Add a famine debuff after “X” amount of players enter WVW (all maps). Maybe after 50 players enter the borderland, -50 to all stats per each 10 players.
Add the Well-Fed buff when having less than 50 players
Of course this is just an concept, the breakeven point could be toyed with. And the stat buffs could be adjusted.
70 plyers = +150 all stats
80 players = +100 all stats
90 players = +50 all stats
100 players = 0 stats
110 players = -50 all stats
120 players = – 100 all stats
130 players = -150 all stats
As ANet as said around 100 times, they will not add stat buffs for being outnumbered, outmanned or in any direct correlation to the number of people who have on a map, because it will lead to griefing. People harassing others to leave so they can get 50 more stats will happen and that’s the reason the famed “Orb to Outnumbered buff” argument never goes anywhere.
NSP>ET>SoS>BG>ET>SoS>JQ>SoS>Mag>JQ
My fun laughs at your server pride.
As ANet as said around 100 times, they will not add stat buffs for being outnumbered, outmanned or in any direct correlation to the number of people who have on a map, because it will lead to griefing. People harassing others to leave so they can get 50 more stats will happen and that’s the reason the famed “Orb to Outnumbered buff” argument never goes anywhere.
I know this is a troll post lol, but….
As we all know this argument is completely invalid and lacking all logic and/or reasoning.
Also, they are willing to implement a mechanic that does the complete opposite and gives stat buff’s the larger server in a lopsided situation, but when benefiting the weakest of the lopsided situation….heaven forbid we should do THAT…
The reality of the situation is, it’s not usually “1” person that joins and puts you over the top of that outnumbered buff, it’s usually a guild group or a large influx of people that finally put you over that buff and to be honest…you glad to see it gone, because it means you can finally start getting somewhere on the map….
As ANet as said around 100 times, they will not add stat buffs for being outnumbered, outmanned or in any direct correlation to the number of people who have on a map, because it will lead to griefing. People harassing others to leave so they can get 50 more stats will happen and that’s the reason the famed “Orb to Outnumbered buff” argument never goes anywhere.
I already grief the enemy servers for having to many people on the map and zerging.
I like my idea of using an exponential decay function more;
y=0.99^(x) Where x is the number of friendly players within a 2000-3000 unit radius and y is your stat multiplier.
I made the limit 20 because I know that some people like squads of players. As the number of players increases, people wouldn’t exactly notice a difference in their stats until their 35-40 man zerg gets rolled by a group of twenty. You wouldn’t be able to see it listed, though I’m not sure how I would inform players of that change, to watch their numbers since it has a bigger impact now, and to work as individual squads rather than one giant ball.
Although, I think that the stat debuff should be locked in whenever a player is in combat and said player then leaves the count so that when friendly players join in to help a group out in a massive field fight, they aren’t rally bait.
Instead of making the buff constantly changing to the people on the map, make the buff the delta between your servers glicko rating and the average glicko of the servers in the match.
For BG/JQ/TC
BG -78 to all stats
JQ -40 to all stats
TC +118 to all stats
For Sor/FA/DB
SoR -205 to all stats
FA +69 to all stats
DB +137 to all stats
I think we should have an 8 league system in which servers of nearest equal standings fight against one another. This will ensure the existing buff system will frequently change hands between the even competitors.
What’s that you say?
That’s how it was at launch?
Hmmm…guess you can always potentially cure game imbalance, but stupidity is a terminal illness.
Circumventing profanity filters one kitten at a time.
So if my server play WvW more than your server, i must have a debuff, why?!?
Why i must be debuffed if your server love farming Sunless more than going in WvW?
So if my server play WvW more than your server, i must have a debuff, why?!?
Why i must be debuffed if your server love farming Sunless more than going in WvW?
Because resources are limited. If you are fielding a huge army, you will have to feed them less.
If you are on a less populated server, theres more food resources available.
And I could also ask, why should my server be punished in wvw because you can field more wvw players? Its not my fault 100’s of anonymous players want to pve. No matter how much William Wallace rallying I do, I still cant pull enough extra people int o make a difference.
