Guild Wars 2

I make the following suggestion as a means of countering the current WvWvW zerg meta:

Like walls, the gates of towers, keeps, and Stonemist Castle will no longer be damaged by player skills.

With zergs unable to DPS down a gate spamming auto-attack 1, they will be forced to build siege weapons if they want to capture a tower, keep, or Stonemist Castle. This, in turn, means they will have to learn the value of supply, maintaining supply lines, proper placement and use of siege weapons, long-term strategy, and coordinated tactics to successfully siege a fortification. You know…all those things that add depth to WvWvW.

Most counter arguments to this suggestion will fall into the following categories:

1) “Waaaah ! QQ !! I wantz mah WXP !!!”

No one’s taking away your WXP. Just learn to do more than press 111111111111 to earn it.

2) “This won’t stop zergs. They’ll just switch to building siege to replace spamming auto-attack at the gate. With their overwhelming numbers they’ll still have the advantage due to all the supply they can carry.”

True, it won’t stop zergs from forming. It will stop zergs from steamrolling the map doing nothing more than spamming auto-attack. Auto-attack can be thought of as a resource that is infinite. There is no cost or penalty associated with using it and it does not become depleted over time.

Supply, on the other hand, is a limited resource. If the zerg builds their siege weapons in locations that are easily destroyed by the defenders’ counter-siege, then the zerg has to build new ones if they wish to capture the tower or keep.

However, since siege weapons require supply and supply is a finite resource, they can’t build forever. Yes, supply camps regenerate it infinitely, but the zerg must have a supply camp(s) under its control and the regeneration rate is time-dependent; thus limiting how much is available at any one time.

The zerg will either be smart in placing their siege weapons and capture the tower or keep or they will eventually run out of supply as their siege weapons are destroyed and be denied the capture. This, in turn, means they will have to adapt and improve their strategies and tactics. In other words, learn to do more than spam auto-attack.

3) “Zerging is fun! How dare you suggest otherwise.”

Zerging is fun…for awhile. Eventually, running laps around the map spamming auto-attack will become boring for most players who don’t suffer from OCD. If you want to continue having fun past the honeymoon zerging phase, you’re going to have to find some new challenges and depth-of-play in WvWvW to keep it engaging. Otherwise, WvWvW dies out due to repetitive boredom and shallow game play.

If zergs won’t do this voluntarily (and they won’t), then mechanics have to be introduced to force them to experience the greater strategic depth of WvWvW. The funny thing is those who defend their pro-zerging position or complain, “I want to play my way. You shouldn’t be allowed to change my gaming behavior.” have already been manipulated.

WvWvW needed a boost of new players. So what did ArenaNet do? They introduced WXP to lure PvE-ers into WvWvW who previously wouldn’t have touched WvWvW with a ten foot pole. Now that they’re here, ArenaNet might as well manipulate the game mechanics – and, by extension, those PvE players’ gaming behavior – one more time. This way, they can experience the greater strategic depth of WvWvW; which is what will keep them playing long after zerging has lost its appeal.

Besides, no one is stopping you from zerging. You want to form a blob and steamroll some supply camps, knock yourself out. Just don’t expect that tactic to work any longer on actively defended towers and keeps if my suggestion were implemented.

(continued)

4) “This won’t stop zergs; it will just slow them down.”

Perhaps. What it does, though, is open a window of opportunity. For those players who appreciate the value of siege, defense, and smart strategic and tactical play, it gives them a chance to level the playing field and actually counter the zergs.

Currently, if a zerg shows up at your gate and you – as a defender inside the tower or keep – are so outnumbered that defeating the zerg directly is impossible (AoE caps, no perma-death while still in combat, and all that jazz), then it’s a foregone conclusion that the tower or keep will be lost. It doesn’t matter how smart you play or how valiant your defense; the zerg will just DPS down the gate with auto-attack.

With the change I’m proposing, defenders would have a fighting chance. No longer would it be a foregone conclusion that the zerg always wins. If the defenders know how to place and use their siege and the zerg does not, then the defenders may actually save their tower or keep as a result of their experience, knowledge, and skill in playing the game. Which is what I thought was one of the principles that guided this game’s development.

