Guild Wars 2

This didn’t get a reply before, but I think it warrants its own post.

Can someone please answer the following:

I’m really not getting the opponent’s logic here. So, they say the buff will promote blob warfare, yet the most efficient way to get the buff is to spread out to 9 points. If you’re doing that it’s a kinda huge alarm to you enemy that you’re looking to make a power play. The buff is also harder to maintain as all your enemy has to do is find your 3 weakest points. Certainly a lot harder then having some orb put away underlock and key. Plus, all these buffs are on the borderlands, within reasonable distance of the home teams spawn in some cases. Also add in the fact there are 3 factions in this battle.
When you factor all that together a few things become very clear.
This buff is very hard to maintain. You need the team coordination to defend 9 points simultaniously. It’s very easy for opposing teams to steal 33% of the buff, especially on their home borderland. A +150 on one side can be easily turn into a +50 on all sides.
For all those that think this is anti-small group. A bunch of small groups can easily play keep away with a blob. Small groups are the ideal force for a capture point of this nature.
And on a final note, everyone’s fear of this stat buff is the entire reason it will be successful. If your reaction to the thought of the enemy getting the buff was anything less then fear, this buff wouldn’t be worth fighting over.

I think the capture points will go a long way toward breaking up blobs, which is a great thing, IMHO. One big blob won’t be able to hold the points and protect their assets at the same time.

The buff itself is not going to do anything to zergs except make one of them OP.

I’m not sure most people are arguing that it will promote blobbing (I’m sure some are but not most I don’t think). I agree with you, I think the mechanic of the 5 points will promote splitting up the zerg. Most people like the mechanic but not the stat buff.

What I’m arguing is that it will make the stronger server even stronger and lead to a snowball effect.

Generally, the stronger server has the greater population. And its obvious how that server will be able to hold more points. More people to send to each point and still have some left over to take camps/towers/keeps.

In most cases there is quite a bit of difference in population and/or coverage. And the bloodlust will be in their hands far more than it will the less populated servers.

So its almost like throwing salt in the wound. The lower pop servers know they can’t win the match but perhaps they can find some good fights. Oh wait, now the higher pop server is also going to have higher stats across the board! Fun fights?

So one might think this would be a good opportunity for the other two servers to 2v1 them to take back the buff. Well that would be great. Except the way Anet made the scoring for the leagues, it even further discourages the two weaker servers from ganging up on the top dog.

It gets worse and worse the more I think about it. Everything Anet does, absolutely everything, is kittenbackwards from what they should be doing.

Johje Holan.4607:

What I’m arguing is that it will make the stronger server even stronger and lead to a snowball effect.

The only way this wouldn’t be true is if the buff did nothing of consequence, in which case there is nothing to manage, in which case there is no breaking up the zerg, in which case the buff was irrelevant… and on it goes.

You have to realize that there is nothing that they can add, that will also have an impact and be relevant to WvW, that won’t always surmount to “the strongest server will have it and snowball”.

in a complete mismatch (ie 70% of them) the server with the overnight/daytime prescense will be able to easily have all the buffs and not be overly concerned by the fleeting prime time interference of the less pop servers. Servers that do huge Blob follow the Dorito (ie Abbadon) and jump between borders will not really have benefit from this but at the same time will still be a 1111 blob so not really care.

The bigger the population imbalance, the less chance the victim server has waypoints at garrison, bay, or hills.

The server with the bigger population will run a circle through all the points wiping everyone in the way. Then they cap the points as their foes are running back from spawn.

Now since the bigger pop server has bloodlust, there’s even less chance the victim server can recover their territory.

Lord Kuru.3685:

The bigger the population imbalance, the less chance the victim server has waypoints at garrison, bay, or hills.

The server with the bigger population will run a circle through all the points wiping everyone in the way. Then they cap the points as their foes are running back from spawn.

Now since the bigger pop server has bloodlust, there’s even less chance the victim server can recover their territory.

Ahh if only this game had three servers fighting each other, too bad its only 1v1.

Oh wait…

Vena.8436:

Johje Holan.4607:

What I’m arguing is that it will make the stronger server even stronger and lead to a snowball effect.

