Guild Wars 2

1. Snowballing: The Bloodlust cross-map stat buff makes dominant servers even more dominant, and is difficult for the underdog/s to neutralize/steal due to the required mechanic of decap -> neutralize -> cap -> hold 2m (with 2m warning appearing on enemy screens).

2. GvG: Whenever Bloodlust is active on any one BL it applies its staff buff across all maps, making GvG impossible across all maps.

Snowballing

The only situation where Bloodlust is interesting is in roughly equal matchups where there can be constant flipping of the buff. But not all matchups are roughly equal, especially with the new match randomization system in place.

Prior to Bloodlust, there is still fun to be had when you’re getting dominated simply by forgetting PPT and going out and fighting hard against larger numbers and/or better skill/experience, knowing at least that equal stat points more effectively allocated and better team organization and coordination can still win against larger forces. You get better, get some bragging rights, and still have fun.

But vs a dominant server with Bloodlust across all three BL’s giving every enemy player on every map up to +150 to all stats, only the truly hardcore challenge seekers on the dominated servers will remain. Others will increasingly say, “what’s the point”, and sit the week out. This isn’t ideal for building the WvW player base.

GvG

GvG’ers are some of the game’s most rabid fans. I have no idea what portion of the overall player base they compose, probably a very small one, but their outsized enthusiasm for and commitment to the game is not something to take lightly.

They’ve created a flourishing Youtube scene, and their own league and ladder. Something similar has also happened with the sPvP Esports community. It’s clear that the combat mechanics in GW2 are supremely fun, both in small scale sPvP and large scale GvG, enough to inspire these folks to stick with the game and build up the PvP aspects of it despite some lingering post-launch shortcomings.

Missed Opportunities?

ANet has a chance to lock them in as long-term players, even when other promising upcoming MMORPG’s launch. One of the lessons in the tech startup scene of late is, when in your search for a business model you stumble upon something that inspires such customer dedication and loyalty, run with it, support it, cultivate it, develop it – even if it wasn’t part of your original plan. Pivot. Don’t ignore and alienate it.

I’m concerned the new Bloodlust changes could accomplish the latter, rather than former, without really gaining anything notable for the cost. I hope not, and won’t know for sure till playing it, but make this post in the hopes it at least gets on ANet’s radar, in case the worst case does play out, they’ll be willing to consider pivoting again and changing it.

kurtosis.9526:

Promising upcoming MMORPG’s like EQ:Next launch.

Yup, but its a PvE(X) game. When someone thinks about Everquest, they think excellent (if not a little bit frustrating) PvE.

kurtosis.9526:

Promising upcoming MMORPG’s like ESO launch.

Hahaha, no.

You’re missing the forest for the trees, mate. There are other MMORPG’s in the works, those were just the first two examples off the top of my head.

The main point here, is ANet has a chance to lock in a decidedly enthusiastic community, reducing the chance they’ll lose those players to the next truly innovative MMORPG’s.

GW2 broke the mold in a way no other mmorpg has since WoW, but now that they’ve shown it can be done and how, several upcoming ones seem to have taken those lessons to heart and are moving way beyond the WoW mold, both in PvE and PvP design.

Maybe none will outdo GW2, or maybe they all will, or maybe somewhere in between, no way to know. But from a business perspective, pure risk management suggests that if you see a clear way to lock in even a segment of your customer base, especially a rabidly enthusiastic segment, before your competitors can even launch, do it.

Couldn’t agree more with this post.

However, I also feel like it hurts open field fighting outside of GvG. Most of the active WvW guilds do raids and focus primarily on open field combat. This new buff really hurts a large segment of the WvW population by destroying any sense of fairness these fights might’ve had.

The thing that really puzzles me is why ANET wants to alienate a segment of the WvW population at no apparent gain. While the changes to the central map is good, it is not clear what benefits and additional players does adding stat boost bring to WvW, and yet the new addition is quite certain to make people who play GvG/dueling/open field fights unsatisfied.

So ANET, can you tell us what benefits do you guys see by adding stat boost that outweighs its cost of losing a certain segment of player base?

don’t really care about gvg but the whole snowballing thing would be a problem. there are already blowouts in every matchup, usually when a server is losing that badly they just give up and people don’t show up anymore.

the orb buff also gives lower population servers no chance of putting up a fight at all.

Its like they take what would be a good idea and switch the targets thus making it horrible. The contention points help to break up zergs and creates more of the map to fight over. All good things. However they then break this up with a ridiculous stat buff in a game where damage is already higher than healing. Simple and obvious solution. Make the stat buff go to the lower pop servers and increase the point gain for kills by holding all three buffs in zones. Give the incentive to have the buff and fight for it. But give the sides with ultimately the lower population (remember this game isn’t skill based. Its population) a stat buff to be more competitive with lesser numbers.