And why woud you want to ROFLSTOMP other server because of population? Ive been that server blowing out the other 2 servers, its boring as hell.
The best fights are the ones that are close to even as possible. And why wouldn’t you want a system that can make this happen?
As ANet as said around 100 times, they will not add stat buffs for being outnumbered, outmanned or in any direct correlation to the number of people who have on a map, because it will lead to griefing. People harassing others to leave so they can get 50 more stats will happen and that’s the reason the famed “Orb to Outnumbered buff” argument never goes anywhere.
I know this is a troll post lol, but….
As we all know this argument is completely invalid and lacking all logic and/or reasoning.
Also, they are willing to implement a mechanic that does the complete opposite and gives stat buff’s the larger server in a lopsided situation, but when benefiting the weakest of the lopsided situation….heaven forbid we should do THAT…
The reality of the situation is, it’s not usually “1” person that joins and puts you over the top of that outnumbered buff, it’s usually a guild group or a large influx of people that finally put you over that buff and to be honest…you glad to see it gone, because it means you can finally start getting somewhere on the map….
I wasn’t offering a valid reason of why this wouldn’t work, I was reiterating what ANet themselves have said as to why a system like this hasn’t been and will not be implemented.
As we’ve seen, smaller servers CAN and DO hold the Orb buff – so the argument of “larger server always hold the buff” has been shown to be incorrect.
And yes, I could see instances where a guild joins a map and everyone whines and complains “OMG [GG] get off our map you ruined out outnumbered!!” And people think that the WvW community is divided now…
NSP>ET>SoS>BG>ET>SoS>JQ>SoS>Mag>JQ
My fun laughs at your server pride.
Its pointless anyway, all a blowout tells you is that you are fighting a higher tier server with much more population and coverage.
All a close match tells you is that you are doing a good job holding as much as you can while matched up with servers that have like/similar coverage (and/or coverage gaps).
Any system where you can be winning by 5k on sunday and losing by 40k on Tuesday is pointless when being used as a metric to correlate “winning”.
Its pointless anyway, all a blowout tells you is that you are fighting a higher tier server with much more population and coverage.
All a close match tells you is that you are doing a good job holding as much as you can while matched up with servers that have like/similar coverage (and/or coverage gaps).
Any system where you can be winning by 5k on sunday and losing by 40k on Tuesday is pointless when being used as a metric to correlate “winning”.
I wouldn’t be opposed to this either, could be interesting.
Its pointless anyway, all a blowout tells you is that you are fighting a higher tier server with much more population and coverage.
All a close match tells you is that you are doing a good job holding as much as you can while matched up with servers that have like/similar coverage (and/or coverage gaps).
Any system where you can be winning by 5k on sunday and losing by 40k on Tuesday is pointless when being used as a metric to correlate “winning”.
It could be much more simple than that. Lock borderlands at a certain population per side. You have 4 WvW maps, if you lock each map to 100 players per server, per map. The rest get que’d.
People get sick of que’s and start looking to transfer toward lower populated servers.
no .. how about no buff no foods no nothing just exotics.( ascended are ok they easy to get anyway) if u outmanned all the time well its not the enemy fault that ur server dont want to wvw.
As ANet as said around 100 times, they will not add stat buffs for being outnumbered, outmanned or in any direct correlation to the number of people who have on a map, because it will lead to griefing. People harassing others to leave so they can get 50 more stats will happen and that’s the reason the famed “Orb to Outnumbered buff” argument never goes anywhere.
I know this is a troll post lol, but….
As we all know this argument is completely invalid and lacking all logic and/or reasoning.
Also, they are willing to implement a mechanic that does the complete opposite and gives stat buff’s the larger server in a lopsided situation, but when benefiting the weakest of the lopsided situation….heaven forbid we should do THAT…
The reality of the situation is, it’s not usually “1” person that joins and puts you over the top of that outnumbered buff, it’s usually a guild group or a large influx of people that finally put you over that buff and to be honest…you glad to see it gone, because it means you can finally start getting somewhere on the map….