5) “This won’t solve the problem. If zergs now have to work for their WXP beyond spamming auto-attack, they’ll just quit WvWvW.”

Problem solved Then the rest of us can get back to playing WvWvW rather than Zerg vs Zerg.

This one change will end the supremacy of the current zerg meta. We can completely dispense with all the convoluted complexity of raising or eliminating AoE caps, no rezzes in combat, etc. One change – one tiny little change – would have a significant impact on the WvWvW experience. One, that I argue, would be for the better. Player skills would no longer damage gates. Think about it.

I suggest making pathways WIDER.

to allow better group mobility and strategic positioning instead of lumping everyone up into one big zerg and crashing into each other.

If they want to remove the ability to attack gates, then they need to make siege weapons a character ability and not an item you pay money for, like vehicles in Planetside 1.

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

I make the following suggestion as a means of countering the current WvWvW zerg meta:

2) “This won’t stop zergs. They’ll just switch to building siege to replace spamming auto-attack at the gate. With their overwhelming numbers they’ll still have the advantage due to all the supply they can carry.”

True, it won’t stop zergs from forming. It will stop zergs from steamrolling the map doing nothing more than spamming auto-attack. Auto-attack can be thought of as a resource that is infinite. There is no cost or penalty associated with using it and it does not become depleted over time.

This is definitely true. This will not stop zergs it will just ruin sieging. Warhammer did this same thing and it turned out terribly. Really all this would do is make it impossible for defenders to get into a keep. People would not build more siege seeing as usually more siege is not a necessity. Also you do not get contribution from hitting doors so you are suggesting that instead of encouraging players to face the door and spam auto-attack the game should be encouraging them to turn around and watch for people trying to get into the keep.
Instead of no damage from abilities I think that a better option is that abilities have a chance to cause 0 damage. Also this may already be a thing but, doors negating critical damage would be a good. That is not to say that you cannot critically hit a door there are good procs on critical hits that should still be made available to players attacking doors.

You want to stop zergs as they are now? Remove the 5 target AoE cap. If clumping up = death, people will stop.

Saying that, I +1 your idea. (I do likeit! Lots)

snargles.2137:

This is definitely true. This will not stop zergs it will just ruin sieging. Warhammer did this same thing and it turned out terribly. Really all this would do is make it impossible for defenders to get into a keep. People would not build more siege seeing as usually more siege is not a necessity. Also you do not get contribution from hitting doors so you are suggesting that instead of encouraging players to face the door and spam auto-attack the game should be encouraging them to turn around and watch for people trying to get into the keep.
Instead of no damage from abilities I think that a better option is that abilities have a chance to cause 0 damage. Also this may already be a thing but, doors negating critical damage would be a good. That is not to say that you cannot critically hit a door there are good procs on critical hits that should still be made available to players attacking doors.

You wrote:

“People would not build more siege seeing as usually more siege is not a necessity.”

Not sure of your intent with that statement within the context of my suggestion. As I’m suggesting gates will not take damage from players skills, siege is a necessity; it becomes the only way to gain entry to an enemy tower or keep. I don’t see how this would ruin sieging. If a zerg can’t get into a keep or tower without siege weapons, it would encourage sieging.

This contrats with just DPS-ing the gate down with auto-attack skills and no siege weapons as is currently done in some of the larger zergs. This is a form of play which requires no skill or strategic depth; aspects that are essential to the long-term survival of WvWvW. It’s this issue which my suggestion seeks to address through a very simple change as compared to some of the more complex – and, in some cases, unworkable – solutions that have been made to date on this forum.

As for making it impossible for defenders to get into a keep, I don’t see how that’s true, either. Keeps have multiple points-of-entry. If the zerg is covering only one entrance, the defenders slip in through the other. If they do try to go through the zerg (though I would agree that’s not the smartest thing to do), then they can try stealthing and slip around, use various forms of invulnerability (e.g. Mist Form), or tank through it.

There are other methods of getting into a tower or keep under siege, as well. The most basic one being…be inside the fortification guarding it before the zerg arrives. Keeps can also have waypoints which have narrow windows of opportunity for defenders to port in past the zerg at the gate. Lastly, a mesmer inside can portal allies into the tower or keep from a side where the enemy zerg isn’t watching. All of these methods are currently available and I’ve used all of them; you don’t always have to go through the front gate to get past a zerg.

