Guild Wars 2

1.) Kill Capacity: Similar to the existing World Bloodlust Buff, except as something you put into with your WxP points as an individual player.

It would need to activate as a stomp-only bonus, like the World Bloodlust Buff, so players running massive zergs/blobs couldn’t easily abuse it by simply cleaving down enemies, or utilize siege to farm players. I think this and other related balances could possibly help promote more skillful play amongst smaller groups, guild groups, and roamers, rather than encourage zerging to be effective as currently “Conquest” is our main source of point accumulation. This, as opposed to the Bloodlust Buff, would also give solo or duo roamers a more rewarding experience for contributing further to their world, without having to waste time standing in a circle for a minute to maybe get a buff that someone could just as easily decap after they leave.

2.) Distribution: How many points one could accumulate, as in points gained via stomping another enemy player, couldn’t be anything high so as to avoid potential exploits and abuse. Perhaps something similar to Supply Capacity in both cumulative totals as well as points put in to your World Ability traits.

For example:
1 – 30+ World Ability Points – Increases kill capacity by 1
2 – 60+ World Ability Points – Increases kill capacity by 2 (total)
3 – 90+ World Ability Points – Increases kill capacity by 3 (total)

90 ranks for new people in WvW, if you’re a regular, is pretty easy to get in my opinion even as a roamer. This will reduce the amount of complaint from “Fairweather” players that it’s not fair they don’t automatically gain this buff. These numbers, however, have just been grabbed out of the air, and an argument could be made that may necessitate their values to be higher. If low-ranked individuals claim these numbers are too high, they should be reminded that their usefulness is directly connected to the rest of the server, and that perhaps other within the server should help them gain the ranks needed to apply Kill Capacity (if they desire it), which will help develop stronger communication and community alike.

So assuming maximum Kill Capacity, which is 3 pts. per stomp, and the World Bloodlust Buff is active:
1 – 4 pts to World Score per stomp with Minor World Bloodlust Buff.
2 – 5 pts to World Score per stomp with Major World Bloodlust Buff.
3 – 6 pts to World Score per stomp with Superior World Bloodlust Buff.

3.) Direct Balancing: You could even go so far as to balance it so that it’s only available to use if the existing World Bloodlust Buff is up for your world, at least one out of the three. The World Bloodlust Buff would need some polishing, perhaps putting it into a separate instance altogether, in this idea to make it more of an achievement to attain rather than a slightly coordinated variation of conquest.

Here’s why: This balancing would help break down the mistaken assumption that it, the PpK system, would promote nothing but blobbing and Karma-training; the requisite for World Bloodlust has always been about having smaller groups or solo players capping them to efficiently gain a buff for your world without arbitrarily derailing the momentum of the main force. By giving further incentive to keep the World Bloodlust Buff activated, this would require servers with larger numbers to distribute their forces across the map, effectively breaking up the roaming-blobs.

It is not a perfect solution; With large scale cooperation between Roamers, Duo-Roamers, Havoc Squads, Map-Hoppers, and Zergs alike, since it would require cooperation from all of them and stress the importance of organization further, the World Bloodlust Buff would have a deeper significance to lower end tiers, or servers with smaller numbers but multiple skilled groups, that are forced to “blob” to be effective with what little resources are available to them. This would be on the right track to pull WvW from the sole focus of Conquest-PpT, which seems to have been very bland for quite some time.

It is a small change, but I truly believe it is on the right-to-do list of improvement we would not only like to see, but assuredly need to keep WvW alive and refreshed.

4.) Extended Balances: Other suggestions to increase the balance of this particular system, as well as provide long-lasting benefits and experience to WvW entirely, would bring closure to some of the most frequent and irritating issues we face in WvW. These suggestions will also aid in pulling the away the sole focus of Conquest-PpT.

• Disallowing players to rez fully downed allies while in combat:*
  This may seem as though it will lead to less engagements, but one of the biggest complaints is that large numbers do not equate to great skill. Skilled groups of WvW players can easily take down large groups of double their size, but the mass of numbers allows for the large group to simply hard-rez their downed allies with nothing more than a “Downed Penalty” state if they are downed a number of times afterwards.

• Waypointing spiked players to their current Border Waypoint upon being spiked:*
  This will reduce the amount of players that can be left open field for rezzing after being spiked to avoid some players from simply disengaging from combat, or having a team that will not engage, to come in and rez downed allies without penalty.

Also decreasing the timer to 1:00 (one minute) on the fully downed player state in WvW. Downed players should feel a true penalty for their defeat and take efforts to engage not more cautiously, but more tactfully, in hopes that this will courage more skillful play and more rewarding experiences for skillful players.

• Disallowing players to rally off of anything other than Enemy Players/Guards/Lords in WvW:*
  This can and will prevent the dauntless task of multiple enemies being able to rally after a near defeat by simply tapping a local animal or bug enough times to gain an effective rally. Defeat should not be taken up lightly, on any scale of numbers doing the fighting.

5.) Additional Balances: These are some balance changes that have been suggested but lack specific details or reasons so far. They are an incomplete progression and are procuredly one-sided at the moment.

• Extending period Waypoint timers on an attacked objective to keep defenders from “Rez-Rushing”:*

• Requiring a minimum number of defenders to neutralize the “flip” on an attacked objective’s circle:*

• Disallowing groups of players to destroy a gate below 50% without the use of Siege:*

There are pros and cons to all of this, but as I said in another post, this just seems to be on the right track towards overall improvement, and something we should strive for as gamers, rather than separate servers, guilds, or players. I am open to suggestions on possible improvements.