I wasn’t offering a valid reason of why this wouldn’t work, I was reiterating what ANet themselves have said as to why a system like this hasn’t been and will not be implemented.
As we’ve seen, smaller servers CAN and DO hold the Orb buff – so the argument of “larger server always hold the buff” has been shown to be incorrect.
And yes, I could see instances where a guild joins a map and everyone whines and complains “OMG [GG] get off our map you ruined out outnumbered!!” And people think that the WvW community is divided now…
Oh..so it wasn’t a troll post…lol
No one has said the larger server ALWAYS holds the buff. Yes they are fairly easy to flip and the smaller servers CAN flip it and hold it for a bit. The point being though…on average over a 24 hour period, the larger server will trend to holding it longer then the smaller servers. If there is a few points of consequence on a map that 3 groups of people want to hold, it stands to reason the group that has more people has a greater chance of holding it over the others.
However, GRIEFING is definitely not a reason to not provide a mechanic that could at least potential fix major issues in their game….if they were so intent on griefing, what about people trolling other servers, running golems of cliffs, building supply ram’s in keep’s to waste supply, spawn camping…..griefing is anet’s excuse to not want to give a buff to the outmanned server, because in their minds they think that magically that server can rally more people or do more on their own to even out the disadvantage, which is quite simply WRONG. Not only that, they give you a way out to transfer to other servers that are already doing well…
Giving a server 50 stats points wouldn’t put a dent in the ‘major issues’ you speak of. All it would create is a state where the population of a map would yell at other players to leave so they can retain the buff. No one should just be GIVEN stat increases, you should have to earn them.
NSP>ET>SoS>BG>ET>SoS>JQ>SoS>Mag>JQ
My fun laughs at your server pride.
You see, as the number of players within a particular radius (x) increases, the stat multiplier (y) decreases exponentially, which means that after a certain number of people is reached, it starts to drop sharply. By having the limit of this be about twenty people in a 3000 unit radius, a group of 25 wouldn’t have the same reduction of stats as would a 30 man group would.
You see, as the number of players within a particular radius (x) increases, the stat multiplier (y) decreases exponentially, which means that after a certain number of people is reached, it starts to drop sharply. By having the limit of this be about twenty people in a 3000 unit radius, a group of 25 wouldn’t have the same reduction of stats as would a 30 man group would.
LOL. We already know that simply recalculating bloodlust buffs when capture points flip practically freezes the game for seconds, and that it is an unavoidable result of ANet using an outmoded game engine. Devon has even recently stated that to be the reason they can’t relax the AoE cap. So what on earth makes you think that a more complicated formula calculated real time is in any way feasible?? It would bring the entire game to its knees,
D/D Thief who prefers mobility to stealth … so yeah, I die a lot
Stormbluff Isle [AoD]
You see, as the number of players within a particular radius (x) increases, the stat multiplier (y) decreases exponentially, which means that after a certain number of people is reached, it starts to drop sharply. By having the limit of this be about twenty people in a 3000 unit radius, a group of 25 wouldn’t have the same reduction of stats as would a 30 man group would.
LOL. We already know that simply recalculating bloodlust buffs when capture points flip practically freezes the game for seconds, and that it is an unavoidable result of ANet using an outmoded game engine. Devon has even recently stated that to be the reason they can’t relax the AoE cap. So what on earth makes you think that a more complicated formula calculated real time is in any way feasible?? It would bring the entire game to its knees,
It’s not that complicated, believe me. I was thinking it could be done client side rather than on the server. All they would need to do is take a small scan every five to ten seconds for player characters. If that number is less than twenty, don’t do anything. However, if it is greater, then activate the debuff. Simple as that.
Also, with the limits removed, I ran the numbers of y=1.06^(20-x) equation to simulate the effectiveness. In a 35 people zerg, players would have 42% of their original stats while a lone player would have 303%! The numbers can always be played with to get the result you want, but at the end of the day, the zerg will eventually disappear.
zergs will not go away. the only reason we dont like zergs is population imbalance and no rewards for defense. I’d rather have a 50 man zerg hitting our BL 1 thing at a time, than have 5 groups of 10 each hitting something different at the same time.
zergs will not go away. the only reason we dont like zergs is population imbalance and no rewards for defense. I’d rather have a 50 man zerg hitting our BL 1 thing at a time, than have 5 groups of 10 each hitting something different at the same time.
