Guild Wars 2

Mainly unwilling to commit to a game is the main reason on my part.

As a thief mainer. I don’t mind this.

It was stated in an interview that they added Ascended because Exotic proved too trivially easy to attain, which I can agree with, especially after you get your first 80. They wanted Ascended to have that final accomplishment feel that Exotics failed to attain.

It better have clothes hanger antennas.

15%. Haven’t really made it my mission to get it, and just started second year in college.

There has been a lot of talk lately about players wanting WvW to become a competitive PvP mode, and it leads me to wonder, do people really know all the needs to be changed if they want WvW to become a serious competitive PvP mode, and if they did know, would they still think it’s worth the costs?

There’s some huge changes that’d need to be made, the biggest of all being coverage. Coverage and population if by far the biggest hurdle between WvW being casual and competitive. The vast differences in WvW populations is where almost all the balance problems in WvW come from. Be is Bloodlust, skill lag, spawn camping, blobbing or blowouts.

Unfortunately, the only way to fix this is to somehow spread the WvW population evenly across all servers. Which can be achieved in many ways but all are either high cost or unreliable. Anet could arbitrarily assign players to servers, but the uproar of relocating the entire game’s population shows why that wouldn’t be a popular idea. They could incentivize transferring, but that’s almost guaranteed to fail. They could lower the player cap to the lowest common denominator, but that’ll get a similar reaction to forced relocation. Lastly, they could also limit the time WvW it open, which would be an enormous middle finger to Oceanic players, and alike. Scaling the stats of outnumbers servers would prove problematic; it’s a pipedream to create a powerscaling system that would make every uneven fight in WvW fair.

Next is the general equipment level of the players. WvW allows fresh out spawn players to partake of it. It also has 6 tiers of equipment at the top level. To make WvW competitive they’d need to standardize the gear in a similar way to SPvP, change all gear to match the stats of a certain level, or block all gear that isn’t of a certain quality, say Exotic. They’d also likely either have the ax the uplevels, if they want people bringing their own gear, or pretty much turn WvW into large format SPvP. They’d likely also want to get rid of foods.

In closing I ask again, is it turning WvW into a fully competitive game mode worth the sacrifices that would have to be made to achieve it?
We’ve already lost the only place where you could use PvE consumables against other players, do we really want to lose everything else that makes WvW unique?

Esuni.2498:

you need to hold 3 points for 2 minutes, the zerg can get there within 30 seconds, good luck

Coordinate and use multi pronged strikes where ever the zerg isn’t. /sigh
It’s like tactics and strategy is completely lost on the masses.

SykkoB.9465:

Dual.8953:

KaMiKaZe.1874:

rfdarko.4639:

I don’t know if speculative feedback was really wanted for this – and I expect it’s because they knew it would be controversial. The full details of the buff were released something like 3 weeks before its release? No time at all to make any substantive change. We will just have to see how it plays out – its less than a week before release, nothing will be altered at this point. If it does end up a disaster, we can all say “I told you so”, or maybe we’ll all be plesantly surprised. At this point, since the mechanic will go in regardless, it’s probably better to save our arguing till we see what the actual effects are, rather than what we guess they will be.

Its not really speculations, we had this buff once and it turned out to be massive fail. The strong became stronger, the weak became weaker.

There should not be any buffs that affects gameplay with stats. Then they might well make so your characters aren’t level 80 in sPvP and matchup a level 10 with lvl 80, cause thats how wvw RNG matchups are

They wanted it back, obviously and want to see how it plays now that the buff is way harder to defend. No more locking the orbs in fully upgraded keep and calling it a day.
With bloodlust being such high maintenance this time around, I wouldn’t be surprised if servers would reserve grabbing the buff for big pushes. This would also act as an early warning to defenders.

Its only harder to defend if populations/coverage r close, wich they r not, so its gonna end the same way the orbs did before.

If the server can muster 2 or 3 small groups, they can easily steal the buff portion on thier BL, by finding which points are least well defended. You don’t have to fight thier main force head on to steal the buff, it could become a game of keep away.

