I miss having dmg

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> If balancing around roaming directly affects big scale fights in a negative way, yes it likely would be harmful to the mode. The reason why balancing around roaming or 1v1 makes no sense is simple: the current map design doesn't even give enough room for enough roamers or small scale groups to operate. That is unless you consider the popular "we are more then them" roamer groups actual roaming. Every time I see 3 "roamers" gang up on 1 target, all I can think of is:"oh another gank squad", because that's what they are: gankers, not roamers.

Not enough room? Entire servers choke when a *single* 5 man group is running around off prime capping everything.

[UmbraNoctis.1907]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> Also no, PvP combat is not infinite combat no matter how much players who pvp want to believe that. There is a reason why changes to meta and classes happen in the most popular pvp games, most of which are not MMOs btw. Combat can grow stale. Now I will agree that pvp combat and content is often longer lived than pve content IF made well, but even in pvp scenarios variety has to happen to keep players engaged.

>

OK, maybe not infinite, but it can still keep players busy for years without actual "new" stuff and just some small meta changes here and there - which is mostly necessary, because there is no perfect balance.

 

> Balancing for the majority is always the best approach IF appeasing the majority of players is the goal. If this is achieved or how successful that balance may be, that is a different issue. Unless the developers want to take a huge risk and balance according to what they believe will bring a different set of players to the mode in greater numbers, while retaining some of the original players. Remember, balancing around something does not mean that the balance changes actually succeed at what they are intended for.

 

So PvE should be balanced arround open world casuals, even so most of the content is so trivial that "anything goes" and the majority probably won't even notice if their beloved bearbow ranger suddenly deals a little bit more or less dmg? Should more difficult content like raids be balanced arround those type of players? Should sPvP be balanced arround the average tier where everyone struggles with different L2P issues and anything that can kill someone is somehow op?

Should WvW be "balanced" arround players that just want to farm rewards with as little effort as possible? Should it be turned into a PvE game mode even, because those tend to be more popular? (Not saying this is what the majority of WvW players want - i simply don't know. But what if?)

 

I don't think disregarding a minority for the sake of pleasing the majority is smart when considering that the majority of players are typically those type of players that the game is catering to anyway and providing niche content in addition is only a win as it typically does not make the majority - who can still find plenty of fun elsewhere - quit the game, but keep those who are interested in this specific type of content/gameplay and might even draw new players in. If WvW would cater more to small scale instead of huge zergs, maybe a lot of zerglings would go back to EotM or PvE, where many of them seem to come from anyway, and new players would come in? (Funnily enough i see more new players "roaming" arround than in big organised blobs, so maybe the demand is actually there). Ofc changing a direction after so any years is risky and success of changes is an entire different story. Maybe they are trying to balance arround roaming all the time and just fail horribly, who knows ...

 

> > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > Nowadays it might be different, because a lot more players seem to be here only for easy rewards and not for actual WvW, and as such a lot more "carrots" are needed to keep them playing. Would balancing arround roaming increase the player count? Probably not, for exactly this reason. Would it harm?

>

> If balancing around roaming directly affects big scale fights in a negative way, yes it likely would be harmful to the mode. The reason why balancing around roaming or 1v1 makes no sense is simple: the current map design doesn't even give enough room for enough roamers or small scale groups to operate. That is unless you consider the popular "we are more then them" roamer groups actual roaming. Every time I see 3 "roamers" gang up on 1 target, all I can think of is:"oh another gank squad", because that's what they are: gankers, not roamers.

 

The map design provides plenty of space for roaming, There are tons of different objectives all over the place, and many of them can be contested by a small grp or even a solo player and they could easily remove various automatisms like superspeed/invulnerable dollies and watchtowers to once again increase the relevance of roamers. As it is, large parts of the map are empty, even when queued, because everyone stacks at one place. Might as well just have one objective per map if that is the "intended" way of play.

And what has ganking to do with this topic? It happens yes. So what? Roamers can and will gank, zerglings can and will gank, gankers can and will gank (obviously). It is not exclusive to a certain playstyle, just the nature of a game mode where numbers are rarely even. If anything it could be used as argument to make a numerical advantage less relevant, but that would mean directly nerfing zergs.

 

> > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > It is not like balance for zerging and roaming are mutually exclusive, as often different builds/skills are used and as such adjustments can be made without affecting other playstyles.

>

> No, it is not exclusive. I explained why in relation to tanking mechanics, which is often built around maximum survival gear and support output, fits into this issue.

 

GW2 combat was never really designed arround "facetanking" and yet zerging has always working fine, even when we didn't had that much stalemate specs (aside from SA thieves, which are irrelevant for zerging anyway). It is also not true that dmg stacks indefinitely and defense is that much more limited, because dmg can be avoided, sometimes by something as simple as moving out of red - which should be an important aspect of survival even in zerg fights - and aoe caps provide dmg mitigation simply for having more players. Your claim regarding tanking/support "You can only heal or out tank damage until you hit 0 hit points" also applies to dealing dmg. Can't deal dmg when you are dead. If stacking dmg would be as powerful and tanking/healing/support as weak in comparison as you claim, we would have full glass blobs stealth bombing their opposition instead of tanky boonspam balls running in circles ignoring anything thrown at them until they get outnumbered by another boonspam ball or everyone else left because it is not fun to deal with.

 

And not every tanky boonspam spec is relevant for zerging. Keep in mind that nerfs to tankyness and boon spam does not neccessary mean generic across the board changes. Stuff needs to be looked at and adjusted (ideally with small but frequent margins) individually. Something like "delete minstrels gear" isn't what i'm asking for, nor do i want to go back to a "oneshot or get oneshot" meta.