As to:

“…you are suggesting that instead of encouraging players to face the door and spam auto-attack the game should be encouraging them to turn around and watch for people trying to get into the keep.”

Ummm…yeah. Players should be watching what’s going on around them instead of focusing – tunnel visioned – on a gate spamming auto-attack. Every time I lead players in a siege, I post scouts to watch all potential approaches and alert our main force the moment an enemy is spotted.

If the zerg splits up to cover all potential entrances into a keep so as to prevent defenders from getting inside, then my suggestion is working as intended. Splitting up zergs and getting them to think more strategically and tactically. Instead of a siege amounting to:

“Move zerg to gate, spam auto-attack, capture fortification.”

it becomes:

“Hmm. This keep has three entrances. I need to cover all three so as to prevent defenders getting inside while we lay siege to it.”

“I need to think carefully about how to split up my forces both for the sake of not weakening us too much as well as maintain coordination and communication.”

“I – as a commander of this zerg – have to have sub-commanders in my ranks who I trust to carry out orders and keep the rest of the zerg acting as a single unit working towards a common goal. "

“I need to post scouts to warn of incoming enemy players.”

“I need to make sure I have enough siege weapon blueprints of the right type for this siege.”

“I need to ensure we have enough supply for the initial siege construction.”

“I will need supply camps under my control.”

“I must have players who are fleet of foot make supply runs to keep this siege fueled in the event we lose some of our siege weapons to the defenders’ counter-siege.”

“etc., etc., etc.”

(continued)

When players can no longer gain entry to towers and keeps simply by pressing the 1 key once and letting auto-attack do the rest, then it opens up the potential for players to experience the strategic depth that WvWvW has to offer. For those who enjoy zerging, it won’t be eliminated; there’s still supply camps and colliding with enemy zergs. But with this suggestion I’m making, it offers alternatives and moves us away from the one-dimensional zerg meta we’re experiencing at present.

stale.9785:

You want to stop zergs as they are now? Remove the 5 target AoE cap. If clumping up = death, people will stop.

Saying that, I +1 your idea. (I do likeit! Lots)

I agree with you and I’m a proponent of lifting the AoE cap. However, as it’s unlikely ArenaNet will do so because of all the balancing issues, general outcry from those who don’t know how to dodge or position themselves, and other potential pitfalls pointed out in previous threads that have discussed this, I’m trying to come up with a solution that is:

1) Easy to implement. Walls don’t take damage from player skills; simply apply the same coding to the gates.

2) Is class agnostic. All classes would be affected equally by this change.

3) Avoids balancing issues. With this suggestion, there are no balancing issues because it eliminates player skills from the equation altogether.

4) Solves the problem of zergs being the single most effective tactic in WvWvW to the exclusion of all else, killing any hope of returning it to a game of deep strategy.

When he says more siege is not necessary, it means there are already enough rams in place to get the gate down in a timely manner. People don’t build more because it would be a waste of opportunity cost and money.

You know what I would do in a zerg if I couldn’t damage the gate by attacking it? I’d stand there doing nothing. I’d watch for people trying to flank us, certainly… and I can do that just fine while autoattacking gate too. Protip: The camera can be rotated with the left mouse button.

You want strategic depth, yet ignore the elephant in the room that is gold sinks. Commander book discourages trying your hand at leadership. Blueprints discourage trying innovative uses of siege equipment. What’s left to do but stack on top of the blue dorito?

RebelYell.7132:

When he says more siege is not necessary, it means there are already enough rams in place to get the gate down in a timely manner. People don’t build more because it would be a waste of opportunity cost and money.

You know what I would do in a zerg if I couldn’t damage the gate by attacking it? I’d stand there doing nothing. I’d watch for people trying to flank us, certainly… and I can do that just fine while autoattacking gate too. Protip: The camera can be rotated with the left mouse button.

You want strategic depth, yet ignore the elephant in the room that is gold sinks. Commander book discourages trying your hand at leadership. Blueprints discourage trying innovative uses of siege equipment. What’s left to do but stack on top of the blue dorito?