1.-3. My only hesitation arises from the concern that this would prompt more flak being given to new players, or otherwise awkwardly attempting to assign stomps to certain people. (“No, let General Jim do it; he’s rank 3!”) If tied to WvW rank, it sort of becomes a necessary first priority and a (admittedly low) barrier for entry.

However, I am very much in favor of making stomps more valuable than they currently are, as it promotes risk taking, rewards knowledgeable play, and encourages engagements on a medium scale — everyone tends to be cleaved to defeat at the blob level.

4a. Preventing in-combat hard-resurrection would have disastrous consequences for PvE, and I dislike implementing core-systemic changes to balance one game mode (it may also not be easy to do, let alone the confusion it could cause (and yes, I would suggest that would be one of the few instances wherein a new player could be legitimately confused)).

I understand the frustration — I’ve been on the losing side of it many times. What if we were to combine the ideas? Perhaps a stomped player could not be resurrected by anyone in combat. This a) encourages stomping (good for the reasons listed above), but b) still allows a side to raise the fallen after a victory. This does permit, as you note, players staying out of combat for the sole purpose of rezzing the defeated, but every would-be battlefield medic is not otherwise contributing much to the cause, and it is furthermore fairly simple to engage them in combat. If even with enemies downed you are being pushed far enough away that you can no longer hit the dead, maybe they’re fair game for the rub. I could see it either way, though.

(Is this readily coded, however? How much of a distinction does the game make now between stomps and accumulated-damage defeats?)

Shorter timer, yes.

4b. Count me opposed, even as someone who has had victory snatched away by untimely animal deaths. I consider it wise application, not exploitation, of the game mechanics and sound use of the environment. I could be in the minority on this.

Ocosh.5843:

1.-3. My only hesitation arises from the concern that this would prompt more flak being given to new players, or otherwise awkwardly attempting to assign stomps to certain people. (“No, let General Jim do it; he’s rank 3!”) If tied to WvW rank, it sort of becomes a necessary first priority and a (admittedly low) barrier for entry.

Good point and great start. I hadn’t taken into consideration the possibility of new players. AS far as the assignment to stomps go, that’s generally dependent on how or who you may be running with. In my personal experiences with varying skill groups, we usually assigned certain people in our core as dedicated spikers of the enemy; generally it would be a thief or engineer.

However I do understand that implementing this as a tie to WvW rank would make it a priority, which is part of the focus to encourage people that do want to roam or run skill groups, instead of having to focus on PPT, that they can just as equally contribute by taking out an enemy force as they can capping a tower or several camps while remaining on the move.

Perhaps I was too idealistic in that respect though.

Ocosh.5843:

However, I am very much in favor of making stomps more valuable than they currently are, as it promotes risk taking, rewards knowledgeable play, and encourages engagements on a medium scale — everyone tends to be cleaved to defeat at the blob level.

Agreed. That is the sole representation of why spiking opponents should be prioritized. The proposed issue with people being awkwardly assigned having to spike, or arguments on who will spike, etc. will work itself out with time, much like it did with the World Bloolust buff in the beginning.

Ocosh.5843:

4a. Preventing in-combat hard-resurrection would have disastrous consequences for PvE, and I dislike implementing core-systemic changes to balance one game mode (it may also not be easy to do, let alone the confusion it could cause (and yes, I would suggest that would be one of the few instances wherein a new player could be legitimately confused)).

I agree with the general fact that it could be confusing to new players. I do suppose since there is already an in-combat healing penalty, which already reduces your healing while engaged, it would perhaps be equally as plausible that they could place a sterner healing restriction on that function rather than take it away altogether. Even go so far as to reduce the amount of players down from the current number to perhaps two or three?

Ocosh.5843:

I understand the frustration — I’ve been on the losing side of it many times. What if we were to combine the ideas? Perhaps a stomped player could not be resurrected by anyone in combat. This a) encourages stomping (good for the reasons listed above), but b) still allows a side to raise the fallen after a victory. This does permit, as you note, players staying out of combat for the sole purpose of rezzing the defeated, but every would-be battlefield medic is not otherwise contributing much to the cause, and it is furthermore fairly simple to engage them in combat. If even with enemies downed you are being pushed far enough away that you can no longer hit the dead, maybe they’re fair game for the rub. I could see it either way, though.

Good suggestion. The combination of ideas has a solid foundation and an equable balance.

Ocosh.5843:

Shorter timer, yes.

Right? Lol.

Ocosh.5843:

4b. Count me opposed, even as someone who has had victory snatched away by untimely animal deaths. I consider it wise application, not exploitation, of the game mechanics and sound use of the environment. I could be in the minority on this.

I personally don’t run into this problem as much as other people claim to. Generally the rallies from enemies come from the engagements we are involved in, which can run anywhere from 10-25 on either side. I don’t typically roam, or run groups smaller than ten, it’s just not my cup of tea. I would like to see something done about it in the future though to help reduce the amount of problems it causes. My best example is if you’re fighting someone, have them downed, and a near-by animal or bug is low on health; say a friend comes in to help, and starts cleaving the enemy, while haphazardly hitting the now aggro mob, accidentally killing them, giving the enemy player a rally.

Maybe instead of removing it entirely, entitle the rally to the downed player only if they are granted the killing strike from their downed state? Would that seem fair?