 

> > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > Regarding the rest of your post - maybe you are right and boons and tankyness are not an issue in zergs. I can't judge as i tend to avoid these kind of fights. But if i see blobs with permanent uptime of almost every boon in the game i have a very hard time calling it balanced, especially when considering how hard corrupts got nerfed and how easy the remaining boon strips are to avoid.

>

> Which is at the core of this issue tbh. Corrupts having been nerfed has hit small scale far harder than large fights, unless there are no warriors or scourges around. It does make picking off squad players a lot harder once they are balled up and poking down a player from out of squad is harder.

>

> Then again if roamers actually built around boon denial this issue would be somewhat mitigated. That heal scrapper from TCs opening example would hardly have survived with some boon rip on him.

 

Boon rip isn't aviable to all classes and even on classes with access it is often very impractical for roaming, because you usually can't rely on others to fill resulting gaps in your build, as well as insufficient to deal with very boonheavy specs/comps most of the time anyway (I've had some fun roaming arround with a corrupt heavy hybrid reaper build in the past, but now this build feels pretty pointless. Corrupting one boon at a time is such a joke compared to boon application).

[God.2708]

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > Balancing for the majority is always the best approach IF appeasing the majority of players is the goal. If this is achieved or how successful that balance may be, that is a different issue. Unless the developers want to take a huge risk and balance according to what they believe will bring a different set of players to the mode in greater numbers, while retaining some of the original players. Remember, balancing around something does not mean that the balance changes actually succeed at what they are intended for.

>

> So PvE should be balanced arround open world casuals, even so most of the content is so trivial that "anything goes" and the majority probably won't even notice if their beloved bearbow ranger suddenly deals a little bit more or less dmg? Should more difficult content like raids be balanced arround those type of players? Should sPvP be balanced arround the average tier where everyone struggles with different L2P issues and anything that can kill someone is somehow op?

 

Balance should be in favor of the content generators. Balance should favor PvE raids because balance is irrelevant for open world but the people who invest so much time into things like raids are what build and form communities. Likewise in WvW, balance should cater towards things that encourage players to get together. If roaming becomes the primary facet of play you eventually devolve every server into an SMC cloud until every server dies off because new players get on, see no tag, and have no idea what is going on and leave because they get killed by some mithril scout who adds it to his latest compilation video.

 

Speak whatever you will of the giant blobs, they are what filter players in to more experienced guilds and get them to see what WvW actually is. If you dis-incentivize their creation and crush those commanders motivations you kill the mode.

 

Edit: And Roamers are a hardy, creative bunch. I find it much more fascinating to see what they are capable of with the tools they are given, and they are frequently much more knowledge equipped to do so. Catering balance towards their needs serve little purpose beyond fixing egregious examples that usually spill into all the other content as well.

[UmbraNoctis.1907]

> @"God.2708" said:

> > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > Balancing for the majority is always the best approach IF appeasing the majority of players is the goal. If this is achieved or how successful that balance may be, that is a different issue. Unless the developers want to take a huge risk and balance according to what they believe will bring a different set of players to the mode in greater numbers, while retaining some of the original players. Remember, balancing around something does not mean that the balance changes actually succeed at what they are intended for.

> >

> > So PvE should be balanced arround open world casuals, even so most of the content is so trivial that "anything goes" and the majority probably won't even notice if their beloved bearbow ranger suddenly deals a little bit more or less dmg? Should more difficult content like raids be balanced arround those type of players? Should sPvP be balanced arround the average tier where everyone struggles with different L2P issues and anything that can kill someone is somehow op?

>

> Balance should be in favor of the content generators. Balance should favor PvE raids because balance is irrelevant for open world but the people who invest so much time into things like raids are what build and form communities. Likewise in WvW, balance should cater towards things that encourage players to get together. If roaming becomes the primary facet of play you eventually devolve every server into an SMC cloud until every server dies off because new players get on, see no tag, and have no idea what is going on and leave because they get killed by some mithril scout who adds it to his latest compilation video.

>

> Speak whatever you will of the giant blobs, they are what filter players in to more experienced guilds and get them to see what WvW actually is. If you dis-incentivize their creation and crush those commanders motivations you kill the mode.

>

> Edit: And Roamers are a hardy, creative bunch. I find it much more fascinating to see what they are capable of with the tools they are given, and they are frequently much more knowledge equipped to do so. Catering balance towards their needs serve little purpose beyond fixing egregious examples that usually spill into all the other content as well.

 

Most WvW content creators are roamers, no? And new players won't even know what a "tag" is let alone look for one and death is no reason to quit for anyone who has an actual interest in PvP combat, as that's expected to happen. "Clouds" tend to be easier to get into for new players, as there are no restrictions regarding classes and builds and you don't have to ask for an invitation. And it already shows ingame, relative speaking there are more new players roaming than zerging and they tend to be eagier to engage in any fight, no matter if they stand a chance or not, while your "mithril scout" is more likely to insta waypoint the moment he realizes there is an enemy player at the camp he just wanted to flip for easy participation inbetween afking at spawn, waiting for a tag to show up. Brainless reward farm - which is what most, who only play when they can follow a commander, are looking for - is not what draws new players in.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> If stacking dmg would be as powerful and tanking/healing/support as weak in comparison as you claim, we would have full glass blobs stealth bombing their opposition instead of tanky boonspam balls running in circles ignoring anything thrown at them until they get outnumbered by another boonspam ball or everyone else left because it is not fun to deal with.

