Guild Wars 2

…to stop zerging.

My suggestion:
Trampled (only comes up when 20 or more allies are within a range of 600 or so.)
- Reduce speed by 15%
- Upon health reaching 0%, downed state is bypassed and the player immediately dies.

What do you guys think?

They wouldn’t ever do it, they want zerg fights.

If they did it would need to come in tiers, and start at a higher number, maybe 30.

Lol, what about those guild groups that run in groups of 20. 20 man groups aren’t the problem its when two 60 man groups meet at once and the server cant handle it.

This would be hilarious.

Roaming Thief sees a friendly zerg coming his way…
“Hey Guys! Where you headed?….guys? …GUYS!?…Aaaarrghwrblwrbowrbl”

I have said it before but, Just apply rez sickness to any players Rez’d from death.

It may not stop the zombie horde forming in the first place, but it will make the horde much easier to deal with by skilled groups able to down a few at a time to the point where even if the are rezing dead (not downed) it won’t make a difference because even a lick of damage will send them straight back down again.

The main issue imo with mega zergs ATM is that they are renuable. This idea stops that.

Side note: if you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about grab a revival orb in PvE an use it from dead. From memory it cripples and lowers your hp to 1 for the duration of the debuff.

dargosian.2704:

…to stop zerging.

My suggestion:
Trampled (only comes up when 20 or more allies are within a range of 600 or so.)
- Reduce speed by 15%
- Upon health reaching 0%, downed state is bypassed and the player immediately dies.

What do you guys think?

So when this 20 goes up against 80, the 80 still wins so we’re back to square one?

dargosian.2704:

…to stop zerging.

My suggestion:
Trampled (only comes up when 20 or more allies are within a range of 600 or so.)
- Reduce speed by 15%
- Upon health reaching 0%, downed state is bypassed and the player immediately dies.

What do you guys think?

Make it 2 instead of 20 and I’ll sign it. Would be fair. I mean, we didn’t come to World versus World to fight within armies, right? What a nonsense! Everyone should be forced to small scale, the smaller the better I say!
/sarcasm

How about just reducing the amount of xp, wxp and drop rate of loot bags further the larger the zerg is? Why go zerging when it doesn’t really get you anything besides lag?

There is no reason not to zerg. Every mechanic in the game from AoE to Supply costs drives large groups. Yet there is nothing to drive formation of smaller groups. Large groups are more safe and offer equal, if not substantially more, reward.

We need to discourage zergs by making it less safe. (Lowering the reward would only cause player hostility. Same goes for rewarding smaller groups.)
Then we need to give smaller groups the ability to accomplish goals that only the current larger groups can do. (How this is done though must not also make larger groups stronger though.)

This makes smaller groups more rewarding since they can now accomplish more while not punishing larger groups directly just for their numbers.

I have a post on this very thing here;

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Real-tools-for-the-WvW-player/first#post2179363

Please read that if you’re on the “Just makes debuff for zergs!” boat.

Doesn’t the bigger army always win the war?

If you really want to encourage more small groups. Ask for bigger / better maps with more small objectives (which are properly spread out). Supply camps / sentrys isn’t enough. Zerging is fine the problem is there is just no room and not enough reasons to roam as a small group. But giving bigger groups a debuff of any sort is just the wrong way.

LilMcGinley.3890:

Doesn’t the bigger army always win the war?

No in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Omdurman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_watling_street
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

To name a few.

dargosian.2704:

…to stop zerging.

My suggestion:
Trampled (only comes up when 20 or more allies are within a range of 600 or so.)
- Reduce speed by 15%
- Upon health reaching 0%, downed state is bypassed and the player immediately dies.

What do you guys think?

Debuff wouldn’t work either…you would just have 3 groups of 20 outside of 600 meters of each other lol

Although it’s a bad idea in general, I think a fun April Fool’s joke would be to add a buff when entering WvW (one day only) -

Positive Reinforcement. – The portal to the Mists is malfunctioning and has given you a strong positive charge. Be careful getting too close to someone else with this charge. (You of course know what happens when two positive charges get too close…)

Zacchary.6183:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Doesn’t the bigger army always win the war?

No in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Omdurman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_watling_street
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

To name a few.