If PvDooring, I agree with you. One ram is more than enough to get the job done. In such scenarios, no solution is necessary because four people or fourty, the gate is going to fall no matter what.

My solution speaks to eliminating one of the incentives that guarantees that zergs win even in the face of legitimate counter-tactics and active defense. When gates can be damaged by player skills, then there’s no need for the attackers to even build siege; just get 60 people to spam key 1 against a gate.

When defenders can’t counter this tactic because of no perma-defeat while in combat, then there’s no point in wasting coins on constructing siege defenses or upgrading fortifications. The only counter is…bring in a zerg of your own (assuming you have the numbers available to field one). Then the meta devolves into this singular tactic. That bodes ill for the longevity of WvWvW.

As for standing there and doing nothing if you can’t damage a gate with your skills, perhaps that then becomes the incentive for some players (if not you, personally) to realize that maybe there’s more to WvWvW than running with the zerg. Maybe they’ll decide to explore what else there is to do in WvWvW beyond auto-attacking gates. And, yes, I’m well aware the camera can be rotated with the left mouse button. Even better pro-tip: place your scouts further out to give you even more advance warning of incoming enemies. Certainly greater than 1,200 range; try more like 5,000+.

As far as the elephant in the room, I’m not ignoring it. As a matter of fact, I even agree with you to a point. I’ve read suggestions of introducing different tiers or ranks for commanders, with lesser ranks costing lesser amounts of gold or requiring badges to purchase the icon; which I think are good ideas. I believe reducing (but not eliminating) siege blueprint costs would go a long way towards encouraging more frequent and creative uses of siege weapons.

Even so, making siege weapons more affordable does not mean they will be used more frequently while it remains possible to damage gates with player skills. What I’m taking issue with is not a lack of siege use, but rather a mechanic that leads to zergs becoming the predominant tactic to the exclusion of all others. If my suggestion of eliminating the ability to damage gates via player skills were implemented, then I agree 100% that siege weapons costs would have to be reduced to compensate.

What’s interesting to consider is this change would probably have negligible impact on siege weapons acting as gold sinks (and which I agree are necessary for the health of the in-game economy). As it stands, I accept the argument that fewer players purchase siege weapons due to their prohibitive cost as some may define it. However, if their price were reduced, then more players may purchase them; which would – on a volume basis – still accomplish the goal of acting as a gold sink. If players buy ten Flame Rams at 6 silver apiece, this is the same as buying thirty Flame Rams for 2 silver apiece.

You’ve given me a lot to think about with your rebuttal. I applaud you.

As for blueprints as a sink, I don’t think they’re often as “prohibitive” as “mitigating”. Like PvE waypoints. A 3s waypoint cost doesn’t prevent me from teleporting, but I would do it a lot more often were it free.

Blueprints are tertiary to your idea, however, so I won’t pollute the thread about it further. I just wanted to thank you, because lately when I’ve been debated here it has not been that respectful or thought-provoking.

You should post scouts this is true but the game mechanics should not force players to have good habits. I guess I am missing something here because I have been on both the attacking and defending end of very large zergs and never been in a situation where Auto-Attacking a door was an issue. Putting up siege is always a more effective way to siege. I do not understand how you think that these same idiots putting up siege and taking the tower/keep faster than they currently are would help your chances of defending. There is no possible way that a zerg no matter how many people can take a door down faster with auto-attack than the same zerg could with Rams, Catas and Ballistas. Just not logical to think they could. Like I said the game should not force good habits. If a bunch of people want to stand there and auto attack a door good for them. If the same number of people attack and most have to stand around while a few use rams to take the door down you have the same result. Even with no one else attacking you can take a door down with a few rams in no time.

Taking away this would also mean that small groups of players could not tag keeps/towers and force the enemy to send scouts and ultimately decide whether to continue attacking or go back to defend.

This is really something for another post but defending in this game is not nearly beneficial enough that is the real problem. Therefore if I am in a zerg and we are on a tower taking spree it is more beneficial to continue taking towers than to go back and defend. Zerging works because there is no benefit to not doing it. For example if upgrades built faster per person in the objective (this would have a maximum rate obviously otherwise zergs could just stand in a keep and finish upgrading walls in a second.)