It’s pretty obvious we’re going to see the snowballing effect — especially when the horribly mis-matched league system goes into effect. I thought snowballing was one of the major problems with the orb mechanic (that and the cheating). Why bring it back?

I don’t even like the stomp-for-points mechanic. We’ll surely see arguments arising when new/up-leveled players get stomped. (We already see complaints of “rally-bots.”)
The last thing we need is for new players to be discouraged upon trying out WvW.

I also think this mechanic is going to cause a lot more Alt-F4’s just before getting stomped.

It should have just been +300% magic find for WvW exclusive skins or something like that.

ParaldaWind.4523:

However, I also feel like it hurts open field fighting outside of GvG. Most of the active WvW guilds do raids and focus primarily on open field combat. This new buff really hurts a large segment of the WvW population by destroying any sense of fairness these fights might’ve had.

I actually think what will happen with open field fighting is, if one side has Bloodlust, the other zerg/s will prioritize attacking their capture points and try to steal the buff – they have no choice.

It will literally turn into a “King of the Mountain” type of PvP, where the defending zerg bunkers on their three cap points and tries to preserve their stat buff at all costs, while the other two zergs try to knock them off.

Havoc groups might try to ninja towers and keeps while the big battle rages around the center points.

Overall the open-field tactics could get a lot more interesting, but evenly-matched GvG, whether organized, or impromptu open field battles, could be a thing of the past.

Reslinal.2359:

The thing that really puzzles me is why ANET wants to alienate a segment of the WvW population at no apparent gain.

Agreed, been scratching my head on that one too. In roughly even matchups, like NA T1, it makes BL tactics and strats a lot more complex and interesting.

But we’re getting fewer and fewer roughly equal matchups, first with the randomization system and soon with the WvW Leagues.

Imbalanced matchups, which we’re getting more of, are going to suck even more with Bloodlust.

I think a better system would have been to do something like:

Bloodlust:

1. The server that has Bloodlust buff gets 1 PPT per stack of BL per stomp (up to 3 stacks, one per BL).

2. The server without Bloodlust gets +50 to all stats, per stack of Bloodlust differential. Eg Red server has 0 Bloodlust stacks, Blue has 1 stack, Green has 2 stacks, so Red gets +100 to all stats, Blue gets +50, Green gets +0.

That would give dominating servers a PPT reward for dominating, but also an increased challenge the more they are dominating – eg, they have to work harder to keep their PPT buff.

And it would give dominated servers more hope and reason to come out and fight against superior odds than they currently have.

That’s good for everyone in that keeps the WvW player base up, while still rewarding winning servers and keeping things challenging and interesting for all sides.

kurtosis.9526:

Bloodlust:
1. The server that has Bloodlust buff gets 1 PPT per stack of BL per stomp (up to 3 stacks, one per BL).
2. The server without Bloodlust gets +50 to all stats (stacks with the Outmanned Bonus if they have that as well).

So you want people to avoid buffing themselves…

What?

The zerg doesn’t care about the +1(3) stomp because they never stomp to begin with, so you’re basically telling the zerg to ignore the nodes, reap massive benefits for ignoring them, and then win more.

The stomp bonus is relevant especially for small scale combat where stomping is key; to give said players a penalty for fighting over said buff which only they truly reap benefits from (while perplexedly rewarding zergers ignoring the buff) seems completely self-defeating and pointless.

The entire design (the nodes decapping themselves if left unattended, the need to maintain control for the buff, no reward for capping, etc) is on-paper intended to reward small teams and punish just zerging around in circles.

Malachi.1836:

Simple and obvious solution. Make the stat buff go to the lower pop servers and increase the point gain for kills by holding all three buffs in zones. Give the incentive to have the buff and fight for it. But give the sides with ultimately the lower population (remember this game isn’t skill based. Its population) a stat buff to be more competitive with lesser numbers.

Yes, exactly! PPT gain to the server with the Bloodlust buff, stat buffs to the server/s without. That would balance incentives of all sides very well, mitigate the population imbalance problem, and keep things interesting even for dominant servers against weaker/lower pop ones.

Vena.8436:

The zerg doesn’t care about the +1(3) stomp because they never stomp to begin with, so you’re basically telling the zerg to ignore the nodes, reap massive benefits for ignoring them, and then win more.

Zergs generally don’t stomp till the fight is decided, but after that they sure as heck do, or if they see an opportunity to end a fight or revive their own downed with a Timewarp/Quickness stomp. It happens.

Vena.8436:

The stomp bonus is relevant especially for small scale combat where stomping is key; to give said players a penalty for fighting over said buff which only they truly reap benefits from (while perplexedly rewarding zergers ignoring the buff) seems completely self-defeating and pointless.

