Guild Wars 2

I think one of the main gripes of the player base when it comes to WvW is the viability and necessity of zerging. At least it definitely is for me personally. I’m sure I’m not the first to bring it up, but I’ve been searching for a reasonable alternative that doesn’t cause performance problems, and then it dawned on me.

Why must we zerg? Well if you break it down, taking a tower or a keep requires a minimum amount of siege weapons. Lets say, for simplicity, 2 superior rams for outer and 2 superior rams for inner for a quick keep steal. At 50 supply each, thats 200 supply total, or 20 players worth (without upgraded capacity). That assumes the keep is lightly defended.

Well, what if you increased the player supply capacity to 20 (with no upgrades/buffs)? All of a sudden, a group of 10 people could have enough supply to take a lightly defended keep. But the benefits don’t end there. Now all of a sudden, your havoc group of 5 has the ability to drain the camp they just flipped. Now they can stop at an enemy tower, and deploy 2 rams, or 2 catapults, or a treb. Suddenly, your 5 man team is an actual THREAT. But what about defense?

Right now, very few ppl actually play defense. Why? Because it’s boring, it usually requires running supply to set up siege weapons, and because your average zerg is going to bust in unless you have a decently large amount of ppl and siege. And then, the rewards for defending also are pretty bad. Well, what if ppl could carry twice as much supply? Now, all those havoc squads running around, full of supply, now they’re gonna start attacking towers. Why? Because if nobody defends it, they will take it! Now, defense isn’t as boring, because as few as 3 players (2 with upgrade/buff) could wander over, throw up a catapult, and take down your wall. Building an arrow cart to defend with, only requires 2 people. This way, ppl might actually start playing defense!

Well, what about over-abundance of siege weapons? There are 2 factors that prevent this. Factor 1, supply is still generated at the same rate by camps so the amount of supply being added to the map over time is the same. Factor 2, the amount of siege allowed on a map is hard capped. It is still a valid concern, and I have some ideas that might lessen this as a potential problem. But one benefit that is added here, is that now, camps become more important, because players are more likely to use the supply they pick up (more supply is used in general).

Alright, so to summarize, here are all of the potential benefits of doubling player supply capacity to 20:
1. Less zerging, keeps no longer require 20 ppl to flip
2. More havoc squads (3-5 players) that can now flip a tower by themselves
3. Fortifications will be attacked more frequently, making playing defense more important and less boring
4. Less ppl required to defend a tower/keep. An arrow cart can be built by 2 ppl with supply.
5. Less running supply (Who loves running back and forth?)
6. Camps and supply become more important

Here are some potential negatives (I have suggestions for these):
1. Overabundance of siege weapons
2. More fortification flipping makes upgrading them more risky (but also promotes defense!)
3. Poor use of supply is a bigger waste (trolling/sabotage or noob behavior has bigger impact)
=
TLDR: proposed changes:
1. Increase player base supply capacity to 20
2. Add supply count for each location to world map so you can easily see what locations have supply (along with righteous indignation buff timers for supervisors)
3. Add ability to deconstruct siege if your server has within 15 siege weapons of the map capacity (with a 15 min cooldown to limit trolling/sabotage)
4. Make fortification upgrades have their own “storage” and not utilize the stored supply which players can pick up
5. Make supply automatically feed upgrades in progress.
6. Reduce supply storage in keeps and towers to 200 max
7. Eliminate supply in storage when a keep or tower (not camp) is flipped
8. Allow players to deposit supply into upgrades in progress (optional, I think it would help low pop servers)

Tell me what you guys think!

Also you can put a 15 minute cooldown for deconstructing the siege weapons to try to limit potential trolling/sabotage. Remember you’d only be able to deconstruct siege if you are within, say, 15 siege weapons of the cap. Maybe you’d have a reusable item like a “deconstruction wrench” that you would double click to pull out first then allowing you to deconstruct a siege weapon (this way you could still use siege easily and wouldn’t deconstruct accidentally).

And suddenly, 20 players could carry supply, and cap it even faster!