KaMiKaZe.1874:

rfdarko.4639:

I don’t know if speculative feedback was really wanted for this – and I expect it’s because they knew it would be controversial. The full details of the buff were released something like 3 weeks before its release? No time at all to make any substantive change. We will just have to see how it plays out – its less than a week before release, nothing will be altered at this point. If it does end up a disaster, we can all say “I told you so”, or maybe we’ll all be plesantly surprised. At this point, since the mechanic will go in regardless, it’s probably better to save our arguing till we see what the actual effects are, rather than what we guess they will be.

Its not really speculations, we had this buff once and it turned out to be massive fail. The strong became stronger, the weak became weaker.

There should not be any buffs that affects gameplay with stats. Then they might well make so your characters aren’t level 80 in sPvP and matchup a level 10 with lvl 80, cause thats how wvw RNG matchups are

They wanted it back, obviously and want to see how it plays now that the buff is way harder to defend. No more locking the orbs in fully upgraded keep and calling it a day.
With bloodlust being such high maintenance this time around, I wouldn’t be surprised if servers would reserve grabbing the buff for big pushes. This would also act as an early warning to defenders.

Justdeifyme.9387:

We have that. It’s called a suggestion forum.

Anet does read here, just because they can’t answer to everything doesn’t mean they’re not reading.

I know, the difference is if they put it as an ingame feature, no one who plays would be able to say “the devs don’t listen”

Just an idea. What if there was a game wide voting system put in place do ask players about possible additions to future patches. It’d be implemented in the form of a prompt that’d appear to all players, and their inputs would be tallied. It may slow down production speed, however as a plus it could increase community communications, and possibly place some liability on the community for decisions made.

Istaf.1953:

lordkrall.7241:

And how many percentage of the WvW community does that guild make up?
1? 0,5?
The point is that it will be more or less impossible to truthfully claim to know what the majority of the community want, since the majority will never make their voices heard. One can however assume that the majority of those that makes their voices heard are those that are unhappy.

The point is saying “Oh well, the forums don’t make up the WvW community as a whole” is a two way street. Sure, there are some people not posting here that like the buff, but, there are also people who aren’t posting and don’t like it. Besides, whats the point of even having forums if everything posted here is irrelevant, simply because not everyone is posting ?

We could be discussing strategies and making guides and stuff. This isn’t strictly a feedback forum.

moronwmachinegun.3815:

Some ideas:

1. How about adding a speed boost to the Outnumbered stat? Something that stacks with the player’s current boosts. This would help with a couple of problems. It doesn’t have to be large, maybe 10%. Enough that someone using sigils can outrun someone using a speed booster. This would make it easier to break out when spawncamped, and give you time to race to a supply camp etc to raid it.

2. Grant extra supply carrying capacity, or make each supply count 2x as much when used. Smaller teams could then build siege faster.

3. Grant the buff with a certain minimum amount of time, with a timer requirement before applying and a cooldown when it expires. So you must be outnumbered for at least 2 minutes before you get a guaranteed minimum 30 minute buff. At the same time post a message to the server similar to the banner we get when Scarlett’s minions attack, saying that you’re outnumbered in WvW and need help. Once your timer expires or the pop limit is hit, put it on cooldown for at least 30 minutes. This would discourage servers mass-leaving just to get the buff. This would also limit the maximum the banners would show up to once per hour worst-case.

Doesn’t sound too bad. I might add the measure: Exsess supplies dissappears if you leave the map.

FrouFrou.4958:

DevonCarver.5370:

insanemaniac.2456:

why we wont see a useful outnumbered buff:

scenario — player enters map where his server has outnumbered. server loses outnumbered. other players harass him to leave so server can be stronger.

Correct. The idea behind the buff is to incentivize you to show up even if you are outnumbered by pulling out some of the disincentive for losing a lot, but if we put anything too good on it, it will cause serious problems between players. We don’t want it to be something that people fight over, harass each other over, or generally cause a worse play experience because someone takes away the buff because it is our goal for the maps to be full and for no one to have the buff.

With that logic, why would you buff the already strong team with stat boosts then (bloodlust)? Why would the outnumbered people even log on when they get magic find, while the opposite server gets buffs that helps them to spawn camp and make sure no one leaves the base other than by logging off and forgetting about wubwub alltogether?

Bloodlust is neutral and easy to neutralize. If you’re getting outnumbered, why would you want to go against an even more populated server next round?