From what I’ve observed, weaker/lower pop servers are more likely to resort to small scale havoc groups and roamers, and they’re exactly the ones who would benefit a great deal from a stat buff – give the smaller side higher stats so that the stronger/more populated side will have work harder to kill them. If the latter can still succeed at it, they reap the reward of increased PPT from it.

The weaker side is better enabled to take on a stronger side, which actually keeps the game fun for both sides, while still maintaining incentive (in the form of PPT) for the stronger side.

Vena.8436:

The entire design (the nodes decapping themselves if left unattended, the need to maintain control for the buff, no reward for capping, etc) is on-paper intended to reward small teams and punish just zerging around in circles.

The thing is, with the 2m warning, I’m afraid zergs will just map hop to the BL they’re about to lose the Bloodlust buff on and wipe the small team trying to ninja it. 2m is plenty of time for that.

It’s only if another zerg is ninja’ing the buff that the map hopping zerg might be thwarted. So I don’t see how small teams are going to be very effective at this, as long as there’s one map hopping zerg around to jump in and wipe them. Which means the incentive is still there to zerg, and zergs will just shift some or all of their focus to fighting over the buff more than towers and keeps.

It would be interesting if zergs switched completely to attacking and defending the mid points for the buff, while leaving camp/tower/keep assaults up to havoc squads and roamers.

kurtosis.9526:

Zergs generally don’t stomp till the fight is decided, but after that they sure as heck do, or if they see an opportunity to end a fight or revive their own downed with a Timewarp/Quickness stomp. It happens.

In general they just AoE down, people die to residual effects far more than any stomp when two zergs collide, the bigger the zerg the less stomping ever occurs. Stomping becomes more and more integral the less people that become involved in a fight.

kurtosis.9526:

From what I’ve observed, weaker/lower pop servers are more likely to resort to small scale havoc groups and roamers, and they’re exactly the ones who would benefit a great deal from a stat buff – give the smaller side higher stats so that the stronger/more populated side will have work harder to kill them. If the latter can still succeed at it, they reap the reward of increased PPT from it.

The weaker side is better enabled to take on a stronger side, which actually keeps the game fun for both sides, while still maintaining incentive (in the form of PPT) for the stronger side.

You don’t seem to understand: the bigger server WILL NOT CAP the points because they don’t need POINTS. They have no reason to care about some +1(3) stomp buff in your scenario because they (a.) already are so much larger that they own all the PPT structures and (b.) are getting a passive buff for ignoring things that would otherwise gain them an inconsequential boost because they are already winning and do not generally stomp if zerging.

You’re not enabling the smaller server because the bigger server will never intentionally capture the points in your scenario. Worst case scenario you make this buff so undesirable that no one will even want to cap it and people will end up getting yelled at for capping it because it hurts your server to cap the kitten ed thing by costing them stat bonuses.

You’re not supposed to design mechanics that cause you to note want to do something in fear of hurting your own server. Thats completely backwards.

Moreover, if the lesser server finds themselves with the +stat buff, why would they ever try to get rid of it?

This is completely baffling.

kurtosis.9526:

The thing is, with the 2m warning, I’m afraid zergs will just map hop to the BL they’re about to lose the Bloodlust buff on and wipe the small team trying to ninja it. 2m is plenty of time for that.

Two minutes to map hop and run half-way across the map? I don’t even…

You realize the points decap on their own if they aren’t babysat, right?

What we need are things that introduce more balance to WvW, not less.
The idea to move Bloodlust to the Outnumbered buff is an excellent example, as that will increase rather than decrease balance on each map.

WvW is inherently unbalanced, if for no other reason than servers almost always have different populations in WvW. (It’s only at reset time, when populations get queued at the server cap, that sever populations in WvW are equal – small wonder this is the most popular time to play WvW, as it’s the only time you can be guaranteed an even match.) Yes, skilled play can surpass numbers. But overall WvW players just aren’t well enough organised to compensate for the advantages that greater population gives (and never will be).

Unfortunately, the impending Bloodlust implementation will reward migration to the most successful WvW servers, which will increase rather than decrease the imbalance between servers.

Anet, please monitor the impact the Bloodlust buff itself has on WvW balance, both immediately on WvW maps, and long term on overall WvW match-up balance and diversity.

Good post and points. I didn’t even know there were people trying to do GvG!!

Vena.8436:

You don’t seem to understand: the bigger server WILL NOT CAP the points because they don’t need POINTS.

You’re not enabling the smaller server because the bigger server will never intentionally capture the points in your scenario.

+4 stacks of might, +7% crit chance, +150 Toughtness, Vitality and Healing, ongoing, for everyone on your server. That level of buff is worth picking up, so they will.

kurtosis.9526:

You realize the points decap on their own if they aren’t babysat, right?