If defensive contribution worked I think you would see a lot of the headache go away. I have repaired doors, revived allies, and killed enemies all in one tower defense and ended up with a Bronze medal in defending. That is garbage. I can just go auto-attack a door or not attack a door and as long as I stand in the circle for the capture I will end up with a Gold Medal for Securing the Objective.

I do agree there needs to be something that benefits more strategical decisions than massive zerging but I do not think that player skills not damaging doors is the answer. The idea makes sense on paper but functionally it is awful for everyone. It does not give you any higher chance of defending or them any lower chance of capturing. It does not force them to make more strategic decisions either. It makes them more effective at doing the same thing they are already doing. Therefore they again would only benefit from zerging.

I do not know that I can say I have been in a situation with formidable defense that was ineffective because of Players being able to auto attack doors. Overall my opinions on defending revolve around a few major issues.

1. This was mentioned but upping the AE hit cap for skills would be nice.
2. Aside from on a siege weapon there is not a situation in which I have the upper hand because I am in a fortification.
This is a tricky thing because people in the keep/tower should have certain benefits that those outside no not. I think that the doors having the arrow-slits around them is an awesome idea but there is no benefit to them. These should be much more functional and the wall should eliminate some of the AE coming through. I think there are ways this could be utilized more but with the massive AE hitting through the wall it is hard to know.
3. Being on the wall is more harmful than helpful. There are certain expectation with being on a castle wall that are not met in this game. I should not have to stand on the edge of the wall to shoot someone in the area in front of the door. Likewise if I am not on the edge or lip of the wall I should not be pulled over it and down to the ground. This is something that kitten es me off daily. Yes there are situations in which I get pulled and deserve it because I was being kitteny/dumb but if I am in the middle of the wall getting pulled down should not be a reasonable fear.
Attackers benefit more from AE circles than defenders. This is one that is a by design issue. Here is the the example. It is possible to be hit on a wall by someone that you cannot hit. This is to be expected in some situations but not at the level it is currently experienced. You can place AE all along a wall and hit people on that wall blindly because you can see the side of the wall. But from the wall I cannot AE people that I can see because I have no line of site to the target area. This is crap. I can see courtyard below me but cannot attack it because the shortest distance between me and that exact spot has one thing in the way, the lip of the wall. The same one that provides me no security from being pulled off of the wall creates the problem that I cannot effectively kill attackers.

Simples is still let AOE hit everyone within target area.

Snargles, I agree with just about every point you’ve made regarding defense not being rewarded or as effective as offense and some of the solutions you offer. Setting that aside, here is a more specific explanation of the problem as I see it:

1) Zerg shows up at gate. We’ll assume defenders are inside the fortification and are so grossly outnumbered that a push out from the fortification is suicide.

2) Zerg builds rams (as well as DPS-ing gate with auto-attack).

3) Defenders inside use their AoE and/or arrow carts to destroy rams at the gate.

4) Zerg then proceeds to just continue DPS-ing the gate with auto-attack.

5) If some of them fall to arrow cart fire, it’s irrelevant; they’re just speed rezzed by the zerg (no perma-death while still in combat mode).

6) Due to the issues you noted, it’s not possible for the defenders to hit the attacking zerg with player skills. Approaching the lip of the wall to be able to get line-of-sight to a target will result in them being pulled off the wall and/or insta-AoE-ed to death.

7) Even assuming the defenders can get close enough to the gate to repair it without being wiped by the overwhelming amount of AoE at the gate, it won’t matter. They will eventually burn through their supply until it reaches zero.

8 ) Zerg succeeds in DPS-ing down the gate with auto-attack alone. Guaranteed capture of the fortification.

The only counter to the above? Another zerg. And we go round and round and round playing the same stale meta over and over and over.

Now let’s switch to my suggestion:

1) Zerg shows up at gate. We’ll assume defenders are inside the fortification and are so grossly outnumbered that a push out from the fortification is suicide.

2) Zerg builds rams (as well as DPS-ing gate with auto-attack).

3) Defenders inside use their AoE and/or arrow carts to destroy rams at the gate.

4) Zerg can’t simply DPS the gate down as a substitute for siege. They scratch their heads a moment until someone gets the bright idea to build some more rams at the gate.

5) Second round of rams are also destroyed by the defenders.