 

Wait, you mean like we have right now? Full stealth engages with full berserkerk glass canon damage dealers opening with as much alpha as they can? The fact that some squads and publics don't use the most efficient method of engage hardly means it is not possible or even good. It only speaks to the lack of players skill or class composition.

 

Stealthing up and blasting opponents in the face is literally THE way this game mode is played atm. The reason supports are thrown into the mix is for a different reason than pure numeric survival or healing:

1. stability to actually allow movement (you know, to actually move out of that damage you mentioned one can walk out of)

2. condi cleanse to again not die to that 1 immob or expertise buffed condi bomb

3. boons which improve a parties output both defensive and offensively more than if those 2 spots went to more dps

4. healing for prolonged fights and covering of mistakes

 

Healing is if at all the least important aspect in the current support composition and the reason healers are wearing toughness is to be even remotely able to survive in this damage climate, otherwise they would be run as hybrid builds.

 

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > @"God.2708" said:

> > > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > Balancing for the majority is always the best approach IF appeasing the majority of players is the goal. If this is achieved or how successful that balance may be, that is a different issue. Unless the developers want to take a huge risk and balance according to what they believe will bring a different set of players to the mode in greater numbers, while retaining some of the original players. Remember, balancing around something does not mean that the balance changes actually succeed at what they are intended for.

> > >

> > > So PvE should be balanced arround open world casuals, even so most of the content is so trivial that "anything goes" and the majority probably won't even notice if their beloved bearbow ranger suddenly deals a little bit more or less dmg? Should more difficult content like raids be balanced arround those type of players? Should sPvP be balanced arround the average tier where everyone struggles with different L2P issues and anything that can kill someone is somehow op?

> >

> > Balance should be in favor of the content generators. Balance should favor PvE raids because balance is irrelevant for open world but the people who invest so much time into things like raids are what build and form communities. Likewise in WvW, balance should cater towards things that encourage players to get together. If roaming becomes the primary facet of play you eventually devolve every server into an SMC cloud until every server dies off because new players get on, see no tag, and have no idea what is going on and leave because they get killed by some mithril scout who adds it to his latest compilation video.

> >

> > Speak whatever you will of the giant blobs, they are what filter players in to more experienced guilds and get them to see what WvW actually is. If you dis-incentivize their creation and crush those commanders motivations you kill the mode.

> >

> > Edit: And Roamers are a hardy, creative bunch. I find it much more fascinating to see what they are capable of with the tools they are given, and they are frequently much more knowledge equipped to do so. Catering balance towards their needs serve little purpose beyond fixing egregious examples that usually spill into all the other content as well.

>

> Most WvW content creators are roamers, no?

 

Are we talking youtube, videos, or actual in-game content which players participate in? If the former, sure there might be more youtube content creators who roam because each unique snowflake can make a video. It is far harder to always have 30-50 people on tag, which does not prevent some WvW commanders of regularly streaming btw.

 

If it is the latter and we are talking in-game content which players consume, then I find it hard to believe that roamers are the main content creators.

 

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> And new players won't even know what a "tag" is let alone look for one and death is no reason to quit for anyone who has an actual interest in PvP combat, as that's expected to happen. "Clouds" tend to be easier to get into for new players, as there are no restrictions regarding classes and builds and you don't have to ask for an invitation.

 

Yeah, no again to all of that. The "easiest" way for people to get into WvW is to follow others.

 

You are correct, for the "true" pvpers death is no reason to stop. Question is, why would a "true" pvp players even remotely look at WvW to begin with? You want to be a true pvp player, there are other things to play. So spare us the "true pvpers do this or do that" because this is about getting the most amount of players to the mode, and turns out, not all of them might be "true pvpers".

 

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> And it already shows ingame, relative speaking there are more new players roaming than zerging and they tend to be eagier to engage in any fight, no matter if they stand a chance or not, while your "mithril scout" is more likely to insta waypoint the moment he realizes there is an enemy player at the camp he just wanted to flip for easy participation inbetween afking at spawn, waiting for a tag to show up. Brainless reward farm - which is what most, who only play when they can follow a commander, are looking for - is not what draws new players in.

 

I would love to have you support your claims. If this were remotely true, the distribution of players would not even remotely look the way it does now. After all, after 8 years of having more and more roamers join, why is this still the by far smaller group of players?

 

That is UNLESS you want to make the argument that as players advance in WvW rank, they move away from roaming to squad and blob fights. Which would be the logic consequence IF more players started as roamers. Let me offer an alternative explanation though: there is far more players who start as followers of blobs and squad commanders than there are roamers. Some of those players eventually roam, or not.

 

I would argue what draws new players in is what the game mode offers and how welcoming it is overall. I doubt that being ganked and being outnumbered in 1vx situations is what most new players are looking for. Then again, I also disagreed that "true pvp" players would be the majority in this mode so maybe we have differing understandings of who plays this game mode.

 

I get it, you play this mode 1 way and have shut out even the remote possibility that the way others play it might be more enjoyable to far more players. You are so convinced in this that you'd be willingly shooting yourself and the mode in the foot by changing who it is designed for believing that at the end an all roamer paradise would emerge when in reality all that would happen is that at the end simply no one would remain to play this mode. Why? Because once the are no squads, there are no stragglers or big fights. Which in turn means less interest in the mode overall and less targets to gank. Which in turn means the bottom feeder gankers who can't cut it in a fair fight have no more targets to go for and are faced with acutal roamers. Which makes them lose interest because it is hard to improve and so much easier just to quit. Which then leaves a few pro roamers to fight each other, well until they grow bored and quit, and thus a game mode dies.