IMO, increasing the supplies will increase the zerg size. Think of it this way:

Zerg size: 20 man zerg (relatively small group compared to the 50-60 that exist on the higher Tiers).
Max supplies: 400 (without WxP traits). Note: Assumption is that it would normally be base 15 with +5 from guild buff to put it at 20. I know that you said base should be 20, but with the buff you’re at 600 supplies (that’s ~35% of a fully upgraded keep supply).

Strategy:
1. The 20 man group grabs supplies from their BL camps/keeps at max value.
2. Port to enemy BL and head to nearest keep (skip tower/camps).
3. 4 Superior rams for outer, 4 Superior rams for inner.
4. If you were able to ninja cap, you have 500 supplies more which is sufficient for the group to be at max again.

As you can see, this added increase would promote grouping up more since you can build more siege to take down the objective quicker without any additional camp runs. Add just 5 people more and suddenly you have enough for 5 sup rams for inner and outer. With the added ram mastery, this will make defending much harder rather than easier. Lastly, how would you handle Supply Capacity mastery? Would this allow the user to hold 25 supplies? That would be ridiculously OP, especially if you combine Supply Mastery RNG. Just to note, if we all play long enough we will eventually reach 20 supplies as per Supply Capacity + Guild buff.

Personally, I think that the cannon mastery should be modified slightly. Instead of a boon strip, have it strip enemy supplies similarly to treb mastery. This will help postpone attacks if used properly and hopefully some kind of cavalry can get there on time to help properly defend.

=====

TLDR: Increase base supply capacity would promote zerging due to having the ability to build more siege quicker without the need of a camp run. Cannon mastery for skill 1 should remove enemy supplies instead of boons and swapped higher in the tree similarly to treb mastery.

As much as this would help smaller groups, it makes zergs even stronger.

Drastic.8920:

IMO, increasing the supplies will increase the zerg size. Think of it this way:

Zerg size: 20 man zerg (relatively small group compared to the 50-60 that exist on the higher Tiers).
Max supplies: 400 (without WxP traits). Note: Assumption is that it would normally be base 15 with +5 from guild buff to put it at 20. I know that you said base should be 20, but with the buff you’re at 600 supplies (that’s ~35% of a fully upgraded keep supply).

Strategy:
1. The 20 man group grabs supplies from their BL camps/keeps at max value.
2. Port to enemy BL and head to nearest keep (skip tower/camps).
3. 4 Superior rams for outer, 4 Superior rams for inner.
4. If you were able to ninja cap, you have 500 supplies more which is sufficient for the group to be at max again.

As you can see, this added increase would promote grouping up more since you can build more siege to take down the objective quicker without any additional camp runs. Add just 5 people more and suddenly you have enough for 5 sup rams for inner and outer. With the added ram mastery, this will make defending much harder rather than easier. Lastly, how would you handle Supply Capacity mastery? Would this allow the user to hold 25 supplies? That would be ridiculously OP, especially if you combine Supply Mastery RNG. Just to note, if we all play long enough we will eventually reach 20 supplies as per Supply Capacity + Guild buff.

Personally, I think that the cannon mastery should be modified slightly. Instead of a boon strip, have it strip enemy supplies similarly to treb mastery. This will help postpone attacks if used properly and hopefully some kind of cavalry can get there on time to help properly defend.

=====

TLDR: Increase base supply capacity would promote zerging due to having the ability to build more siege quicker without the need of a camp run. Cannon mastery for skill 1 should remove enemy supplies instead of boons and swapped higher in the tree similarly to treb mastery.

Ok, lets compare. The way it is now, we’ll assume a zerg of 40 people doing exactly what you’re describing above (flipping everything one by one, hopping maps) which happens all the time. They are using 400 supply per keep, draining it, and moving right along to the next one.

Double the supply capacity, and you only need 20 ppl to do the same exact thing. So now you have cut the zerg size required to capture a whole entire map at the same speed by half. So lets say, a server decides to run the 40 man zerg anyway. Now they have 800 supply instead. Are they going to use 800 supply to take that keep? How much faster do you capture a map with 8 superior rams per keep as opposed to 4? Is the majority of your time spent breaking down gates or running from point to point? Meanwhile I’m on the opposing server. All of the points you just captured have no defense whatsoever (because 40 players are running in the zerg), and the keeps can be captured with as few as 10 people, and the towers as few as 2, quickly with 5. My server with a group of 10 being the largest “zerg” will capture the map back faster than it took you to capture it in the first place, simply because they can capture two points in the time it took you to capture one.