1) thanks for getting me WikiStuck
2) Omdurman – trained military with rifles vs non-trained with no modern weaps.
watling street – close quarters combat – dont have that here.
won’t even touch the Vietnam thing

But honestly – Not many “upsets” happen in WvW because it is a population based game mode. I hope that gets changed, somehow.

VOLKON.1290:

(You of course know what happens when two positive charges get too close…)

No, what?

Yaro.3251:

VOLKON.1290:

(You of course know what happens when two positive charges get too close…)

No, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Guild group of 30 should be able to take down any size of zerg. Zerging gets countered by skilled play by guilds. 1 guild + zerg on commander versus 1 big blob, the first one will win in capping and holding stuff.

Blobbing/zerging ain’t a problem, deal with it.

Xirin.8593:

Yaro.3251:

VOLKON.1290:

(You of course know what happens when two positive charges get too close…)

No, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Flawed analogy tbh, if that was it. “Two positive charges getting too close”, is quite different from “two or more atomic nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus”.

Yaro.3251:

Xirin.8593:

Yaro.3251:

VOLKON.1290:

(You of course know what happens when two positive charges get too close…)

No, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Flawed analogy tbh, if that was it. “Two positive charges getting too close”, is quite different from “two or more atomic nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus”.

No, it isn’t different. I don’t think you understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

LilMcGinley.3890:

Zacchary.6183:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Doesn’t the bigger army always win the war?

No in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Omdurman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_watling_street
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

To name a few.

1) thanks for getting me WikiStuck
2) Omdurman – trained military with rifles vs non-trained with no modern weaps.
watling street – close quarters combat – dont have that here.
won’t even touch the Vietnam thing

But honestly – Not many “upsets” happen in WvW because it is a population based game mode. I hope that gets changed, somehow.

There’s a number of choke and “high ground” points on WvW, and when used correctly, they diminish difference in numbers. But OP and others with same POV probably want to get rid of “strength in numbers” on WvW conceptually (totally). Which is counter-intuitive to say the least.

MiLkZz.4789:

Guild group of 30 should be able to take down any size of zerg. Zerging gets countered by skilled play by guilds. 1 guild + zerg on commander versus 1 big blob, the first one will win in capping and holding stuff.

Blobbing/zerging ain’t a problem, deal with it.

When that group of 30 can’t use their skills because the group of 80 causes lag… yeah about that..

Xirin.8593:

Yaro.3251:

Xirin.8593:

Yaro.3251:

VOLKON.1290:

(You of course know what happens when two positive charges get too close…)

No, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Flawed analogy tbh, if that was it. “Two positive charges getting too close”, is quite different from “two or more atomic nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus”.

No, it isn’t different. I don’t think you understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

Most probably I don’t understand. Particularly what I do not understand is how two positively charged guardians colliding at human running speed would produce anything other than “Oh, pardon me!”. Well, maybe a fart at best.

Xirin.8593:

Yaro.3251:

VOLKON.1290:

(You of course know what happens when two positive charges get too close…)

No, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

I was thinking more along the lines that they repel each other. Think of the fun you could have with that… “Hey buddy… aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh……” (Imagine the two flying away from each other at notable speeds…)

VOLKON.1290:

I was thinking more along the lines that they repel each other. Think of the fun you could have with that… “Hey buddy… aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh……” (Imagine the two flying away from each other at notable speeds…)

Oh, I took it to the extreme I guess the thought of a perma-SAB finisher has me thinking about nuclear explosions.

Yaro.3251

Most probably I don’t understand. Particularly what I do not understand is how two positively charged guardians colliding at human running speed would produce anything other than “Oh, pardon me!”. Well, maybe a fart at best.

If one Guardian is Norn and the other is Asura, the results are probably not “positive.” Get it? nyuk nyuk nyuk

Having read the above comments, I’d like to propose some changes to the original debuff to allow “epic large scale battles” but not “zerg from camp to camp following blue arrow off cliffs”:

Trampled (only comes up when 30 or more allies are within a range of 1000)
-Run speed reduced by 5%
-Upon health reaching 0%, downed state is bypassed and the player immediately dies.
-For every 3 more allies within 600 range, run speed is decreased by 2%, and toughness & vitality go down by 20 each.

