st. Players will attack whoever they want, and the majority of players will fight who they think they have the best chance of defeating.

Catisa.6507:

This is where your ‘logic’ fails completely. 2nd and 3rd place often battle each other now because they have a better chance of beating each other then the 1st place team in the tier. Make the 1st place team in the tier stronger with orbs will only make 2nd and 3rd AVOID 1st even more then now.
Nothing you can do will force 2nd and 3rd to ally up and attack 1st. Players will attack whoever they want, and the majority of players will fight who they think they have the best chance of defeating.

It makes for dynamic PvP. 2nd often goes after 3rd, not the other way around. They do this to maintain their ranking because of their ego to stay “2nd”. Without orbs causing the 1st place server to become a major problem if 2nd and 3rd play poorly strategically, 2nd will continue to go after 3rd for the “easy points”. With orbs, if that happened, 2nd could certainly continue to attack 3rd for the “easy points”, but then they would be trading off contesting for an orb, a decision the 3rd place server would also have to make.

2nd and 3rd avoid fighting 1st most times because there is nothing to make them attack 1st. If 1st has orbs, they become a constant threat on every map and need to be targeted or they will be allowed to crush both server and go +710. If you see a +710 it will almost always be because 2nd and 3rd fought against each other until it was too late, or a server broke the game, not because orbs exist.

Of course, if you are totally cool with the meta of servers trying to ONLY full cap their BL and Stonemist and leaving other maps to rot in order to get a good PPT, then be my guest. That isn’t a game that I can see myself continuing to support and spend my valuable time on.

I have literally ran out of words to explain to you why orbs are the entire reason that Borderlands would be balanced. The fact of the matter is they are flat out needed to balance this game and create an actual fight for first or it will cost both the 2nd and 3rd place servers.

I still don’t see how you can possibly think that stat bonus orbs will balance the game. As Catisa pointed out stat bonus orbs doesn’t give any incentive to attack the server holding it, and only deters them from attacking. Why would I bash my head against a steel wall when I can bash my head against a mud wall instead. Most people take the path of least resistance, because that feeling of accomplishing something is better than the feeling of not accomplishing anything. I say most people because there are some cases like you, Esoteric, (this is an assumption, meant as a compliment more than anything) that strive to achieve greater things than just beating down the little guy.

Furthermore how are you supposed to reliably communicate in-game to form an “alliance” of sorts to take down the leading server. Just because the two servers have less points does not mean that they will automatically form an alliance to take down the leading server. If the leading server only holds 1/3 of the points I can still win if I hold 2/3 of the points. Meaning that the orb doesn’t force you to fight the leading server but rather deter you from fighting them. There would still be more incentive to beat down on the lower server to get points rather than fighting the leading server head-on.

Look, I can see some valid points you are making but you are going about this the wrong way. Here’s what I think you want out of the orb:

• A key mobile objective
• Benefits the owner of the orb
• Provide incentive to hold more than one orb
• Provide incentive to attack the owner of the orb
• Cause more dynamic 2v1 fights in WvW

Does the orb needs to have a high incentive to take it? Yes. Should it give stat bonuses? No. Why are you stuck in the mud about giving the orb stat bonuses when there are other incentives that would be just as good if not better. For example it could be some sort of supply cost reduction. Or what if, a big what if, you made it so only the keep with the orb would have a wp (of course that would imply that you would remove it from the upgrade system). The wp would not be tied to supply but rather the duration it has been in the keep. The wp would automatically be built after the orb has been in a keep after a duration of say 30mins (adjustable). This would provide a “must have” objective of sorts. Don’t get me wrong, my suggestions have Many flaws and are in no way perfect nor the optimal solution. But you are thinking way too inclusively. There should be some form of the orb existing in WvW but it does not and should not have to be stat bonuses. If anything Out-manned should be providing these stat bonuses to give more incentive to be in borderlands that are less explored by your server and to give less incentive to beat-down a dead horse.

Orbs are needed for balance and they need to be worth something meaningful. The simplest way to do that would be stats, but there are certainly other options as well. The only constant that needs to be there regardless of what they attach to orbs is that players NEED the orbs and that their value is so undeniable that a server would always want to play based on orbs while in Borderlands. Orbs can’t give some trivial bonus or perk or players won’t play for them and the intent will be lost.

I still don’t know why people think it should give a cost reduction to supply etc. your not thinking logically about any of this. It would be a HUGE coding project to allow dynamic supply on sieges. That’s just not fathomable.

WvW is about getting the most points. That’s what the orbs should be about. It SHOULDN’T make you go for the keep with it, it SHOULD make you have to make clutch decisions. The orb should not be the number 1 priority. It should make a commander think about what he wants to do.

Do you defend the keep with the orb using all of the resources at your disposal? Or do you split and risk loosing the orb, but keep hold of a large % of your territory? Taking the majority of the map should always yield more score than holding one keep with an orb inside. Always.

That said, if you could do both, then you should be rewarded for it. Hence the idea of a %increase in points gain with each tally when you hold the orb. It makes the decision harder.

I do agree that the flying bug needs to be fixed. I don’t agree that you should have to take the keep in order to steal the orb. I do think that in order tk take an orb, 5 players must interact with it to steal it. However taking a keep would also grant you the orb. It would then create dynamic play, again creating a decision. Do we defend the orb and risk the keep? Or do we defend the keep and let them have the orb? Move the orb to just outside in inner gates. More dynamic play.

People play wvw for tactics. Give them more to think about tactically. It will create a more versatile game. Zergs would break off due to varying objectives and would result in far more going on inside a map. Up the commander limit to three. I think that would really spice it up.

You don’t need stats. No damage buff. Just the one thing people care about, points to win.

I vote we leave the hacking issue out of this discussion. Anet has said that they are gone so this is theoretical anyways. I think we need to agree to disagree about how orbs “balance” WvW. The point I am making here is that the reality of what orbs do to the game has already been seen. The better populated server gets the orb solidifying their lead. The other servers then bash their faces against a door or wall trying to get it. They dont get it because they are outnumbered.

I always wondered about this whole playing for 2nd place of a tier. I don’t get it when the 2nd and 3rd place servers let the 1st place home bl sit unmolested. each point a 2nd place server takes from the first is double points in a way compared to taking the 3rd place owned objectives.