People complain about the zerg, then when I propose a solution, they want zergs back.
You see, as the number of players within a particular radius (x) increases, the stat multiplier (y) decreases exponentially, which means that after a certain number of people is reached, it starts to drop sharply. By having the limit of this be about twenty people in a 3000 unit radius, a group of 25 wouldn’t have the same reduction of stats as would a 30 man group would.
LOL. We already know that simply recalculating bloodlust buffs when capture points flip practically freezes the game for seconds, and that it is an unavoidable result of ANet using an outmoded game engine. Devon has even recently stated that to be the reason they can’t relax the AoE cap. So what on earth makes you think that a more complicated formula calculated real time is in any way feasible?? It would bring the entire game to its knees,
It’s not that complicated, believe me. I was thinking it could be done client side rather than on the server. All they would need to do is take a small scan every five to ten seconds for player characters. If that number is less than twenty, don’t do anything. However, if it is greater, then activate the debuff. Simple as that.
Also, with the limits removed, I ran the numbers of y=1.06^(20-x) equation to simulate the effectiveness. In a 35 people zerg, players would have 42% of their original stats while a lone player would have 303%! The numbers can always be played with to get the result you want, but at the end of the day, the zerg will eventually disappear.
Now I know you don’t have a clue what you’re proposing. Go ahead and do the calculation client side … the EFFECT of the constantly changing buff needs to be reapplied to everyone on all sides of the battle. That’s every bit as taxing to the game engine as if the calculation was done server-side.
D/D Thief who prefers mobility to stealth … so yeah, I die a lot
Stormbluff Isle [AoD]
As ANet as said around 100 times, they will not add stat buffs for being outnumbered, outmanned or in any direct correlation to the number of people who have on a map, because it will lead to griefing. People harassing others to leave so they can get 50 more stats will happen and that’s the reason the famed “Orb to Outnumbered buff” argument never goes anywhere.
Too bad they did that with the orbs. Large servers can easily hold +150 to all stats
Instead of making the buff constantly changing to the people on the map, make the buff the delta between your servers glicko rating and the average glicko of the servers in the match.
For BG/JQ/TC
BG -78 to all stats
JQ -40 to all stats
TC +118 to all stats
For Sor/FA/DB
SoR -205 to all stats
FA +69 to all stats
DB +137 to all stats
Still doesn’t fix coverage issues though.
For the possible season 1 matchup of 1v7v12
BG -347
SoS +68
BP +280
very much agree…erm u know that a few sor zergs were running with no armor during our coverage gap hours? the stats would make a change, but if u get steamrolled by 60 people that are weaker, u will still get steamrolled.
if fa faces a t4 server our guilds would dominate the matchup all the time as we dont just zerg. we ninja, we got tons of havoc groups, we got scouts, we know how to open field battle, we are used to being outmanned and we got a lot of roamers too.
i’d say go for alliances. lets say the servers that lose in the leagues are open for alliances or so. if a t4 server gets matched up vs tc or jq for example, db or fa could help them out after they lost vs sor of bg…or tc of course. alliances could fix coverage gaps and make wvw a better place so blowout matchups dont happen.
Lv 80 glamour Mesmer Triforce Mesmerpower PU mes,Lv 80 power necro
[AVTR]
Isle of Kickaspenwood
So by OP’s system, if I choose to solo roam on a battleground with 130 people, I should have 150 less of every stat?
Wouldn’t that be better than having 150 less of every stat when your enemy outnumber you?
But I don’t have 150 less of every stat when they outnumber me. It takes 9 people to flip the bloodlust buff on every borderlands, so I don’t see that as a problem whatsoever.