This would mean that large guild ‘raids’ are still possible at a slight cost, and massive zergs are easier to slaughter. Does WuvWuv community approve? (Edit: Increased radius for initial effect to trigger from 600, considering zergs aren’t usually packed together but are a train)

also, @Gamadorn: Wouldn’t that be good strategical positioning, in a way? Imagine the coordination required if three separate mini-zergs could follow each other over terrain 600 units apart from each other. That wouldn’t even be zerging, that’d be sending troops in formation o.o And if it was zerging, the three groups would just head off in different directions as soon as they got started, heh.

@VOLKON, WvW would turn into Massively Multiplayer Online Pinball. >.<

dargosian.2704:

Having read the above comments, I’d like to propose some changes to the original debuff to allow “epic large scale battles” but not “zerg from camp to camp following blue arrow off cliffs”:

Trampled (only comes up when 30 or more allies are within a range of 600)
-Run speed reduced by 5%
-Upon health reaching 0%, downed state is bypassed and the player immediately dies.
-For every 3 more allies within 600 range, run speed is decreased by 2%, and toughness & vitality go down by 20 each.

This would mean that large guild ‘raids’ are still possible at a slight cost, and massive zergs are easier to slaughter. Does WuvWuv community approve?

also, @Gamadorn: Wouldn’t that be good strategical positioning, in a way? Imagine the coordination required if three separate mini-zergs could follow each other over terrain 600 units apart from each other. That wouldn’t even be zerging, that’d be sending troops in formation o.o And if it was zerging, the three groups would just head off in different directions as soon as they got started, heh.

@VOLKON, WvW would turn into Massively Multiplayer Online Pinball. >.<

I would still say 30 is too low. My WvW guild still ran with 42 on reset during our highest play time, granted we weren’t all in 1 spot (scouts, upgrade watchers etc).

Run speed – Wouldn’t effect anyone, since zergs have perma-swiftness anyway.
No Downed state – LOVE IT
Extra allies – eh, I’m torn because of situation where “randoms” join your group because they are lost and randomly found you while running back to a fight.

This is my only problem – griefers who yell at other people to go away because you cause them to run too slow. That’s the only reason ANet doesn’t put this in, they wanted everyone to hold hands.

LilMcGinley.3890:

I would still say 30 is too low. My WvW guild still ran with 42 on reset during our highest play time, granted we weren’t all in 1 spot (scouts, upgrade watchers etc).

Run speed – Wouldn’t effect anyone, since zergs have perma-swiftness anyway.
No Downed state – LOVE IT
Extra allies – eh, I’m torn because of situation where “randoms” join your group because they are lost and randomly found you while running back to a fight.

This is my only problem – griefers who yell at other people to go away because you cause them to run too slow. That’s the only reason ANet doesn’t put this in, they wanted everyone to hold hands.

Yeah, that griefers thing is a bit worrying, but the way I see it, a real zerg wouldn’t be worrying about running faster or dying quicker, as they’d just be in the “safety in numbers!” mindset. If anything, it should teach them to make a 5-10 man roamer party or find a guild, rather than holler at people to stay away from their train.

As for the organized guilds, I can’t see how a group of people who know what they’re doing would be offset by running slightly slower or having a little less hp, and you said it yourself: more often than not guild groups will be separated among their own tasks, running supply and so forth. An extra person (or three) to help out is only a benefit.

dargosian.2704:

LilMcGinley.3890:

I would still say 30 is too low. My WvW guild still ran with 42 on reset during our highest play time, granted we weren’t all in 1 spot (scouts, upgrade watchers etc).

Run speed – Wouldn’t effect anyone, since zergs have perma-swiftness anyway.
No Downed state – LOVE IT
Extra allies – eh, I’m torn because of situation where “randoms” join your group because they are lost and randomly found you while running back to a fight.

This is my only problem – griefers who yell at other people to go away because you cause them to run too slow. That’s the only reason ANet doesn’t put this in, they wanted everyone to hold hands.

Yeah, that griefers thing is a bit worrying, but the way I see it, a real zerg wouldn’t be worrying about running faster or dying quicker, as they’d just be in the “safety in numbers!” mindset. If anything, it should teach them to make a 5-10 man roamer party or find a guild, rather than holler at people to stay away from their train.

As for the organized guilds, I can’t see how a group of people who know what they’re doing would be offset by running slightly slower or having a little less hp, and you said it yourself: more often than not guild groups will be separated among their own tasks, running supply and so forth. An extra person (or three) to help out is only a benefit.