[God.2708]

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> Brainless reward farm - which is what most, who only play when they can follow a commander, are looking for - is not what draws new players in.

 

If I could offer a different perspective, I don't think that's why anyone joins a blob at all. People join blobs because there are other people there. Sometimes there is comms, sometimes its textmanding. But there is always chatter. People are toxic. People shut the toxicity down. People help others. People explain things. People talk about what they had for dinner. People die because they run off cliffs. People rez them. It is a social experience. The rewards are trite, there are far better blobs to join if that is your interest. People zerg in WvW because they like being around other people and experiencing what they experience. A new player might enter the mode and roam initially, and if that is their calling they may stay if they can climb the giant cliff of skill gap in front of them. But generally it is the obvious 'tag' that people merge into and see accomplishing 'wild' things that they barely understand that makes a player into a WvWer.

 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> And new players won't even know what a "tag" is let alone look for one

Completely untrue, looking for a tag is clearly as natural as newborn kittens looking for a nipple.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > And new players won't even know what a "tag" is let alone look for one

> Completely untrue, looking for a tag is clearly as natural as newborn kittens looking for a kitten.

 

Agreed, there is 2 things pve players learn out the gate:

 

1. how to press 1

2. what a commander tag looks like (and more confusing that mentor apple maybe)

 

some move on to learn things beyond these 2, others remains on this skill level for years.

[Waffler.1257]

Deleting minstrel's stats would vastly improve the WvW meta, just look at the metabattle builds.. minstrel firebrand, minstrel scrapper, minstrel spellbreaker, minstrel tempest, minstrel chrono and then a few scourges for damage. Minstrel stats were deleted from sPvP for a reason, now they need to be deleted from the rest of the game and replaced with something more balanced like mender's.

[God.2708]

> @"Waffler.1257" said:

> Deleting minstrel's stats would vastly improve the WvW meta, just look at the metabattle builds.. minstrel firebrand, minstrel scrapper, minstrel spellbreaker, minstrel tempest, minstrel chrono and then a few scourges for damage. Minstrel stats were deleted from sPvP for a reason, now they need to be deleted from the rest of the game and replaced with something more balanced like mender's.

 

I see this repeated all the time and fail to see the logic. WvW is not PvP. I daresay trying to draw comparisons are the root of most balance misunderstandings. PvP can't afford to have incredibly tough to kill players in it because the central facet of the mode, point control, dictates that points have to flip for the mode to be interesting and complex. WvW doesn't have that dictation (at least not in the same manner). If you are trying to hit someone in minstrels armor and can't kill them, the option to walk away and come back with more people is always on the table.

 

It is arguable that a player in minstrels could effectively tank 5 players in a PvP environment and still maintain control of a point, especially if 1 or 2 others show up to help. There is no argument that a player in minstrels can tank 50 players. If you are struggling to kill minstrels players in a large group, it is simply because you do not have the numbers and coordination levels on your side. You are being outplayed. The complaint should be leveled at the available numbers (and thus population imbalance), not the stats themselves.

 

Edit: Metabattle also has 4 minstrel builds in meta, and 2 DPS, and then 1 minstrel build in great and 11 DPS. There is one condition build in all 18 builds (which is also one of the most diverse states the WvW zerg section has been in years). Using the meta section to make a point just implies a misunderstanding of what meta and great mean in context.

[UmbraNoctis.1907]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> Wait, you mean like we have right now?

Full glass =/= half glass. As you say yourself, supports are crucial. And they are basically tanks with the ability to turn the entire zerg into a "tank ball".

 

> 3. boons which improve a parties output both defensive and offensively more than if those 2 spots went to more dps

Exactly. Boons can do a lot. And when considering how easy they are applied, with many boons just being "side effects" of other actions or applied entirely passive, as well as having limited counterplay, maybe it might be too much?

>

> Healing is if at all the least important aspect in the current support composition and the reason healers are wearing toughness is to be even remotely able to survive in this damage climate, otherwise they would be run as hybrid builds.

 

If "glass" dmg builds can survive, why not glass supports? If there would be a clear front- and backline like in the past, it would make sense, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Everyone stacks on top of each other.

>

> > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > > > Balancing for the majority is always the best approach IF appeasing the majority of players is the goal. If this is achieved or how successful that balance may be, that is a different issue. Unless the developers want to take a huge risk and balance according to what they believe will bring a different set of players to the mode in greater numbers, while retaining some of the original players. Remember, balancing around something does not mean that the balance changes actually succeed at what they are intended for.

> > > >

> > > > So PvE should be balanced arround open world casuals, even so most of the content is so trivial that "anything goes" and the majority probably won't even notice if their beloved bearbow ranger suddenly deals a little bit more or less dmg? Should more difficult content like raids be balanced arround those type of players? Should sPvP be balanced arround the average tier where everyone struggles with different L2P issues and anything that can kill someone is somehow op?

> > >

> > > Balance should be in favor of the content generators. Balance should favor PvE raids because balance is irrelevant for open world but the people who invest so much time into things like raids are what build and form communities. Likewise in WvW, balance should cater towards things that encourage players to get together. If roaming becomes the primary facet of play you eventually devolve every server into an SMC cloud until every server dies off because new players get on, see no tag, and have no idea what is going on and leave because they get killed by some mithril scout who adds it to his latest compilation video.

> > >

> > > Speak whatever you will of the giant blobs, they are what filter players in to more experienced guilds and get them to see what WvW actually is. If you dis-incentivize their creation and crush those commanders motivations you kill the mode.