Once you’ve got the buff, you only lose it if an opposing server picks it up. The opposing side has to cap three points to do this, which makes jumping back to the map to stop them capping a third point relatively simple (lets not forget the team that jumps back to do this also has the Bloodlust buff running).

If you’re the biggest server then logic says you’d swarm cap the buff on all three BLs and then keep a small ninja team active spoiling any attempts to capture it back.

ParaldaWind.4523:

Couldn’t agree more with this post.

However, I also feel like it hurts open field fighting outside of GvG. Most of the active WvW guilds do raids and focus primarily on open field combat. This new buff really hurts a large segment of the WvW population by destroying any sense of fairness these fights might’ve had.

It hurts any fighting in WvW, not just open field, but anything from a solo roamer to a small group, all the way up to large zergs or GvG. As well and including fights inside keeps, or anywhere on the map.

Once you get in a bad matchup with vast over-population on one side, one of the few remaining things you can do to maintain interest is avoid the opposing zergs and travel in a small team or even by yourself and see what kind of fights you can drum up, while dodging the big stupid zergs. But now that the over populated – and already winning easily – side, is likely to have every one of their players at +150 to all stats, even these forms of entertaining yourself in a lopsided match just get way more difficult.

Zenguy.6421:

If you’re the biggest server then logic says you’d swarm cap the buff on all three BLs and then keep a small ninja team active spoiling any attempts to capture it back.

No doubt, the buff is well worth having and the bigger pop side will want it and will defend it. To think otherwise is ludicrous.

Much of the time a vastly outnumbering server just wants people to kill, and considering they will get a message as soon as their control of the ruins is threatened, you can bet they will be sending a force there.

Any idea that this a mechanic to help the underdog is cocamamie.

Welcome to Project Kill Your Own Game Part III.

Part 1: AC Buff
Part 2: Randomized Matchups
Part 3: Bloodlust stat buff

Thrumdi.9216:

Welcome to Project Kill Your Own Game Part III.

Part 1: AC Buff
Part 2: Randomized Matchups
Part 3: Bloodlust stat buff

Part 4: Ban all the guilds doing GvG

Anet created their dream WvW, servers with the most players win. No skill involved, everyone can jump straight in and does not have to worry about smaller groups wiping them.

Pendragon.8735:

Any idea that this a mechanic to help the underdog is cocamamie.

Did someone actually say this would support the underdog?
Whoever said that can’t have thought this through very far. As we’ve been explaining for months here, providing a reward that directly buffs combat effectiveness benefits the strongest servers ahead of the weaker ones, even when it’s spread out across three different maps.

If supporting the underdog really is part of the intention for this, then it must be a very small part. The only underdogs it will potentially help are those on low population match-ups, and even there it all they’re likely to get out of this is their own 1/3 of the buff.

The scale of benefit gained from the buff and the ease with which recapping can be spoiled all point to a system designed for the strongest server to cap and hold the full buff.

I must agree about the snowballing. At the end of the day, the server that is already the strongest will take the buff most or all of the time.

Also, it’s a huge buff; each stack makes every member of the realm about 8% more powerful, which is large enough to swing a 1v1 between two people of equal build and skill almost every time.

A simple solution to the snowballing problem is to make bloodlust map-specific. Ie. If you hold the bloodlust buff on Green Borderlands, only your players on Green Borderlands get +stats or points on stomp. The fact that another server has the buff on Blue Borderlands would make no difference, except on Blue Borderlands.

The reason for this is obvious: when there’s a considerable disparity in coverage, the server with fewer numbers will generally try and concentrate their forces on 1 or 2 maps, so they can at least have a fighting chance there. Maybe you’re going to lose the week’s matchup, but at least you can have fun in a relatively equal environment while you play, because (of course) each server can only fit X amount of players per map. With Bloodlust stacks being global, not contesting one borderlands means you already have a disadvantage on every other map. If it were map specific, you’d be able to to at least have some control over what buffs your enemy gets (even if you don’t have it yourself, you have the chance to).

Recall that the server(s) with the greater coverage will be getting their usual ppt from the maps not contested by the smaller server. But at least the larger servers wouldn’t get global stat buffs in addition to that.

Zenguy.6421:

Vena.8436:

You don’t seem to understand: the bigger server WILL NOT CAP the points because they don’t need POINTS.

You’re not enabling the smaller server because the bigger server will never intentionally capture the points in your scenario.

+4 stacks of might, +7% crit chance, +150 Toughtness, Vitality and Healing, ongoing, for everyone on your server. That level of buff is worth picking up, so they will.

You might want to read the discussion because it has nothing to do with the real buff but the poster who I quoted’s idea to make the orb buff grant +1(3) bonus points on kills if you have it, and +50 stats to everyone/anyone who does have it.

I know what it does in reality.