You have to realize that there is nothing that they can add, that will also have an impact and be relevant to WvW, that won’t always surmount to “the strongest server will have it and snowball”.

Sure there is. This forum is full of them.

You have many non-individual stat buff options.

I’m against personal stat buffs. But you can have certain buffs for the weaker servers but not the stronger servers. The reason for the weaker servers to take the points is obvious. The reason for the stronger server to take the points would be to keep it out of the hands of the weaker servers.

You can have mechanics that actually encourage a 2v1 against the stronger server instead of discouraging it.

Johje Holan.4607:

Sure there is. This forum is full of them.

I have yet to see a good one that is either: something actually worthwhile or not categorically worse (as in even more imba) across the board.

Johje Holan.4607:

I’m against personal stat buffs. But you can have certain buffs for the weaker servers but not the stronger servers. The reason for the weaker servers to take the points is obvious. The reason for the stronger server to take the points would be to keep it out of the hands of the weaker servers.

How do you define “weaker” in SoR/JQ/BG?

Johje Holan.4607:

You can have mechanics that actually encourage a 2v1 against the stronger server instead of discouraging it.

How does open field, three of five node control, not encourage teaming up against the (stronger) server controlling them? Its a giant kitten target in the middle of three maps.

Vena.8436:

Ahh if only this game had three servers fighting each other, too bad its only 1v1.

Oh wait…

For three weeks CD fought FA. During which the 3rd team was SoS, which has around the same population as CD, EB which has a slightly larger population, and TC which has way more than FA or CD.

The first two weeks FA would of always had it, the 3rd TC would.

I think the main argument is that the maps are so small, and zergs can move so fast, that zerging up still may be the most efficient way to cap/defend those points.

This depends of course on using scouts, and some stalling bunker builds to prevent the cap until the zerg arrives.

Thrumdi.9216:

This depends of course on using scouts, and some stalling bunker builds to prevent the cap until the zerg arrives.

Given how over-the-top offensive specs are in WvW, I don’t think you can actually bunker a point the way you can in sPvP. Especially not against those super glassy thieves.

Vena.8436:

Lord Kuru.3685:

The bigger the population imbalance, the less chance the victim server has waypoints at garrison, bay, or hills.

The server with the bigger population will run a circle through all the points wiping everyone in the way. Then they cap the points as their foes are running back from spawn.

Now since the bigger pop server has bloodlust, there’s even less chance the victim server can recover their territory.

Ahh if only this game had three servers fighting each other, too bad its only 1v1.

Oh wait…

yep… 3 servers fighting. And we consistently see the two bigger servers gang up on the smallest one because they are the easiest source of points.

Lord Kuru.3685:

yep… 3 servers fighting. And we consistently see the two bigger servers gang up on the smallest one because they are the easiest source of points.

That’s how people decided to play it.

Nothing prevents servers from striking truces to stay off each other’s borderlands, and constantly 2v1 EBG/enemy BL. I don’t really know why this doesn’t happen more often than it does, but it sure as hell happens in T1 NA.

Map politics are a big deal.

Vena.8436:

Lord Kuru.3685:

yep… 3 servers fighting. And we consistently see the two bigger servers gang up on the smallest one because they are the easiest source of points.

That’s how people decided to play it.

Nothing prevents servers from striking truces to stay off each other’s borderlands, and constantly 2v1 EBG/enemy BL. I don’t really know why this doesn’t happen more often than it does, but it sure as hell happens in T1 NA.

Map politics are a big deal.

No communication is needed between the two stronger servers when they gang up on the smallest one because it’s natural to take from the easiest source of points.

For the two smaller servers to gang up on the strong one requires a huge amount of communication. Not to mention, a great deal of server organization is needed. This may be possible in T1, but it’s much harder in the lower tiers. Most players in the lower tiers are pugs or in smaller guilds. There will always be a significant portion of the population that will not get the message to double team. Those pugs from the middle server will attack the small server (easiest targets), the small server will retaliate, and pretty soon the truce is no more.

We have any game theorists around? I’d like to see an analysis of this type of 3-way match and how it ends up playing theoretically.