But the most important thing, is it doesn’t matter how many points you flip, or how fast you flip them as a zerg. You know why zergs don’t run through capping the ruins? Because you only need small teams to cap them, and capping them all at once is more effective. Assuming not one single person defends anything, which is more efficient? Having a zerg of 20 ppl capturing a single keep at a time, using 400 supply? Or having 2 “zergs” of 10 ppl capture 2 separate keeps, using 200 supply each. Think of 5v5 tPvP. Does a team win if they simply run from point to point with all 5 of their teammates together? No, the opposing team would simply split up and capture 2 points in the same time it takes the “zerging” team to capture one.

To simplify, lets assume a zerg of 40 ppl can capture an entire map in 10 minutes the way things are now.

If we double the supply:
Assuming no resistance and assume the same zerg of 40 ppl can capture an entire map in 8 minutes (each gate falls twice as fast). Meanwhile, 2 zergs of 20 ppl would capture the same map in 5 minutes. The only difference is, that it would be harder to stop the zerg of 40 ppl from taking the 1 point at a time. Same way its harder to stop a team of 5 from capturing a single point in tPvP, so instead you just split up and capture 2.

The way it is now, havoc groups don’t attack towers, because they can’t flip them. Instead they run around flipping camps, and usually, they don’t even use the supply that they collect. It’s quite simple. You are simply lowering the required number of players to perform a task. Since players already run havoc groups, you are just giving them the ability to flip a tower, and I guarantee you, they will start doing it.

This post assumes a few things, none of which IMO are true:

1. Zergs are bad. They’re not. Zergs are awesome.
2. Zergs exist based on supply constraints. They don’t. Zergs exist to faceroll the opposition — be it towers, keeps or opposing zergs.

Zergs don’t always use all the supply available. I’ve been in 50 man zergs that only use two rams to take a tower or keep’s gate. The rest of the people just twiddle fingers until the gates go down, and don’t even use their supply.

As for Havoc Groups… I’ve flipped towers with just two people. Three is better, so at least default supply capacity can build a ram. But there were times when I had two people with 15 supply take a tower and it works. I gaurantee you, we already do it.

Mochann.5298:

This post assumes a few things, none of which IMO are true:

1. Zergs are bad. They’re not. Zergs are awesome.
2. Zergs exist based on supply constraints. They don’t. Zergs exist to faceroll the opposition — be it towers, keeps or opposing zergs.

Zergs don’t always use all the supply available. I’ve been in 50 man zergs that only use two rams to take a tower or keep’s gate. The rest of the people just twiddle fingers until the gates go down, and don’t even use their supply.

As for Havoc Groups… I’ve flipped towers with just two people. Three is better, so at least default supply capacity can build a ram. But there were times when I had two people with 15 supply take a tower and it works. I gaurantee you, we already do it.

First things first. There wouldn’t be any havoc groups at all if everyone liked zerging.
Second, rams require 40 supply not 30, therefore to build one you either had 2 people with guild upgrade and capacity upgrade, or you had 4 people. And third, you will only take a tower with 4 people and a ram, if the tower is paper and nobody shows up to defend it. Two enemies show up and your plan is over. One enemy could probably stop you alone if they were decent.

Also, what your 50 man zerg did, when they took a tower only using 2 rams, could be accomplished by a team of 5 ppl if you doubled the supply capacity. The idea of that makes me happy.

Eh, from what I’ve seen of fights here in T1 servers, we rarely run as 1 giant zerg anyway. It’s already inefficient in order to maximise PPT. We actually go out of our way (if there are enough people online – OCE/SEA trends towards having 1 map zerg due to lack of commanders, though we occasionally do have 2 groups running separately) to have 2 or more groups running on a map.