Cactus.2710:

Phrixscreoth.6895:

JayMack.8295:

Where it starts getting stupid, though, is when it’s not at all constructive. When I see posts like, “these devs are incompetent and should hang themselves.” or, “I demand you do (x) or I’m gonna quit.” is when it crosses a line. If someone spoke to me like that physically face to face, their complaint would be lost on me immediately and I’d ban them from having anything to do with my business. Their money means little to me if they have the social skills of a gnat.

I feel like… there are a lot of people out there who forget, on some level, that they are talking to another human being who goes through all the same sorts of ups and downs as they do, and as such can’t empathize enough to be able to restrain themselves when they go to say things like that.

Then again there are people like that who will say that even to other people’s faces, but that is a different issue.

Pretend you go to your local electric utility to complain about the frequent outages, or you go to a local store to complain that the lawnmower you just bought doesn’t work as promised, or you go to your local ISP to complain about erratic internet service. You meet face to face with someone on the other side of the counter and they simply ignore you each time you show up. You try to get their attention and you try to convince them that they need to be more communicative but they say almost nothing, do almost nothing, and seem to be working on something else instead of what brought you to them.

Tell me now how empathic and reserved you would be toward that “other human being.”

You’re analogy doesn’t work because this isn’t 1 on 1. This is an enourmous community interfacing with a handful of devs. They aren’t just serving you. Their choices affect way more then just you.

Hickeroar.9734:

Dual.8953:

Dillon.3821:

No! plz dont let the orbs affect stats! I dont care about Wxp or Karma, but dont let it affect other stats!

The fact you don’t care about karma and WXP is precisely why they went for a stat buff. If you don’t care about the buff, you won’t fight over the buff.

People will fight because fighting is fun. :-)

A commander will see an enemy train on the control point and go “nope” and lead his zerg to the camp.
The points would hold zero strategic value, thus wouldn’t be on their radar as a priority target.

I hear yah never. I’ve got pretty much the same stance. Only reason I post here is cause I’m a forum junkie, but I’ve got a similar stance. My guildies always snicker when I mention these boards.

Dillon.3821:

No! plz dont let the orbs affect stats! I dont care about Wxp or Karma, but dont let it affect other stats!

The fact you don’t care about karma and WXP is precisely why they went for a stat buff. If you don’t care about the buff, you won’t fight over the buff.

Tynyss.8237:

They probably want to see how things play out at first.
If it really is as worse as players make it out to be, they will change it in the future, but as seen in previous patches players tend to “overreact” to changes.

Yeah, last week it was ERMAGURD ASCENDED! Then ERMAGURD PVP BALANCE! Then ERMAGURD THIEVES AND WARRIORS! There’s always some hot button fotm topic, and they always simmer down.

Prediction, they’ll release these buffs, there will be some initial outcry, then it’ll simmer down, some tacticians will come up with strategies on how to manage the changes, then everyone will jump on the next ERMAGURD fotm topic.

If it doesn’t, the devs will likely pull the points and we may be left with some pretty, but ultimately useless ruins while they try to figure out what to do.

Care to compare Signet of Shadows to Signet of Air?

Malachi.1836:

GreenAlien.5623:

Well people, you always go on how you want to have zerging reduced, and this is a step in that direction. It favors getting small parties to split off to turn those power points for the main zerg.

Obviously populated servers are getting more out of this, but they are getting more out of anything, so it is not making bad match-ups any worse, while enhancing the game between almost equal opponents.

This. Doesnt. Split. Zergs.

Seriously, stop saying this. The map changes are a good thing but anyone thinking this will do anything but increase the number of scouts around those points once a blob owns them is just blowing hot air. This magical wish of all people looking for WvW fights WILL NEVER HAPPEN because the buff in question isnt removed when you negate the circle but when you take it. Take the buff, IE that massive zerg that can move everywhere on the map in minutes can still make it to you before you get the buff and smash you against the giant wall that is 1 spam.

It is hillarious to read people trying to defend this idea. The individuals who dont see the massive imbalance that is WvW getting that much worse with a buff that is given to servers who just have more people. The biggest problem with NA WvW is the simple fact that everyone transfered to literally 4 servers and the population is so spread out. Numbers are not skill, hitting a wall when people sleep isnt skill, and sitting on siege isn’t skill.

Small groups actually fighting against even odds and relatively balanced fights are skill based. For a supposed PVP game the complete lack of understanding of balance is comical. No fun will ever be had when imbalance is your basic starting point. The only thing that will happen is people will quit.