> > >

> > > Edit: And Roamers are a hardy, creative bunch. I find it much more fascinating to see what they are capable of with the tools they are given, and they are frequently much more knowledge equipped to do so. Catering balance towards their needs serve little purpose beyond fixing egregious examples that usually spill into all the other content as well.

> >

> > Most WvW content creators are roamers, no?

>

> Are we talking youtube, videos, or actual in-game content which players participate in? If the former, sure there might be more youtube content creators who roam because each unique snowflake can make a video. It is far harder to always have 30-50 people on tag, which does not prevent some WvW commanders of regularly streaming btw.

>

> If it is the latter and we are talking in-game content which players consume, then I find it hard to believe that roamers are the main content creators.

Admittedly i was thinking more about the former, it is free advertisement after all. Regarding ingame-content - anyone actively participating in the game mode is in some way providing "content" for others. Other players, enemies and allies alike, are the main content of WvW. It does (should) not have to be a commander, because that creates problems in itself.

>

> > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > And new players won't even know what a "tag" is let alone look for one and death is no reason to quit for anyone who has an actual interest in PvP combat, as that's expected to happen. "Clouds" tend to be easier to get into for new players, as there are no restrictions regarding classes and builds and you don't have to ask for an invitation.

>

> Yeah, no again to all of that. The "easiest" way for people to get into WvW is to follow others.

But "others" does not necessarily have to be a huge blob with commander. If players would be spread out more, it would also be easier to run into others, accidentially so to speak, instead of having seemingly empty maps. When i was new there was rarely a tag, population was low, yet it was easy to find other players to follow, either by just running arround, or by responding to call outs in chat (you know, back when "scouting" was actually a thing and players would actually attack and defend stuff even when no commander was arround to tell them what to do).

 

> You are correct, for the "true" pvpers death is no reason to stop. Question is, why would a "true" pvp players even remotely look at WvW to begin with? You want to be a true pvp player, there are other things to play. So spare us the "true pvpers do this or do that" because this is about getting the most amount of players to the mode, and turns out, not all of them might be "true pvpers".

 

I'm not talking about "true PvPers" whatever that is supposed to be. I'm talking about players interested in PvP combat. And why would someone, who has zero interest in PvP combat, enter a PvP zone? It is not like the game is lacking PvE only content, nor is there anything essential for PvE gated behind WvW. And death is inevitable in PvP combat. If only one side dies, they will lose interest very quickly. If nobody dies, there is no point fighting and everyone loses interest. So anyone has to die eventually. PvP does not work otherwise. And dieing more often as inexperienced player means there is an incentive to learn and improve and a sense of progression which tends to be vital for the longevity of a game mode, especially when other aspects that tend to keep players playing, such as new content, are lacking.

>

> > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > And it already shows ingame, relative speaking there are more new players roaming than zerging and they tend to be eagier to engage in any fight, no matter if they stand a chance or not, while your "mithril scout" is more likely to insta waypoint the moment he realizes there is an enemy player at the camp he just wanted to flip for easy participation inbetween afking at spawn, waiting for a tag to show up. Brainless reward farm - which is what most, who only play when they can follow a commander, are looking for - is not what draws new players in.

>

> I would love to have you support your claims. If this were remotely true, the distribution of players would not even remotely look the way it does now. After all, after 8 years of having more and more roamers join, why is this still the by far smaller group of players?

 

Well, i doubt many new players stick arround, roamers or not, otherwise we would have a growing population. I also don't think most new players enter the game mode with the intent of being a "roamer". I just used the term here in regards to "wandering arround". And that's what i see them doing. Usually in small low/no organisation groups, looking for action by themselves because they haven't yet been told to "stack on tag or gtfo". If they find other players to join they will happily do so, with or without commander. I would guess about 1/3 - 1/2 of the small grps and solo players i enconter are fairly new (bronze rank and below, "newbie playstyle", simple skins), while in zergs the percentage seems to be lower. Ofc i can't provide actual numbers, just an estimation based on my observation.

A tag can help with finding other players on the map, but only if the zerg is actually welcoming new players, not demanding certain builds, kicking "rally bots" and leaving the slow ones behind and somehow still getting good fights without getting farmed by an organised boon spam blob and/or being relegated to PvDoor, which might not be the most exciting content for someone who is looking for players vs player battles (which is ultimatively what WvW is advertised as). And there has to be an open squad to begin with. But what if there is none and everyone stops playing? How is this overly reliance on commanders/zergs, that grants very few players such a high impact on the gamemode to the point where the presence or absence of a single player determines if others play or not, not problematic?

If there would be players all over the map, willing and capable to think and play by themselves, even without a tag, then it would be easier for new (and old) players to find action anytime and not just when one of the few commanders is tagged up.

 

>

> I would argue what draws new players in is what the game mode offers and how welcoming it is overall. I doubt that being ganked and being outnumbered in 1vx situations is what most new players are looking for. Then again, I also disagreed that "true pvp" players would be the majority in this mode so maybe we have differing understandings of who plays this game mode.

>

I would assume new players join a game mode for what the game mode is advertise and that's "PvP combat on an epic scale". Now everyone might have a different understanding of what "epic scale" means but "PvP combat" is pretty clear. (Keep in mind, i'm primarily talking about "new to the game", not so much about "new to WvW but has played PvE for thousands of hours and is only here for his legendary armor without any interest in the mode itself" type of player). As such offering a multifaceted PvP combat experience seems to be the way to go.

