A Lesson From Guild Wars 2

[Yaliskah]

When 38, all mounts have the same speed, whatever description can say (for technical reasons).

The Blobbing problem has 3 major reasons (this is my very personnal opinion)

- Maps and objectives : At some point, whatever the map, you can draw a straight line between both warcamps and check for few hours what happens : 80% of players are on this line. Big groups see no interest to retake BOs or spawned carry crates, when you can do the same killing players. So blob is the easiest solution to rank up a zone, without running everywhere.

> Remove player crate drop, it will change a bit.

-AAO : This AAO being calculated on the entire area, even your enemy has 100% AAO, if you meet as a single player a warband, this AAO isn't in your favor. So moving far from the blob isn't rewarding.

> If AAO was calculted at a personnal level ( like 300 ft around the player), maybe some ppl would be ready to take some more risks. Negative effect of the proposal, if players were aware of this AAO dynamicly, they would know what is hidden behind a wall...

-Player behaviour : Yes. Lets be honnest. Thats reassuring for lot of player to maximize gains while minimizing risk a.k.a "path of least resistance". Being in a huge amount of players can allow you to be less vigilant and still be rewarded, even with crumbs, but it is better than nothing with a minimal effort.

> Maybe break warbands coulds slow such kind of behaviour, like modifying the size of WBs from 24 to 12 players, and guilds and ally from 12 to 24 depending the guild renown rank (>29 : 12 players / 30-39 : 18 players / 40 : 24 players). (this proposal is pretty questionable, I'm aware about it).

[Mvl130]

As I've already proposed some months ago, the blob issue could be adressed by creating 2 separate game modes for RvR Lakes.

Currently one Lake is blobfest, the other is dead empty. What could be done is to make one Lake for warbands only, the other for solo and parties only.

This way warbands will not have the ability to get "renown" by jumping as 24 on a three men party, making the blobing less efficient, and making the fights fairer for everybody

[Ruin]

If we are looking for inspiration or solutions from GW 2, there was a mechanic if I remember correctly that the WvWvW had a player limit cap, so if a Pairing had X amount of players, no new players could join until a spot opened, and those players were forced to choose a different pairing. Limiting the amount of players in RvR could stir the way people play. thou I’m not saying it’s a good solution.

[Everdin]

If we are looking for inspiration or solutions from GW 2, there was a mechanic if I remember correctly that the WvWvW had a player limit cap, so if a Pairing had X amount of players, no new players could join until a spot opened, and those players were forced to choose a different pairing. Limiting the amount of players in RvR could stir the way people play. thou I’m not saying it’s a good solution.

People logging in, no spot on the own side, logging out.

After a few days some won't log in again.

But zerg problem would be solved! No players, no zerg.

[Tesq]

Spoiler:

When 38, all mounts have the same speed, whatever description can say (for technical reasons).

The Blobbing problem has 3 major reasons (this is my very personnal opinion)

- Maps and objectives : At some point, whatever the map, you can draw a straight line between both warcamps and check for few hours what happens : 80% of players are on this line. Big groups see no interest to retake BOs or spawned carry crates, when you can do the same killing players. So blob is the easiest solution to rank up a zone, without running everywhere.

> Remove player crate drop, it will change a bit.

-AAO : This AAO being calculated on the entire area, even your enemy has 100% AAO, if you meet as a single player a warband, this AAO isn't in your favor. So moving far from the blob isn't rewarding.

> If AAO was calculted at a personnal level ( like 300 ft around the player), maybe some ppl would be ready to take some more risks. Negative effect of the proposal, if players were aware of this AAO dynamicly, they would know what is hidden behind a wall...

-Player behaviour : Yes. Lets be honnest. Thats reassuring for lot of player to maximize gains while minimizing risk a.k.a "path of least resistance". Being in a huge amount of players can allow you to be less vigilant and still be rewarded, even with crumbs, but it is better than nothing with a minimal effort.

> Maybe break warbands coulds slow such kind of behaviour, like modifying the size of WBs from 24 to 12 players, and guilds and ally from 12 to 24 depending the guild renown rank (>29 : 12 players / 30-39 : 18 players / 40 : 24 players). (this proposal is pretty questionable, I'm aware about it).