6) Zerg, puzzled, pauses a moment, unsure of what to do next.

7) A brighter-than-average zergling suggests they back away from the gate out of arrow cart range to build catapults.

8 ) Zerg builds catapults to begin bombarding the walls and/or gate.

9) Defenders inside have either already built a ballista in anticipation of this tactic or proceed to build one now as a counter to the zerg’s catapults.

10) Now the defenders and attackers are dueling with one another to see who will destroy the other’s siege weapons first. Let’s assume the defenders win by taking out the zerg’s catapults first.

11) Zerg, truly perplexed, stands there a moment in stunned silence.

12) The brighter-than-average zergling then recalls that catapults have a greater range than ballistas. After much heated debate, he manages to convince his fellow zerglings to build a new set of catapults further back so they are out of range of the defenders’ ballista.

13) Zerg resumes catapulting the fortification.

14) The situation for the defenders may be getting desperate by this point. There could be multiple options. Maybe there’s not enough supply to build a counter-catapult, maybe a counter-catapult isn’t an option as there’s not high-ground within the fortification to give them a range advantage on the zerg’s catapult while still remaining out of reach of their AoE, etc.

15) The defenders receive a message that some reinforcements with supply are inbound if they can just hold out a bit longer.

16) Luckily for the defenders, they have a portal mesmer in their midst. They are able to portal in the reinforcements from outside the wall on a side out of sight of the tunnel-visioned zerg.

17) Still lacking the numbers to make a push, the defenders have a hurried discussion of their options. Repairing the wall or gate is ruled out as it will just delay the inevitable.

18) After a quick tally of the available supply, it’s decided the defenders have enough to build a trebuchet and hurriedly do so.

19) The trebuchet built, they begin their bombardment of the zerg’s catapult battery, smashing it to pieces.

20) The zerg realizes they are now out of supply. A silent roar of frustration tears the pixelated air as their plans of conquest are thwarted. They run off to find more supply while the defenders scramble to do the same and make repairs. Will the battle be joined again? That is a tale for another day.

(continued)

See the difference? With player skills able to damage a gate, siege isn’t even necessary (preferred, but not necessary) and a win is guaranteed for the zerg. In the scenario where players can no longer damage a gate with their skills, siege (and all the strategies and tactics that support siege warfare) becomes a necessity and the outcome is no longer guaranteed in favor of the zerg.

You say the game shouldn’t force good habits; but neither should it reward bad ones. Besides, the game does force (or at least encourage through rewards) good habits in other areas. If you’re in a PvE area and you aggro mobs beyond your skill level or ability to deal with their numbers, you will die. Play smart and skillfully, you defeat the mobs and profit/win. In WvWvW, though, that’s turned completely upside down. Bad habits and skill-less play are being rewarded/favored over good habits and skillful play.

You wrote:

“Taking away this would also mean that small groups of players could not tag keeps/towers and force the enemy to send scouts and ultimately decide whether to continue attacking or go back to defend.”

Good point. Easy enough to fix, though. Simply change it so now a tower or keep is contested once all of the NPCs guarding that gate have been defeated. This still allows the contesting mechanic to remain in effect while simultaneously requiring a little more skill than simply hitting a gate once with an attack (something that has been complained about here on the forum, as well).

Shadow.3475:

Simples is still let AOE hit everyone within target area.

Simple to implement, yes (and I’m in agreement on lifting the AoE cap). Not so simple in light of all the QQ-ing from a vocal segment of the player base on this forum who believe they should be rewarded for doing nothing more than spamming auto-attacks while standing in the midst of an AoE storm unscathed.

Thus, I went searching for a solution that completely side-steps the thorny issue of AoE caps and all the pro and con arguments that have been posted on the forum to date. Eliminating the ability of players to damage gates with their skills avoids all of the pitfalls associated with the “remove the AoE cap” debate while accomplishing the goal of no longer rewarding zergs for skill-less play.

With this one suggestion – simple to implement – zergs will have to do more than press the 1 key and then practically go AFK if they want to capture fortifications and earn their rewards. They will have to remain engaged in the game and play skillfully if they want to be successful in their siege attempts (in the face of active defense, that is; this suggestion has no bearing on PvDoor).