 

> I get it, you play this mode 1 way and have shut out even the remote possibility that the way others play it might be more enjoyable to far more players. You are so convinced in this that you'd be willingly shooting yourself and the mode in the foot by changing who it is designed for believing that at the end an all roamer paradise would emerge when in reality all that would happen is that at the end simply no one would remain to play this mode. Why? Because once the are no squads, there are no stragglers or big fights. Which in turn means less interest in the mode overall and less targets to gank. Which in turn means the bottom feeder gankers who can't cut it in a fair fight have no more targets to go for and are faced with acutal roamers. Which makes them lose interest because it is hard to improve and so much easier just to quit. Which then leaves a few pro roamers to fight each other, well until they grow bored and quit, and thus a game mode dies.

 

No.

 

> @"God.2708" said:

> > @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> > Brainless reward farm - which is what most, who only play when they can follow a commander, are looking for - is not what draws new players in.

>

> If I could offer a different perspective, I don't think that's why anyone joins a blob at all. People join blobs because there are other people there. Sometimes there is comms, sometimes its textmanding. But there is always chatter. People are toxic. People shut the toxicity down. People help others. People explain things. People talk about what they had for dinner. People die because they run off cliffs. People rez them. It is a social experience. The rewards are trite, there are far better blobs to join if that is your interest. People zerg in WvW because they like being around other people and experiencing what they experience. A new player might enter the mode and roam initially, and if that is their calling they may stay if they can climb the giant cliff of skill gap in front of them. But generally it is the obvious 'tag' that people merge into and see accomplishing 'wild' things that they barely understand that makes a player into a WvWer.

>

Blobs aren't the only way to experience social interaction.

 

 

 

[God.2708]

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

> Blobs aren't the only way to experience social interaction.

>

 

That isn't what I said.

 

 

[Atomos.7593]

> @"UmbraNoctis.1907" said:

>

> If "glass" dmg builds can survive, why not glass supports? If there would be a clear front- and backline like in the past, it would make sense, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Everyone stacks on top of each other.

 

The thing for blobs in WvW now seems to be to hide behind a wall and stack. It has become very boring and predictable imo.

 

> But "others" does not necessarily have to be a huge blob with commander. If players would be spread out more, it would also be easier to run into others, accidentially so to speak, instead of having seemingly empty maps. When i was new there was rarely a tag, population was low, yet it was easy to find other players to follow, either by just running arround, or by responding to call outs in chat (you know, back when "scouting" was actually a thing and players would actually attack and defend stuff even when no commander was arround to tell them what to do).

 

Yeah, I remember when people didn't need to rely on a commander tag to find action and scouting was done. These days I won't even bother to scout anymore since commanders are usually off doing their own thing, and like 95% of the players that are not in the group are just following the tag around.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Atomos.7593" said:

> Yeah, I remember when people didn't need to rely on a commander tag to find action and scouting was done. These days I won't even bother to scout anymore since commanders are usually off doing their own thing, and like 95% of the players that are not in the group are just following the tag around.

 

That depends on the time of day, the commander and most importantly: map queues. Many commanders won't jump if there is a queue on a map, how could they, or if it's clear that the map is near full, say if a queue was up near the entire time for the last hour. On my server, guild groups or commanders also communicate and signal when they switch borders, so other commanders know who is where.

 

The other issue is something which is creeping up on EU as well, I'm assuming you are on NA since scouting even if not 24/7 is done fairly regularly on EU servers, at least the ones I know: there is a growing amount of players who would rather run along side a tag on their "custom" builds than join the tag. It is not uncommon today to have a tag with 30 players in squad, 20+ more tagging along on a map with queue. Those players are neither roamers, nor dedicated enough to actually commit to playing together (and even less get on voice).

 

It's the individualists approach to group content which is seeping over from PvE more and more. The luxury of "I stay how long I want at my terms with minimum commitment" that some players bring to the table. It also clearly shows, the vast majority of players even when not fully committing to a tag, will rather stay near a tag than start roaming.

 

This is slowing getting off topic though and might require a topic of its own with likely no solution available since the game mode is for each and every player and it is hard to force others to change their playing habits.

[Atomos.7593]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Atomos.7593" said:

> > Yeah, I remember when people didn't need to rely on a commander tag to find action and scouting was done. These days I won't even bother to scout anymore since commanders are usually off doing their own thing, and like 95% of the players that are not in the group are just following the tag around.

>

> That depends on the time of day, the commander and most importantly: map queues. Many commanders won't jump if there is a queue on a map, how could they, or if it's clear that the map is near full, say if a queue was up near the entire time for the last hour. On my server, guild groups or commanders also communicate and signal when they switch borders, so other commanders know who is where.

>

> The other issue is something which is creeping up on EU as well, I'm assuming you are on NA since scouting even if not 24/7 is done fairly regularly on EU servers, at least the ones I know: there is a growing amount of players who would rather run along side a tag on their "custom" builds than join the tag. It is not uncommon today to have a tag with 30 players in squad, 20+ more tagging along on a map with queue. Those players are neither roamers, nor dedicated enough to actually commit to playing together (and even less get on voice).

>

> It's the individualists approach to group content which is seeping over from PvE more and more. The luxury of "I stay how long I want at my terms with minimum commitment" that some players bring to the table. It also clearly shows, the vast majority of players even when not fully committing to a tag, will rather stay near a tag than start roaming.

>

> This is slowing getting off topic though and might require a topic of its own with likely no solution available since the game mode is for each and every player and it is hard to force others to change their playing habits.

 

What I am referring to here though is in a single map, such as ebg, so queues to bring a commander from a different map wouldn't be necessary when there are already some on the current map. Commanders doing their own thing is fine since they have a group. I just find that a lot of players who probably aren't in the group also hang around.