I think the problem can be summ this way

-transition time problem from point a to b allow way too fast ppl concentrations way too easily and not many strategic and critial choice of deployment over the map (geography suck and require map editing)

-flag/lock meccanic dont incentivise In fun way to spread and fight all the time "at the same time" on multiple part of a map (require syncro/common lock out timers)

-sub conseguence of the above is formation of zerg that snowball from a to b.

-sub of sub conseguence , aoe cap to 24 ppl make win always who bring more ppl because enemy cant soak dmg on tanks anymore.(require wb balance as focus in game).

Nb: the sub conseguences are the only player behaviour.

Nb2: past attempt to andress one only of these problem were fundamentaly wrong in the approach and now they dont get attempt anymore (heal door by hold flag).

Nb3: gw2 pvp maps sucked, they were way too big.
Suffer in some cases from same problem of bottleneck from war and had way too many powerfull siege weapons.

[zulnam]

> If AAO was calculted at a personnal level ( like 300 ft around the player), maybe some ppl would be ready to take some more risks. Negative effect of the proposal, if players were aware of this AAO dynamicly, they would know what is hidden behind a wall...

Wouldn't that be a massive performance hit, however? Calculating the number of players around a player, even if not every second, when there are 400+ players in a zone?

I like the idea a lot though. And I think it's what we have in LotD? not sure, haven't been there in a while.

[Tesq]

Spoiler:

reason why zerging is OP in gw2 is because there's no collision. your task is to blob all people in exactly same spot as leader and move with him, while spaming aoe ****. oh and dont remind me about mass invisibility. there are some things that gw2 does good, and it's good to look up to these. but reducing mount efficiency in any way i think would be detrimental to solving "zerg issue" in ROR. imo it would be better if mounted people were granted some kind of skill that would be very helpful in zerg flanking. since that's a real life counter to zerg.

another real life counter to blobs that's absolutely supernerfed in this game is artillery. if artillery was buffed to play a meaningful role in game, it would go a long time to decimating blob fights in some popular places - like martyrs square praag, etc. but i know that will never happen because pro ror players are against the idea of one solo player actually having an influence on rvr.

You mistake the artillery has alredy being buff and nerfed because is impossible regulate it in sich were blob is forced such bottleneck and keep siege. Thus thus some wb exploited hard even when they were having more numbers than other side, again not well thinked change which ppl alredy saw the exploit but tested anyway.

[Tesq]

> If AAO was calculted at a personnal level ( like 300 ft around the player), maybe some ppl would be ready to take some more risks. Negative effect of the proposal, if players were aware of this AAO dynamicly, they would know what is hidden behind a wall...

Wouldn't that be a massive performance hit, however? Calculating the number of players around a player, even if not every second, when there are 400+ players in a zone?

I like the idea a lot though. And I think it's what we have in LotD? not sure, haven't been there in a while.

I frankly dont see how make such hard checks, which wont solve the problem but just make battle rewards fair instead, will benefith the game more than instead give To wb the tools they need to fight the zerg...

[Sulorie]

Should we really e.g. give 2 WB the tools to beat 4 WB? Shouldn't we promote having 3 WB vs 3 WB instead?

[BluIzLucky]

> If AAO was calculted at a personnal level ( like 300 ft around the player), maybe some ppl would be ready to take some more risks. Negative effect of the proposal, if players were aware of this AAO dynamicly, they would know what is hidden behind a wall...

It also means if you are in a +100% AAO zone as a 24 man WB and defeat another 24 man, you get 0 bonus (and reduced reward for less than 24), and that's not entirely fair when underdog side has more inherited risk when outnumbered in zone.
This would discourage blobbing but encourage logging on dominating realm.

A lot blob fighting tools have also been removed/nerfed over time: morale gain, morale damage, AoE slows/kiting, AoE HCC.

And probably for the better, as the stronger the tools, the more they must be mirrored..

Should we really e.g. give 2 WB the tools to beat 4 WB? Shouldn't we promote having 3 WB vs 3 WB instead?

Yup agree with this, I'm a fan of the big battles, and blobbing is somewhat required for that, so for me it's more about incentivizing both sides to show up more or less in equal number/quality (and stick around when outmatched instead of xrealming/logging off).