Just like people quit Pokemon, and Marvel vs Capcom 2, and Smash Bros. Oh wait…

Let us act astounded and disgusted that they did what they said they’d do!!!

In all seriousness, I find people’s reaction on these board face palm worthy. It’s like no one sees the value of strategy and coordination. Only basic number, be it damage or body count. They wouldn’t know a fortifide military base from a hole in the ground. I mean it, the can’t tell the differemce between locking an orb in the center of a fully equipped, fully upgraded keep; and a series of capture point, left in the open where anyone can waltz in.

Istaf.1953:

Dual.8953:

Istaf.1953:

Dual.8953:

Asside from the Tower/Keep buff, no commander will care about those buff to warrant them fighting other commanders over it. The Tower/Keep buff could be argueably worse, allowing the strongest side to bunker down thier keeps to nigh untakeable.

But wouldn’t that be a good thing seeing how the middle is suppose to be for smaller fights?

Not necissarily. If the buff is good enough it could mean the strongest server could capture keeps and towers, and lock them down so hard that none of the opposition would have a hope of retaking anything the server captures. This’d make the playing field pretty much static.
The buff would become a protective shield for their bases.

Was talking about the other buffs :P

With the others, I can’t see anyone caring who has a loot buff. Only the extremely petty would care that their enemy has increased loot drop. And if that’s the case these control points are an absolute failure. A cheap novelty for karma trainers.

Istaf.1953:

Dual.8953:

Asside from the Tower/Keep buff, no commander will care about those buff to warrant them fighting other commanders over it. The Tower/Keep buff could be argueably worse, allowing the strongest side to bunker down thier keeps to nigh untakeable.

But wouldn’t that be a good thing seeing how the middle is suppose to be for smaller fights?

Not necissarily. If the buff is good enough it could mean the strongest server could capture keeps and towers, and lock them down so hard that none of the opposition would have a hope of retaking anything the server captures. This’d make the playing field pretty much static.
The buff would become a protective shield for their bases.

Mooodster.3470:

Stice.5204:

Mooodster.3470:

i also believe that anet designs the maps to be full not around half empty maps so in a situation where all 3 servers have a queue on the map this will bring a new lvl of depth to the fights

If that’s the case then their design is severely flawed. How many servers have a large enough active WvW population to come anywhere near filling all 4 maps? My server is one of the larger ones in North America and we only have entrance queues for a few hours a day during the first three days or so of each matchup.

I’d guess we spend less than 10% of each weekly matchup with our maps filled, so Anet probably shouldn’t be making major design changes based only on that situation.

why design a map around a half full map…really that’s like admitting you don’t expect people to want to play it…

Worse. If it’s not designed for max capacity it run a high risk of things breaking down completely when filled to capacity.

Xavi.6591:

rhodoc.2381:

Why not more WXP or MF buff?
Why not GOLD FIND buff?
Why not some moar PVE buff?
Why not some upgrade tower/keep specific buff?
Why not NPC defense buff?
Why not bro, just why not?

How about this: You get extra 5 min buff on lords for each bloodlust that you have?

There are gazillion number of better implementation than the current one and only a few number of worse implementation than the current one.

On a side note: I really want to WvW to get better and trying to help for it.

This.

Maybe Bloodlust refreshes your consumable times.
Maybe Bloodlust increases chances for ascended items/materials to drop.

Anything but making more WvW imbalances is going to make things worse.

Asside from the Tower/Keep buff, no commander will care about those buff to warrant them fighting other commanders over it. The Tower/Keep buff could be argueably worse, allowing the strongest side to bunker down thier keeps to nigh untakeable.

Lurch.9517:

If each capture point was +50% wxp accumulation stacking to 150% they would get a lot of attention because these days those trains are farming WXP not PPT in the main part.

1) 3 sets of 3 points. So 9 points = 150%
2) Why should the enemy care you have +150% WxP? Why will they take the time to fight you on point for it?

I think you’re going to need something juicier then a PPT stomp bonus if you want worlds to take the time to hold 9 points. Something that your server will want, but more importantly, the enemy servers won’t want you to have.

Sube Dai.8496:

If anything the buff should go to the NPCs of the losing teams. Keep the players equal, but give the losing teams a bit of help in keeping their own camps/towers/etc.