Lord Kuru.3685:

For the two smaller servers to gang up on the strong one requires a huge amount of communication. Not to mention, a great deal of server organization is needed. This may be possible in T1, but it’s much harder in the lower tiers. Most players in the lower tiers are pugs or in smaller guilds. There will always be a significant portion of the population that will not get the message to double team. Those pugs from the middle server will attack the small server (easiest targets), the small server will retaliate, and pretty soon the truce is no more.

You can’t really expect the game to hold your hand at every turn now can you? The design of the three-way is to allow 2v1’s, but its not going to hold your hand and point the way. (It also allows for backstabbing.)

Organize your server and form contacts on other servers, thats pretty much standard. The size of your server is immaterial to the task and, in fact, the smaller the server the easier it should be manage fewer people.

Vena.8436:

Johje Holan.4607:

I’m against personal stat buffs. But you can have certain buffs for the weaker servers but not the stronger servers. The reason for the weaker servers to take the points is obvious. The reason for the stronger server to take the points would be to keep it out of the hands of the weaker servers.

Vena.8436:

How do you define “weaker” in SoR/JQ/BG?

Weaker would be defined as a certain amount of points or PPT behind. In the case of SoR/JQ/BG, none of them would likely fit the criteria so they would just have to fight over them for the same reason they fight over everything else – for the fights.

Johje Holan.4607:

You can have mechanics that actually encourage a 2v1 against the stronger server instead of discouraging it.

Vena.8436:

How does open field, three of five node control, not encourage teaming up against the (stronger) server controlling them? Its a giant kitten target in the middle of three maps.

The new map design and nodes are fine. The scoring method of the season does not encourage 2v1 against the stronger server. First place gets 5pts, second 3pts, 3rd 1pt. This encourages fighting for second when there is no hope of getting first.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Vena.8436:

Lord Kuru.3685:

yep… 3 servers fighting. And we consistently see the two bigger servers gang up on the smallest one because they are the easiest source of points.

That’s how people decided to play it.

Nothing prevents servers from striking truces to stay off each other’s borderlands, and constantly 2v1 EBG/enemy BL. I don’t really know why this doesn’t happen more often than it does, but it sure as hell happens in T1 NA.

Map politics are a big deal.

No communication is needed between the two stronger servers when they gang up on the smallest one because it’s natural to take from the easiest source of points.

For the two smaller servers to gang up on the strong one requires a huge amount of communication. Not to mention, a great deal of server organization is needed. This may be possible in T1, but it’s much harder in the lower tiers. Most players in the lower tiers are pugs or in smaller guilds. There will always be a significant portion of the population that will not get the message to double team. Those pugs from the middle server will attack the small server (easiest targets), the small server will retaliate, and pretty soon the truce is no more.

We have any game theorists around? I’d like to see an analysis of this type of 3-way match and how it ends up playing theoretically.

Been replying to you a lot lately.. hmmm

Anyway, I spent a great deal of time commanding on SoS during their “Time Atop T1” and I will tell you this: the dynamics of servers change rapidly. In your example of 2 smaller servers fighting one big, the dynamic is as follows, this is also why SoS won (not because we were stacked but this):

Big – Defends all day, pushing 2 smaller to fight amongst themselves.
2nd place – fights 3rd place to lower their PPT increase gap.
3rd place – fights 2nd place to lower their PPT lower gap.

Each of the smaller servers has to commit to hitting the bigger one and not backstab their small server counterpart (think of enemy of my enemy is my friend). The instant 1 commander of 2nd hits 3rd or visa-versa, the whole deal is off and this leaves room for the bigger server to play spoiler. If the Big server can get the 2 small to fight amongst themselves, they will always win.

FoE ran EBG a lot on reset with TSym back in those days and we ran nothing but hard-target setup with camp flippers. We fortified everything while the other two servers kept each others towers paper, we would simply roll in and flip their side in an hour or two and call it a night. Neither server came into our area without being hit by 40 people and defensive siege. They only came in once or twice to run off and hit the other server.

Wv3 is very interesting when you think about it from a group/mob mentality standpoint. You could have 5 days of 2 servers perfectly 2v1’ing a server like TC and all it takes is 1 commander hitting the wrong server and all hell breaks loose.