 

Yeah, it could just be common on the server I play on - I am on NA. I agree that it could be a lot of newish PvE players that feel safer near a tag or they are learning how things work in WvW. Might be an increase in this now because some useful PvE rewards are available only in WvW. I've actually found in the last couple of days commanders often having to tell roamers to go capture other camps, maybe because they realized everyone on the map seems to be hugging the tag.

 

You're right that this is probably not the right thread for a deeper discussion of this topic.

[sneakytails.5629]

They nerfed the experience gain from escorting dolyaks and successfully guarding camps/sentries. Siege was nerfed along with the Warclaw. Too many commanders complained along with the zerglings getting chased down by defenders WHILE IN ENEMY TERRITORY.

 

Finally look at balance/rewards and you can see that literally everything is slanted AGAINST small scale/roaming in WvW.

 

Its easier, faster, and safer to just follow a zerg. But it has been DESIGNED that way.

[Atomos.7593]

> @"sneakytails.5629" said:

> They nerfed the experience gain from escorting dolyaks and successfully guarding camps/sentries. Siege was nerfed along with the Warclaw. Too many commanders complained along with the zerglings getting chased down by defenders WHILE IN ENEMY TERRITORY.

>

> Finally look at balance/rewards and you can see that literally everything is slanted AGAINST small scale/roaming in WvW.

>

> Its easier, faster, and safer to just follow a zerg. But it has been DESIGNED that way.

 

Sadly it seems like that's the case. I'm not sure if simply increasing damage would improve the situation now though, since healing, buffs etc. also make following a zerg as opposed to roaming so much more safer and viable too.

[sneakytails.5629]

The most fun I had recently was the first no down state weekend before the big damage nerf. Peeps would show up with their cheese tanks and get blasted without the training wheels of downstate to carry their support saturated small group.

 

Good times.

 

The only thing more fun than that were the huge battles that would organically develop over something like a T3 northcamp about to get a keep to T3 and having things snowball from small scale battles to finally zergs colliding with long drawn out reinforcement lines to attack. Those were the days, such good fights. Rarely happens anymore.

[Atomos.7593]

In a way I feel like these design choices that seem to have favoured joining large zergs more than participating in small groups or roaming have had a huge impact on the amount of perceived action happening in WvW. Not only has it seemed to make small groups and roamers rarer, but it also seems to have concentrated most of the action in one area of the map since most people will bunch up along with the zerg running around. So until this zerg meets another large zerg in the map, this makes it feel like there are not many fights happening.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"God.2708" said:

> > @"Waffler.1257" said:

> > Deleting minstrel's stats would vastly improve the WvW meta, just look at the metabattle builds.. minstrel firebrand, minstrel scrapper, minstrel spellbreaker, minstrel tempest, minstrel chrono and then a few scourges for damage. Minstrel stats were deleted from sPvP for a reason, now they need to be deleted from the rest of the game and replaced with something more balanced like mender's.

>

> I see this repeated all the time and fail to see the logic.

Logical compared to what? Minstrel is overpoweringly stupid, compared to say trailblazer which people **SHREEK** about how it should be deleted just because its competetive with power in 1v1 roaming.

[Shroud.2307]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"God.2708" said:

> > > @"Waffler.1257" said:

> > > Deleting minstrel's stats would vastly improve the WvW meta, just look at the metabattle builds.. minstrel firebrand, minstrel scrapper, minstrel spellbreaker, minstrel tempest, minstrel chrono and then a few scourges for damage. Minstrel stats were deleted from sPvP for a reason, now they need to be deleted from the rest of the game and replaced with something more balanced like mender's.

> >

> > I see this repeated all the time and fail to see the logic.

> Logical compared to what? Minstrel is overpoweringly stupid, compared to say trailblazer which people **SHREEK** about how it should be deleted just because its competetive with power in 1v1 roaming.

 

People need their boonball safe space.

 

Personally, I don't understand the point in groups that roll with a bunch of supports, face tank everything, and take 0 damage. Where is the strategy in this? Groups that actually have to co-ordinate to avoid getting trained but have massive amounts of damage are a lot more enjoyable to fight and require at least a little more brain power _(albeit pretty much everything when scaled up to zerg size is braindead)_ to situate themselves and choose when/where they focus their damage and regroup.

 

I've spoken with enough people to know I'm not alone when say if I see a boonball that's taking 0 damage I will straight up avoid it.

Even if no one is getting kills people will continue to fight a group that shows it's vulnerable once in a while. If it's like hitting a brick wall, people leave.

[Fat Disgrace.4275]

> @"God.2708" said:

> > @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> >

> > People need their boonball safe space.

> >

> > Personally, I don't understand the point in groups that roll with a bunch of supports, face tank everything, and take 0 damage. Where is the strategy in this? Groups that actually have to co-ordinate to avoid getting trained but have massive amounts of damage are a lot more enjoyable to fight and require at least a little more brain power _(albeit pretty much everything when scaled up to zerg size is braindead)_ to situate themselves and choose when/where they focus their damage and regroup.

> >

> > I've spoken with enough people to know I'm not alone when say if I see a boonball that's taking 0 damage I will straight up avoid it.

> > Even if no one is getting kills people will continue to fight a group that shows it's vulnerable once in a while. If it's like hitting a brick wall, people leave.

>

> Where are these groups taking zero damage? I do not ever have this problem. Are you sure it is not a PEBKAC issue?