My point about guilds is mostly the “no downed state” thing. If the limit is say 35, and we are running 32, I don’t want to push the limit of not having a downed state and us becoming less effective due to something beyond our control. I mean, if 4 people join mid-fight, why should the organized guild be punished for others joining them?

Most organized guilds have specific builds they run. If I have set builds with a set composition in my group – why should you and your guild’s hardwork be minimized by knocking off certain HP? Why should MY GUILD become less effective because of OTHER PEOPLE? Those 3 people are a benefit, but what happens when those “3 people” lower the overall effectiveness of what I, as a GM, is trying to accomplish within my guild?

That is the mindset that ANet would be up against… and since this has been dubbed a “casuals” game, I don’t see anything like this happening because then we can’t sit around our Karma Bonfires and sing songs.

Note: This is not my mindset, this is purely speculation about what would happen if something like this was implemented.

Here’s my two cents on zergs: GW2 is a cooperative game and WvW was meant for larger scale fights. So the zerg (or blob for t1 servers lol :P) is a good way to capture keeps and I wouldn’t suggest doing anything to dissuade zerging. There is strenght in numbers and a 100 man should not be beaten by a group of 30.

Something I think might do a big difference without doing anything radical rendering large group ineficient would be 1st to remove the 2-3 second of uncontested way point in a keep that is under attack. A zerg is a strong attacking force but it’s weakness is and should be that they are easy to track and leaves little defenders for already owned keeps or towers. Right now, cause of the way point “exploit” the zerg is also the ultimate defense since they can all just waypoint into the assaulted keep. That is my main point. Regsrding this, I would accept and even suggest that it should be harder to contest a keep, not too hard but more than just hitting the gate once (and that comes from a thief and yes I’ve been sent to contest keeps several time and I really think it shouldn’t be that easy)

My second idea/suggestion, less strongly advised than my first but still a good one to my opinion, would be to disable rally in WvW. I think that if a well coordinated group hits and down lets say 10 guys with their opening and start maneuvering to fight should keep that opening advantage and not just see those 10 guys getting all rallied cause they lost 1 guy. The rally system almost completely nullify any surprise attacks and tactical maneuvers and its a shame.

Anyway, my 2 cents lol

Pugs/bambis/militia whatever you call it will be absolutely hated by guilds. This would create a poisonous envirenment. No I hope they will never implement this, it will ruin the game.

No thanks.

Just because you don’t like zergs, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to suffer.

You can always to small ops. Nothing prevents you from doing that. You’ll just have to expect to run from the zerg if it comes your way.

Debuffs to a group of players just because of x# is a bad idea anyway.

I do like the idea about res sickness….

quoted bradderzh.2378- can’t get quote to work properly.

I have said it before but, Just apply rez sickness to any players Rez’d from death.

It may not stop the zombie horde forming in the first place, but it will make the horde much easier to deal with by skilled groups able to down a few at a time to the point where even if the are rezing dead (not downed) it won’t make a difference because even a lick of damage will send them straight back down again.

Something like the sickness we have when we use a res orb in PvE but I would add that if they get bannered, the sickness doesn’t get applied. Someone had to use a elite skill with a very long cool down so I think the banner should bypass that.

LilMcGinley.3890:

When that group of 30 can’t use their skills because the group of 80 causes lag… yeah about that..

So now you want Anet to reduce player population because you have a low end system/gfx card/slow internet??

Never have lag on Q’d maps

Gahzirra.8639:

LilMcGinley.3890:

When that group of 30 can’t use their skills because the group of 80 causes lag… yeah about that..

So now you want Anet to reduce player population because you have a low end system/gfx card/slow internet??

Never have lag on Q’d maps

Thanks for the assumptions btw… wasn’t aware a Quad-Core i5, 8 GB DDR3, GTX 660 Ti was considered a “low end system” these days.

Bigger maps, more objectives but spread out, and no wp’s. There, small groups can do multiple things at once on one side of the map while the zerg marches through one side of the map, one target a time.

LilMcGinley.3890:

Gahzirra.8639:

LilMcGinley.3890:

When that group of 30 can’t use their skills because the group of 80 causes lag… yeah about that..

So now you want Anet to reduce player population because you have a low end system/gfx card/slow internet??