So what do the points do again?

It’s an interesting idea, however I think it should be a more case by case basis. For instance, I don’t think this should apply to thieves, as all their weapon skills are either inept at damaging due to mechanics, or so damage oriented they’d start being used in place of auto-attacks. (S/D 3 spam would become a must)

Maybe they could name the dark version of Bifrost “Nidhoggr” and make it look like it was forged of Zhaitan’s corpes.

Considering thieves have access to a guarantied crit, I think Assassin stats are far less useful to glass cannon thieves then Berserker stats as opposed to other classes.

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.

The only way this could be achieved would require a lot of dumbing down.

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.

Johje Holan.4607:

Vena.8436:

Aneu.1748:

The zerg won’t even care about it.

Aneu.1748:

The zerg won’t even care about it.

Aneu.1748:

The zerg won’t even care about it.

I think that’s part of the point.

Vena.8436:

(Not to mention that this completely empowers more man power servers to completely crush a smaller server stuck on the defensive as they won’t have the man power to defend and cap a node over five minutes. The larger server will cap this and walk over the lesser, completely nullifying the whole point of siege for defenders.)

While I agree with your comment, anything that grants stat buffs across the board is going to completely empower the stronger server.

Unless its an irrelevant buff (like magic find) or only granted to the weaker server(s), it is going to do nothing but make the strong stronger.

That last statement isn’t necissarily true. If a large server gets control of the buffs, it won’t be because the formed a massive zerg and facerolled all the points. It’ll be because they COORDINATED themselves and set up at least 9 separate forces to defend the buff in the open field, while what’s left of thier main force decides what to do with the buff. This begs the question, does that server have enough players to defend their buff defense forces from a focused attack? Are they going to really ask 9 groups of to just sit there on a point so no one can snag thier buff?

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.

Zephyrus.9680:

Dual.8953:

Zephyrus.9680:

Vena.8436:

DrWhom.3105:

Honestly I’d rather the buff were entirely reward orientated, which wouldn’t step on either side’s toes. +50% XP, MF, WXP. Maybe to make the buff more meaningful, you get twice or three times as many points for stomps. I don’t think that’s enough of a “gamechanger” for Anet though, which is why I made those other suggestions.

But then its irrelevant and doesn’t do anything.

I’d bet my bottom dollar that the whole point of making it “stats” and a “game changer” is to force people to care about it. The same way no one cares about Outmanned now, is the same way no one will care about Bloodlust if all it did was give you PvE rewards.

But that’s the opposite of what it should be. Why reward the stronger team with MORE power? Already tried with orbs, already failed. You just get one team that snowballs which is boring for everyone all around.

So switch the new bloodlust buff with the current outmanned. The outmanned team gets a small stat boost to help balance the combat, the dominant team gets greater rewards.

And who would waste their time getting a minor MF bonus when they could be getting towers? Southsun already showed us that not even +300% MF makes a noticeable difference. If no one would care about the points, there’d be no grand open battles trying to get them, no new tactics, just the same old WvW with the odd roamers grabbing them because they happen to be in the area.
The beauty of these control points is small groups can aid their servers in ways they never could before. They can be more places then a blob can and play keep away with the blob rather easily. This’d make commanders have to think. They’d have to become more coordinated and split up. If a server has a good set of coordinated strategists and disciplined fighters, they’d be able to perform some really interesting plays. All they need is good communication and incentive. Idealy then, WvW would evolve into a game that weighs strategy, discipline, communication and coordination over simple brute force tactics.

That doesn’t address the issue we already saw with orbs. You’re trying to generalize “skill” across the entire WvW population which is meaningless. It’s human nature to believe otherwise but when you generalize ‘skill’ across a large random population, the only result can be numbers (brute force).

The priority will be clear to everyone and ultimately the server with the best coverage and numbers will best maintain control of the buffs. This causes the stronger server to become even stronger and makes fights even more uneven. It directly contradicts what you’re trying to argue in the last sentence.

Also, magic find? I care about WXP. No repair costs is nice too and would certainly help promote open field fights.

What serious commander is going to care about loot when their Garrison is under attack? What serious commander is going to fight another commander over a loot buff when that enemy commander has left their keep unguarded? How can a blob be in 15 places at once?