 

Theres are the kind of grps who think they are hardcore, they are around 5-10 people with a 60/40 support/dps ratio... sometimes 70/30 and claim to "fight out numbered grps" where in reality they just goto enemy nc and farm pugs. Very rarely will they fight same kind of grp in fact theres grps tend to ignore each other lol.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Fat Disgrace.4275" said:

> > @"God.2708" said:

> > > @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> > >

> > > People need their boonball safe space.

> > >

> > > Personally, I don't understand the point in groups that roll with a bunch of supports, face tank everything, and take 0 damage. Where is the strategy in this? Groups that actually have to co-ordinate to avoid getting trained but have massive amounts of damage are a lot more enjoyable to fight and require at least a little more brain power _(albeit pretty much everything when scaled up to zerg size is braindead)_ to situate themselves and choose when/where they focus their damage and regroup.

> > >

> > > I've spoken with enough people to know I'm not alone when say if I see a boonball that's taking 0 damage I will straight up avoid it.

> > > Even if no one is getting kills people will continue to fight a group that shows it's vulnerable once in a while. If it's like hitting a brick wall, people leave.

> >

> > Where are these groups taking zero damage? I do not ever have this problem. Are you sure it is not a PEBKAC issue?

>

> Theres are the kind of grps who think they are hardcore, they are around 5-10 people with a 60/40 support/dps ratio... sometimes 70/30 and claim to "fight out numbered grps" where in reality they just goto enemy nc and farm pugs. Very rarely will they fight same kind of grp in fact theres grps tend to ignore each other lol. that search most time

OR the groups that run in40-50 being mor than half of the playing minstrell users that search most time smaller groups >_>

[Fat Disgrace.4275]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Fat Disgrace.4275" said:

> > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> > > >

> > > > People need their boonball safe space.

> > > >

> > > > Personally, I don't understand the point in groups that roll with a bunch of supports, face tank everything, and take 0 damage. Where is the strategy in this? Groups that actually have to co-ordinate to avoid getting trained but have massive amounts of damage are a lot more enjoyable to fight and require at least a little more brain power _(albeit pretty much everything when scaled up to zerg size is braindead)_ to situate themselves and choose when/where they focus their damage and regroup.

> > > >

> > > > I've spoken with enough people to know I'm not alone when say if I see a boonball that's taking 0 damage I will straight up avoid it.

> > > > Even if no one is getting kills people will continue to fight a group that shows it's vulnerable once in a while. If it's like hitting a brick wall, people leave.

> > >

> > > Where are these groups taking zero damage? I do not ever have this problem. Are you sure it is not a PEBKAC issue?

> >

> > Theres are the kind of grps who think they are hardcore, they are around 5-10 people with a 60/40 support/dps ratio... sometimes 70/30 and claim to "fight out numbered grps" where in reality they just goto enemy nc and farm pugs. Very rarely will they fight same kind of grp in fact theres grps tend to ignore each other lol. that search most time

> OR the groups that run in40-50 being mor than half of the playing minstrell users that search most time smaller groups >_>

 

What? No they dont lol.

 

Since the link servers began, I think most of the people in wvw have been with all other servers by now or close to all. In the past 2 years? I often go on discord and zerg dive on my roaming builds and I have yet to see a map blob deliberately go out of their way to gank them small grps. They sure as hell would if called to an objective to defend it (that's normally after a wipe though)

 

Or the other time I have seen this happen is when the zerg tail gets ganked by that smaller grp.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Fat Disgrace.4275" said:

> > @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > > @"Fat Disgrace.4275" said:

> > > > @"God.2708" said:

> > > > > @"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > People need their boonball safe space.

> > > > >

> > > > > Personally, I don't understand the point in groups that roll with a bunch of supports, face tank everything, and take 0 damage. Where is the strategy in this? Groups that actually have to co-ordinate to avoid getting trained but have massive amounts of damage are a lot more enjoyable to fight and require at least a little more brain power _(albeit pretty much everything when scaled up to zerg size is braindead)_ to situate themselves and choose when/where they focus their damage and regroup.

> > > > >

> > > > > I've spoken with enough people to know I'm not alone when say if I see a boonball that's taking 0 damage I will straight up avoid it.

> > > > > Even if no one is getting kills people will continue to fight a group that shows it's vulnerable once in a while. If it's like hitting a brick wall, people leave.

> > > >

> > > > Where are these groups taking zero damage? I do not ever have this problem. Are you sure it is not a PEBKAC issue?

> > >

> > > Theres are the kind of grps who think they are hardcore, they are around 5-10 people with a 60/40 support/dps ratio... sometimes 70/30 and claim to "fight out numbered grps" where in reality they just goto enemy nc and farm pugs. Very rarely will they fight same kind of grp in fact theres grps tend to ignore each other lol. that search most time

> > OR the groups that run in40-50 being mor than half of the playing minstrell users that search most time smaller groups >_>

>

> What? No they dont lol.

>

> Since the link servers began, I think most of the people in wvw have been with all other servers by now or close to all. In the past 2 years? I often go on discord and zerg dive on my roaming builds and I have yet to see a map blob deliberately go out of their way to gank them small grps. They sure as hell would if called to an objective to defend it (that's normally after a wipe though)

>

> Or the other time I have seen this happen is when the zerg tail gets ganked by that smaller grp.

 

I still find once in a while a group where they are mostly FB and scrapper following the mother duck... its just anoying.

And there still groups in search to ppk smaller ones for sure... most groups will in feact engage only if they outman the current enemy at the local, if theres similiar gorup sizes they probably will beat the smaller guy or ktrain diferent maps.