Johje Holan.4607:

Weaker would be defined as a certain amount of points or PPT behind. In the case of SoR/JQ/BG, none of them would likely fit the criteria so they would just have to fight over them for the same reason they fight over everything else – for the fights.

At this point you’re just score padding and screwing up the Glicko2 rating even more. If its based on some threshold of “losing” then when that threshold no longer exists, the weaker server will still lose. They may have a higher “score” but then their Glicko2 goes off the charts and they end up in even more crazy matches.

Johje Holan.4607:

The new map design and nodes are fine. The scoring method of the season does not encourage 2v1 against the stronger server. First place gets 5pts, second 3pts, 3rd 1pt. This encourages fighting for second when there is no hope of getting first.

Here, I agree. But I think this first season is really a test run. (And is why I keep advocating Best Improved based on Rating being a secondary “winners” bracket.)

It’s an interesting map addition…they’ve basically dropped a SPvP map into the middle of the WvW borderlands. The issue is that the Ruins are so small geographically, a zerg could easily run from point to point, capping everything. There’s no need to split forces when it takes 10 seconds to run from one point to another.

I think it would have been better if they added capture points in the Skrit area, the Centaur area, and the Spider area (far south). Then create the Ruins where the Quaggans are, with a single point. The 3 points on the outer edges of the map are worth 1 cap point each, while the center point is worth 2 cap points. You need 3 cap points to gain the buff.

That would really cause you to split your forces. It would also allow highly coordinated, but smaller groups a chance to gain control by taking all 3 outer edge points.

I dunno…only time will tell how this plays out. I’m a little shocked though that all this time was spent redoing the Borderland maps without more input from the community. Seems like a lot of effort on a potential bomb.

Dual.8953:

This didn’t get a reply before, but I think it warrants its own post.

Can someone please answer the following:

I’m really not getting the opponent’s logic here. So, they say the buff will promote blob warfare, yet the most efficient way to get the buff is to spread out to 9 points. If you’re doing that it’s a kinda huge alarm to you enemy that you’re looking to make a power play. The buff is also harder to maintain as all your enemy has to do is find your 3 weakest points. Certainly a lot harder then having some orb put away underlock and key. Plus, all these buffs are on the borderlands, within reasonable distance of the home teams spawn in some cases. Also add in the fact there are 3 factions in this battle.
When you factor all that together a few things become very clear.
This buff is very hard to maintain. You need the team coordination to defend 9 points simultaniously. It’s very easy for opposing teams to steal 33% of the buff, especially on their home borderland. A +150 on one side can be easily turn into a +50 on all sides.
For all those that think this is anti-small group. A bunch of small groups can easily play keep away with a blob. Small groups are the ideal force for a capture point of this nature.
And on a final note, everyone’s fear of this stat buff is the entire reason it will be successful. If your reaction to the thought of the enemy getting the buff was anything less then fear, this buff wouldn’t be worth fighting over.

Fair enough. I don’t anyone is saying it PROMOTES blobbing or grouping up or whatever you want to call it…

What we’re saying is that it’s not going to BREAK UP the blob like everyone talks about…

They added more objectives…great…I like it…however…people talk like this is going to split the zerg of 50 into like 10 man groups that are going to head to 5 different objectives…not gonna happen

The blob…will cap it…leave a person there to watch it and build the cannon and call out when a group tries to take it (just like they do for keeps and towers now), when the scout calls a group inc…the zerg will come back stop them from capping it make sure we they own it and plant another person there….rinse and repeat…

There is no way a group of 10 are going to sit there and just sit on it and wait for someone to try and cap it…..we can barely get people to stay and watch a keep or tower let a lone stand in a circle and hold it…..

So…in the end….it will not promote breaking up the blob, they’ll prolly have to sit a few extra scouts there which isn’t that much of a loss and everytime a roaming 5 man group tries to cap it…they’re going to be frustrated when the blob runs them over and they will be saying “WTF why didn’t they just go to the tower or keep and cap it.” I’m sure they might flip it a few times, but in the end the zerg will hold it when it wants to.