Basket of Boxes.1976:

Although it is slightly off topic 300% magic find certainly makes a difference, running around in crown pavilion with the 200% buff and birthday booster was lodestone city. I play all parts of the game so I have no complaints about WvW getting less loot but if the blood lust boost gave something like 50% for each borderland the increased amounts of rares and even exotics being dropped would satisfy the kind of people who like to zerg around. The only people increased MF and karma doesn’t really benefit are the smaller groups and solos who don’t want the proposed stat buff anyways so I am sure they wouldn’t care if it was useless magic find and karma.

So that still leaves the issue, MF isn’t worth fighting over to most players.

I was thinking about things that could benefit small groups without benefiting Zergs, and I came up with this idea. What if the Devs littered WvW with bushes and overgrowth that’d have be able to hide up to 5 people at a time.

What would happen is when the player walks into the bush, they’d get an interact prompt. Upon accepting it the player would become stealthed and remain stealthed while they remain in the bush. While stealthed, all of the player’s skills would be disabled, and they wouldn’t be able to use the stealth if they were in combat mode beforehand. If they are struck while stealthed they do not lose stealth, it’ll be up to the enemy to decide if they’re actually killing something.
Upon exiting stealth the hidden player would have one second of revealed, and lose the stealth when they become downed.

Ideally, this’d give roamers a place to hide, scout and set up ambushes. They should be applied densely enough or in areas that would make it a chore for zergs to hit them all as they go by, but sparse enough that you can’t hide a whole zerg in all the ones in an area.

Zephyrus.9680:

Vena.8436:

DrWhom.3105:

Honestly I’d rather the buff were entirely reward orientated, which wouldn’t step on either side’s toes. +50% XP, MF, WXP. Maybe to make the buff more meaningful, you get twice or three times as many points for stomps. I don’t think that’s enough of a “gamechanger” for Anet though, which is why I made those other suggestions.

But then its irrelevant and doesn’t do anything.

I’d bet my bottom dollar that the whole point of making it “stats” and a “game changer” is to force people to care about it. The same way no one cares about Outmanned now, is the same way no one will care about Bloodlust if all it did was give you PvE rewards.

But that’s the opposite of what it should be. Why reward the stronger team with MORE power? Already tried with orbs, already failed. You just get one team that snowballs which is boring for everyone all around.

So switch the new bloodlust buff with the current outmanned. The outmanned team gets a small stat boost to help balance the combat, the dominant team gets greater rewards.

And who would waste their time getting a minor MF bonus when they could be getting towers? Southsun already showed us that not even +300% MF makes a noticeable difference. If no one would care about the points, there’d be no grand open battles trying to get them, no new tactics, just the same old WvW with the odd roamers grabbing them because they happen to be in the area.
The beauty of these control points is small groups can aid their servers in ways they never could before. They can be more places then a blob can and play keep away with the blob rather easily. This’d make commanders have to think. They’d have to become more coordinated and split up. If a server has a good set of coordinated strategists and disciplined fighters, they’d be able to perform some really interesting plays. All they need is good communication and incentive. Idealy then, WvW would evolve into a game that weighs strategy, discipline, communication and coordination over simple brute force tactics.

Yes. I want to see how the control point will change things. I like the idea of a few small groups stealing the advantage of the enemy main force as it battle thier main force. I like the prospect of increased need for server coordination. Stealing the blob’s buff and keeping it away from them by out manuvering it. May the blob see the error of not being able to everywhere at once.

Grotesque.6479:

Valid point. Furthermore, it is sad with the enourmous feedback given on these forums, not a single kitten has been given about us – the WvW community.

To be fair, these forums, and this board in particular is less then 1% of the population. On top of that, these forums are the most negative of what I’ve seen in the GW2 community. When you realize those things, it makes sense why little attention is given here. I mean how does “we stopped this update because less then 1% voiced they were displeased with it.” Sound?
If you want to send a message, you need to muster way more then a couple hundred people. Especially in a forum with a climate like this.

Aldjeron.1062:

Turamarth.3248:

1.

DevonCarver.5370:

Master of Timespace.2548:

Simple question. Why is there an aoe cap? And no, please do not come up with that “technical limitation” lie. There has been thousands games before this with massive pvp and no aoe cap, why would your engine be somehow so infernior to that of these older games?