Never have lag on Q’d maps

Thanks for the assumptions btw… wasn’t aware a Quad-Core i5, 8 GB DDR3, GTX 660 Ti was considered a “low end system” these days.

then I will assume it’s your dial-up ; )

LilMcGinley.3890:

MiLkZz.4789:

Guild group of 30 should be able to take down any size of zerg. Zerging gets countered by skilled play by guilds. 1 guild + zerg on commander versus 1 big blob, the first one will win in capping and holding stuff.

Blobbing/zerging ain’t a problem, deal with it.

When that group of 30 can’t use their skills because the group of 80 causes lag… yeah about that..

Before they reduce map population and other things to force us to reduce the size we group up, which they have stated when they did reduce population that lag was not impacted noticably, they should optomize code and if possible(servers are not quite a year old) upgrade servers.

Any suggestion to reduce zerg size just because of skill lag isn’t solving the real problem. I’d rather the real problem actually be fixed because that can also benefit all parts of the game.

I believe they are moving the game in a good direction.

The masteries are helping a lot because it is making objectives easier to defend. Right now if you are in an organized guild you can capture a tower or keep and leave a group specialized in siege and repairs to defend it. I’m not saying that everybody does this but it has become completely viable.

The one thing i believe would really help against the blob mentality is a revamp of the commander system. I’ll post some ideas in another thread, but if we have more tools to organize people(while taking their specialized masteries into acount), then suddenly the game becomes much more strategic and varied.

Gahzirra.8639:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Gahzirra.8639:

LilMcGinley.3890:

When that group of 30 can’t use their skills because the group of 80 causes lag… yeah about that..

So now you want Anet to reduce player population because you have a low end system/gfx card/slow internet??

Never have lag on Q’d maps

Thanks for the assumptions btw… wasn’t aware a Quad-Core i5, 8 GB DDR3, GTX 660 Ti was considered a “low end system” these days.

then I will assume it’s your dial-up ; )

20 down 1 up.. next?

EDIT: It’s not google fiber or anything, but more than suitable for online gaming…

Xirin.8593:

Yaro.3251:

Xirin.8593:

Yaro.3251:

VOLKON.1290:

(You of course know what happens when two positive charges get too close…)

No, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Flawed analogy tbh, if that was it. “Two positive charges getting too close”, is quite different from “two or more atomic nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus”.

No, it isn’t different. I don’t think you understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

As a physicist, this made me die a little inside…

Handin.4032:

Xirin.8593:

Yaro.3251:

Xirin.8593:

Yaro.3251:

VOLKON.1290:

(You of course know what happens when two positive charges get too close…)

No, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Flawed analogy tbh, if that was it. “Two positive charges getting too close”, is quite different from “two or more atomic nuclei collide at very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus”.

No, it isn’t different. I don’t think you understand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

As a physicist, this made me die a little inside…

I’m not a professional physicist. I’ve completed 1st/2nd year undergrad physics and I still enjoy physics today, so I’d like to think I have a decent understanding.

Feel free to correct me. I am always open to learning. Your response doesn’t help much, though.

The obvious answer here is to limit the amount of people that can hit you in combat…Like a reverse of the AoE cap. I can hit 5, only 5 can hit me.

The numbers argument is all relative to the failure of ANETs equipment/servers, and directly reflects back on the AoE cap being a necessity; but this is an offensive limitation, the only defensive limitation/exploitation is to zerg/ball-up so that the AoE cap becomes your friend rather than just your enemy. People zerg because it is effective, and due to the AoE cap etc, ANET has made it exponentially more effective.

The best way to de-emphasize zerging is to spread the objectives out. Instead of adding wholly new maps, expand the current ones to at least four times the size.
This would increase opportunity cost for maintaining a singular 60 man zerg versus e.g. two 30 man or three 20 man zergs exponentially.

However, that would require a rework of the decade-old legacy network code they grandfathered over from GW1, so not likely to happen.

Jamais vu.5284:

The best way to de-emphasize zerging is to spread the objectives out. Instead of adding wholly new maps, expand the current ones to at least four times the size.
This would increase opportunity cost for maintaining a singular 60 man zerg versus e.g. two 30 man or three 20 man zergs exponentially.

However, that would require a rework of the decade-old legacy network code they grandfathered over from GW1, so not likely to happen.

zergs would just circle cap with superior rams instead of running back to defend then