The server with the most coverage and the most WvW population will hold the points more often than the other 2 servers…which means you are effectively buffing the strongest server.

Gamadorn.2659:

Dual.8953:

This didn’t get a reply before, but I think it warrants its own post.

Can someone please answer the following:

I’m really not getting the opponent’s logic here. So, they say the buff will promote blob warfare, yet the most efficient way to get the buff is to spread out to 9 points. If you’re doing that it’s a kinda huge alarm to you enemy that you’re looking to make a power play. The buff is also harder to maintain as all your enemy has to do is find your 3 weakest points. Certainly a lot harder then having some orb put away underlock and key. Plus, all these buffs are on the borderlands, within reasonable distance of the home teams spawn in some cases. Also add in the fact there are 3 factions in this battle.
When you factor all that together a few things become very clear.
This buff is very hard to maintain. You need the team coordination to defend 9 points simultaniously. It’s very easy for opposing teams to steal 33% of the buff, especially on their home borderland. A +150 on one side can be easily turn into a +50 on all sides.
For all those that think this is anti-small group. A bunch of small groups can easily play keep away with a blob. Small groups are the ideal force for a capture point of this nature.
And on a final note, everyone’s fear of this stat buff is the entire reason it will be successful. If your reaction to the thought of the enemy getting the buff was anything less then fear, this buff wouldn’t be worth fighting over.

Fair enough. I don’t anyone is saying it PROMOTES blobbing or grouping up or whatever you want to call it…

What we’re saying is that it’s not going to BREAK UP the blob like everyone talks about…

They added more objectives…great…I like it…however…people talk like this is going to split the zerg of 50 into like 10 man groups that are going to head to 5 different objectives…not gonna happen

The blob…will cap it…leave a person there to watch it and build the cannon and call out when a group tries to take it (just like they do for keeps and towers now), when the scout calls a group inc…the zerg will come back stop them from capping it make sure we they own it and plant another person there….rinse and repeat…

There is no way a group of 10 are going to sit there and just sit on it and wait for someone to try and cap it…..we can barely get people to stay and watch a keep or tower let a lone stand in a circle and hold it…..

So…in the end….it will not promote breaking up the blob, they’ll prolly have to sit a few extra scouts there which isn’t that much of a loss and everytime a roaming 5 man group tries to cap it…they’re going to be frustrated when the blob runs them over and they will be saying “WTF why didn’t they just go to the tower or keep and cap it.” I’m sure they might flip it a few times, but in the end the zerg will hold it when it wants to.

The server with the most coverage and the most WvW population will hold the points more often than the other 2 servers…which means you are effectively buffing the strongest server.

And what if more then one point is assaulted at the same time across other maps? I doubt any server can defend against a multipronged strike if they’ve pooled their forces.

Vena.8436:

Johje Holan.4607:

Weaker would be defined as a certain amount of points or PPT behind. In the case of SoR/JQ/BG, none of them would likely fit the criteria so they would just have to fight over them for the same reason they fight over everything else – for the fights.

At this point you’re just score padding and screwing up the Glicko2 rating even more. If its based on some threshold of “losing” then when that threshold no longer exists, the weaker server will still lose. They may have a higher “score” but then their Glicko2 goes off the charts and they end up in even more crazy matches.

I don’t think it will mess up Glicko2.

First, Anet should be freezing the Glicko ratings as they are at the end of the last match before the seasons. If they don’t the ratings are going to get all kinds of messed up anyway. Especially the fact that a gap will develop between #12 and #13 that will never be able to be closed.

Second, even disregarding the season:

1. If the match is close the buff won’t kick in anyway.
2. If the match is only slightly unbalanced it means the ratings are somewhat close anyway so won’t be effected that much – and the buff won’t be able to help a server over take the top server because once the scores get close enough, it goes away.
3. If the match is hugely unbalanced, it doesn’t matter because the buff is not going to make the weaker servers suddenly become that much better.

Vena.8436:

(And is why I keep advocating Best Improved based on Rating being a secondary “winners” bracket.)

This I agree with as well. Best Improved would be great.