What I see as a problem though, is that if I wanna solo roam, all by myself in the hopes of running into other roamers, I should have 150 less stats than the other solo roaming guy, just because there’s 130 people from my server in that borderland.
Bloodlust easily flipped, what OP is suggestion is not so easy to deal with or balance so people are equal on a 1 to 1 scale in my opinion. Besides If I run with around with my guild (15-20~ people) in a borderlands it would leave a sour taste in my mouth after beating an enemy zerg, just because they had less hp, less, power, less everything because of what OP is suggesting.
Because resources are limited. If you are fielding a huge army, you will have to feed them less.
If you are on a less populated server, theres more food resources available.
And I could also ask, why should my server be punished in wvw because you can field more wvw players? Its not my fault 100’s of anonymous players want to pve. No matter how much William Wallace rallying I do, I still cant pull enough extra people int o make a difference.
And why woud you want to ROFLSTOMP other server because of population? Ive been that server blowing out the other 2 servers, its boring as hell.
The best fights are the ones that are close to even as possible. And why wouldn’t you want a system that can make this happen?
Yes, like removing the 7th gear from the Bugatti Veiron because in a race with other cars is too fast.
Sorry but it’s your server. You choose that server freely, so it’s your fault if you don’t do anything. I changed server 2 times with my guild.
I play with a 20-25 players alliance, and when we meet THE BLOB, we run away, we search for the right place position, we TALK with other guilds on the server for a countermeasure, and capturing other places.
I do WvW with a small 5 player team too, and we just try to take the ruins, or camps, no more.
For me with Bloodlust it’s far better, the blob must split himself if they want to take the bloodlust bonus and lose precious time.
I don’t know what ROFLSTOMP are you talking about but, if you want to play WvW seriuosly and you are in a PvE server, why don’t you just change server or create an alliance?
It’s not that complicated, believe me. I was thinking it could be done client side rather than on the server. All they would need to do is take a small scan every five to ten seconds for player characters. If that number is less than twenty, don’t do anything. However, if it is greater, then activate the debuff. Simple as that.
Also, with the limits removed, I ran the numbers of y=1.06^(20-x) equation to simulate the effectiveness. In a 35 people zerg, players would have 42% of their original stats while a lone player would have 303%! The numbers can always be played with to get the result you want, but at the end of the day, the zerg will eventually disappear.
Now I know you don’t have a clue what you’re proposing. Go ahead and do the calculation client side … the EFFECT of the constantly changing buff needs to be reapplied to everyone on all sides of the battle. That’s every bit as taxing to the game engine as if the calculation was done server-side.
Maybe I don’t have a clue, but this is when somebody who does has experience in that field takes my suggestion and actually works it out. It could be a bit much for the server, but how would we know until we tested it? Perhaps they should focus on optimizing their game first.
So if my server play WvW more than your server, i must have a debuff, why?!?
Why i must be debuffed if your server love farming Sunless more than going in WvW?
I personnaly don’t like being buffed or debuffed in a PvP venue (but that’s just me)
A more fundemental question is: if your server plays WvW more than my server, then why is your server being matched with my server (for the sake of variety)?
@OP, adjusting the buff doesn’t address the main problem of population imbalance, and unhealthy lack of competition.
Anet would need to completely change how scoring is done to disincentivize server stacking.
A minor tweak suggestion Anet could do. Extend the timer for PPT tick by say x3 so camps/towers/keeps etc are not the dominant metric for scores.
This gives lower WvW pop servers that can maybe field 1 map and some change of players a chance against say a T1 server since field combat becomes the main scoring metric. It allows smaller servers to critical mass at least 1 map to remain competitive without having huge off hour blowouts in the score.
Alternatively, Anet could just open up Global battle servers, and let all time zones critical mass them 24/7. It really depends on what the vision on WvW is intended to be.
As ANet as said around 100 times, they will not add stat buffs for being outnumbered, outmanned or in any direct correlation to the number of people who have on a map, because it will lead to griefing. People harassing others to leave so they can get 50 more stats will happen and that’s the reason the famed “Orb to Outnumbered buff” argument never goes anywhere.