What you seem to be missing is that technical limitations are not about the fact that a solution somewhere may have existed for some other thing. Our game is using an engine that has these technical limitations. We could, for instance, display everything as text, which would solve the problem quite nicely, however we’ve found that our graphics offer something a text-based MMO couldn’t quite deliver. The point is, it is very much a limitation of our engine. The load on the server CPU would be quite simply unsustainable if we were to increase the AoE cap as the more players hit by skills the more calculations it has to do and it actually starts increasing exponentially, rather than sequentially. We continue to seek out ways to squeeze more performance out of our game and our servers, but it is highly unlikely we would ever make a change to the AoE limits on player skills.

2. That’s not what I meant. Compare the abilities to do aoe damage between the different classes.

Yea DevonCarver is not a dev. I can blab a bunch of technical crap at people too just cause i think I know, but until a dev comes out and says its impossible, I still think it can work. This is based on the fact as I stated before Siege does it. Siege may have a cap also but its much higher than players, so a compromise would be to raise the cap. Or Change the algorithm to act more like vale. Which will hit all players once.

Veil doesn’t hit everyone at once. The reason it works is it’s a line AoE, it’s very thin so even when a zerg runs through it, it’s uncommon for the veil to have to calculate more then a handful of them at a time, where as circle AoEs have to factor everyone in them within the same instance.

A good analogy would be a counter at a fast food place. If they have a lines in place, rushes of customers are manageable, if there were no lines and customers could all give their orders at the same time, the rush would be an unmanageable nightmare for the staff.

Interesting idea but it could also be bad for PvP. For instance you wouldn’t treat a P/D Thief the same as a D/P thief. Warriors could heavily abuse this too because all their single hand weapons but shield can be used in either hand and operate very differently.

I think some of the reason that they can’t back down on this update is because they’ve announced it to the whole player community. What sense does it make to back down from a decision when only a few hundred, show opposition to their announcement, and how does it look when they go back on an update because less then 0.001% of the community said they don’t want this change?
If those opposed want to stop this change, they need to show a significant portion of the community is opposed to the changes.

Otherwise it’ll play out like this. Devs make the change, the majority either likes or hates the change and the Devs either leave the change or fix/remove the change in a later update.

Burst roaming is the textbook thief. Some go so far as the argue thief’s the best at roaming overall, but I wouldn’t say others aren’t worth a shot.

So, cause being “hardcore” is proving too “hardcore”, you want them to cap off the AP so the players that are more dedicated to being “hardcore” then you won’t pass you while you recoop? Is that what I’m getting?
You play doing how you feel by doing all your dailies. If you don’t feel like doing them all, you don’t have to because you don’t feel like it. However, if you’re competing for rank, you can’t go asking them to cripple the leader’s AP gain just so you can keep up.
It’s like complaining to the judges in a race whenever someone passes you.

Kjeldoran.3849:

Phantom.8130:

you realize that at 1700 toughness, that’s 85%, yes?

that’ wrong… toughness will never lead you to 100% damage reduction.
Just look on gw2 wiki for some information about “how toughness works” and “how skill damage” is calculated (in this situation is easier since they are conditions).

Also 1700 tougness are around -40/45% damage reduction not 85% (talking about heavy classes) and as you noticed (do you noticed it?) toughness is the only stat which stacks better with few points and lose effectiveness when high traited (over 1800 toughness you need like 50-80 toughness to gain 1% damage reduction).

Anyway to reduce condition damage with toughness will be a really nice idea! This will nerf their power in Hearth of the Mists (in which they are op) but can lead them to punish those who run full zerker (like nabs). Maybe will be a good idea to:
1) sightly increase condition damage
2) make toughness reduce condition damage
3) protection and other stufs for damage reduction can’t reduce condition damage

also this is the wrong section (suggestion is the right one)…

The problem is this the whole point of Condition Damage is to bypass Toughness. Toughness is for Direct Damage, Vitality is intended for Condition Damage, so if anything should effect Condi, it should be Vitality. That way we won’t have a Toughness > All situation in defense. The game should be about choosing one or the other, or both at a substancial loss.

Sorry but I’ve gotta call you out on this. You want the damage source that’s sole purpose is to get around toughness should be mitigated by toughness? Logic much?
If anything it should be Vitality that mitigates condi. It was originally intended to be the condi counter.