The Bloodlust buff won’t affect blobbing within a map directly.

But it will promote blobbing at the server level: people will transfer to the server most likely to have the buff.

With population trumping skill in WvW, the servers with the biggest WvW populations will get even more WvW players and the buff, making the imbalance in match-ups even worse than it is now.

Johje Holan.4607:

Second, even disregarding the season:

1. If the match is close the buff won’t kick in anyway.
2. If the match is only slightly unbalanced it means the ratings are somewhat close anyway so won’t be effected that much – and the buff won’t be able to help a server over take the top server because once the scores get close enough, it goes away.
3. If the match is hugely unbalanced, it doesn’t matter because the buff is not going to make the weaker servers suddenly become that much better.

You realize you basically said it will: do nothing, right.

Score padding (which is what this is, a handicapping) won’t solve the crux of the issue -> you are greatly outnumbered or outmatched. It will just make your end-of-the-day score seem bigger but it won’t prevent you from waking up to a thatsnotourcolor home borderland. (TESO is going about it in this way, if you are behind by a lot of points, your taking of something awards more points… but it ultimately amounts to nothing more than a bigger number for you to look at while you still lose. Its nice PR on paper, pretty much pointless in practice. Sort of like TESO as a whole recently, a lot of PR atop of a whole lot of nothing. Badum tish!)

There really isn’t a great way of fixing this. Some games, well most actually, don’t even bother trying to fix it (Aion, WAR, WoW when World-PvP used to be a thing). Your server has a population imbalance? Tough luck.

The best way to fix the unfixable is to work around it, give servers a secondary “win” to work towards. Win by rating improvement is the best way I can think of at the moment because it allows even SF to try and hold a tower 24/7 against SoR, and reap massive rating improvements off of it. Add in the stomp+ too outmanned, and all of a sudden that daring and lopsided tower defense turns into a point gathering spree.

Vena.8436:

The best way to fix the unfixable is to work around it, give servers a secondary “win” to work towards.

That’s a good point.

One of WvW biggest problems is the lack of incentive for losing servers to stay in the game. Why take a hammering in WvW when you can earn better rewards in PvE while you wait for the next WvW match-up?

Vena.8436:

Johje Holan.4607:

Second, even disregarding the season:

1. If the match is close the buff won’t kick in anyway.
2. If the match is only slightly unbalanced it means the ratings are somewhat close anyway so won’t be effected that much – and the buff won’t be able to help a server over take the top server because once the scores get close enough, it goes away.
3. If the match is hugely unbalanced, it doesn’t matter because the buff is not going to make the weaker servers suddenly become that much better.

You realize you basically said it will: do nothing, right.

Score padding (which is what this is, a handicapping) won’t solve the crux of the issue -> you are greatly outnumbered or outmatched. It will just make your end-of-the-day score seem bigger but it won’t prevent you from waking up to a thatsnotourcolor home borderland. (TESO is going about it in this way, if you are behind by a lot of points, your taking of something awards more points… but it ultimately amounts to nothing more than a bigger number for you to look at while you still lose. Its nice PR on paper, pretty much pointless in practice. Sort of like TESO as a whole recently, a lot of PR atop of a whole lot of nothing. Badum tish!)

There really isn’t a great way of fixing this. Some games, well most actually, don’t even bother trying to fix it (Aion, WAR, WoW when World-PvP used to be a thing). Your server has a population imbalance? Tough luck.

The best way to fix the unfixable is to work around it, give servers a secondary “win” to work towards. Win by rating improvement is the best way I can think of at the moment because it allows even SF to try and hold a tower 24/7 against SoR, and reap massive rating improvements off of it. Add in the stomp+ too outmanned, and all of a sudden that daring and lopsided tower defense turns into a point gathering spree.

The buff won’t do much in reality if only applied to the weaker servers – as I’ve laid it out. (Heck I don’t even want a stat buff at all) It’s more of an evening out factor. It will help psychologically though, which is really what we’re talking about here with population dynamics right? Morale.

It will do great harm if applied to the stronger server. And that harm will be both psychological and physical.

All this talk is irrelevant anyway, Anet is going to do what they want regardless.