This is totally conjecture and a pretty ridiculous reason not to even try it. They are so apt to bring up the stat buffs for bloodlust are experimental and not set in stone. Why not try bigger buffs for outnumbered for a couple of days? You don’t see this type of behavior with large scale events like tequatl, where some types of characters are actually a detriment.
As ANet as said around 100 times, they will not add stat buffs for being outnumbered, outmanned or in any direct correlation to the number of people who have on a map, because it will lead to griefing. People harassing others to leave so they can get 50 more stats will happen and that’s the reason the famed “Orb to Outnumbered buff” argument never goes anywhere.
This is totally conjecture and a pretty ridiculous reason not to even try it. They are so apt to bring up the stat buffs for bloodlust are experimental and not set in stone. Why not try bigger buffs for outnumbered for a couple of days? You don’t see this type of behavior with large scale events like tequatl, where some types of characters are actually a detriment.
Because Teq is a farce, has kittenty drops and all you need to do is participate a few times for the wings then you’re done? Make it drop a guaranteed pre-cursor on kill, then tell me if the behavior changes.
kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten
Because censorship is the most important part of the MMO business.
Because Teq is a farce, has kittenty drops and all you need to do is participate a few times for the wings then you’re done? Make it drop a guaranteed pre-cursor on kill, then tell me if the behavior changes.
Oh, I forgot pre-cursors dropped on every kill in wvw. Thanks for the reminder.
Because Teq is a farce, has kittenty drops and all you need to do is participate a few times for the wings then you’re done? Make it drop a guaranteed pre-cursor on kill, then tell me if the behavior changes.
Oh, I forgot pre-cursors dropped on every kill in wvw. Thanks for the reminder.
There is something to fight for in the minds of many, even if the reality is that you are fighting for the server on which the data of fictional characters (that aren’t really yours) on “your” account (which isn’t really yours either, try to sell it for proof) is hosted on, to which they attached a lore-like name for presentation. So what you fight for your delusion of pride, if you are that far gone and beyond hope.
On Tequatl, well, in most PvE instances, there is no delusion of pride unless it gives you something to show off that will be a rare sight, which that fight doesn’t give. Given the fact you can’t really organize the group you will have, have no control over it, and can’t actually prepare for it, most people just have the “hope I get lucky” mindset, which is actually very destructive for a game, but it is the path ANet chose. Try going on a turret and keep spamming 3,4,5 on yourself… if you really need proof that there is no reason to care since you cannot control your surroundings.
kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten kitten
Because censorship is the most important part of the MMO business.
It’s not that complicated, believe me. I was thinking it could be done client side rather than on the server. All they would need to do is take a small scan every five to ten seconds for player characters. If that number is less than twenty, don’t do anything. However, if it is greater, then activate the debuff. Simple as that.
Also, with the limits removed, I ran the numbers of y=1.06^(20-x) equation to simulate the effectiveness. In a 35 people zerg, players would have 42% of their original stats while a lone player would have 303%! The numbers can always be played with to get the result you want, but at the end of the day, the zerg will eventually disappear.
Now I know you don’t have a clue what you’re proposing. Go ahead and do the calculation client side … the EFFECT of the constantly changing buff needs to be reapplied to everyone on all sides of the battle. That’s every bit as taxing to the game engine as if the calculation was done server-side.
Maybe I don’t have a clue, but this is when somebody who does has experience in that field takes my suggestion and actually works it out. It could be a bit much for the server, but how would we know until we tested it? Perhaps they should focus on optimizing their game first.
The problem is the game engine … it simply isn’t capable to do what you are proposing. I’m not saying your proposal is a “bad idea” … I’m saying it is not possible to incorporate it. Devon has already explicitly stated that they cannot even relax the AoE cap simply because the archaic game engine they built GW2 around cannot handle it, and he went on to state that there is zero chance they will be able to address those limitations (i.e., they will not recode the game to a modern game engine).
D/D Thief who prefers mobility to stealth … so yeah, I die a lot
Stormbluff Isle [AoD]