Also in T1, you will see a lot of defensive maneuvering to protect our upgraded keeps and towers. There’s usually at least 1 person in each natural tower and usually 2 or more in each natural keep.

I think the current map blob meta is slowly changing. If you play for PPT, you simply can’t run with a map zerg anymore – especially if your server has the organisation to have more than 1 group running in a map. Not with current siege being so strong that you can take down an undefended tower with 3-5 people.

Hell, I’ve ran a havoc squad where we ninja’d Bay keep with 6 people by running supply from NW camp to build siege, even if our original purpose was to draw the main enemy zerg over to us.

The solution to zergs is a simple one – you stop rewarding it. The less actual work you do as a player, the less rewards you should reap for it. We need a player performance rating system similar to what Warhammer Online offered.

This would make havoc groups enjoy far better rewards as they’d be doing far more work than any one individual in a zerg. Players would still be inclined to zerg because safety in numbers but zerging would no longer necessarily be the fastest way to rank up and get ahead.

People zerg because it’s the easiest and the most profitable way to WvWvW. Risk versus reward simply doesn’t exist.

Fixing the rewards aside though, Fungalfoot and Reverance, what do you think of doubling supply capacity?

A Lizard Bolting Skin.7426:

Fixing the rewards aside though, Fungalfoot and Reverance, what do you think of doubling supply capacity?

Since I run with a small group myself I’m rather biased and would obviously love having the capacity to take on bigger targets. It’s a bit of a pain to have a member run supplies while the rest of us guards the siege and pray that the zerg won’t spot us before the deed is done.

That said, from a rational perspective it might just be a bit too much to allow havoc groups to take out towers that fast. Maybe if they ramped up the other defenses a little and made the taking a slightly more involved and fun process? I think taking on a tower as a small group should be somewhat of a heroic feat.

Fungalfoot.7213:

A Lizard Bolting Skin.7426:

Fixing the rewards aside though, Fungalfoot and Reverance, what do you think of doubling supply capacity?

Since I run with a small group myself I’m rather biased and would obviously love having the capacity to take on bigger targets. It’s a bit of a pain to have a member run supplies while the rest of us guards the siege and pray that the zerg won’t spot us before the deed is done.

That said, from a rational perspective it might just be a bit too much to allow havoc groups to take out towers that fast. Maybe if they ramped up the other defenses a little and made the taking a slightly more involved and fun process? I think taking on a tower as a small group should be somewhat of a heroic feat.

Remember though, it also takes half as many people to build defensive siege, so all it would take to stop you is 2 enemies with supply to build an arrow cart to kill your rams. Three with supply would get 2 arrow carts. Now a single party with supply can put down a defensive treb.

I think its a bad idea. This is coming from my perspective in T1. I’ll use this one situation as a example. We are on a enemy BL wanting to hit Garrison. Were full on supply (with your 2x idea) We swing by NW tower and drop 2 rams and leave 2-5 people there to take the tower and the rest of the zerg proceeds to garrison. So say we take down outer gate, we move to inner and build siege. Say you take out that siege and the gate is still at 80%. Now normally we would be very low on supply and it may be hard to get siege up but since we have double the normal supply, we don’t need to leave.

Ok here’s a different example. Say we have a 60 man zerg, (can be common in T1) thats between 600-900 supply if were full on supply depending on the +5. That’s 6-9 golems that can be flash built at your door step. While that is more then enough to take the keep, doubling the supply will reduce the amount of people needed to do that. Now you have a 30 man zerg able to golem rush with 6-9 golems they built at your door step. Now bakc to the 60 man zerg, if you double the supply the now have 1200-1800 supply….the can build 8-12 Omega golems at your door or 12 to 18 alpha golems. Or they can build 5 AC’s and 10-16 golems.

My point is while yes you would allow for smaller groups to do more, you are buffing zergs to a possible extreme amount. I know you can say not all servers are like T1 and I understand that but the change would be global. In T1 scouts are very very common and for the most part ninjaing a keep or tower is not probable.

Mochann.5298:

This post assumes a few things, none of which IMO are true:

1. Zergs are bad. They’re not. Zergs are awesome.
2. Zergs exist based on supply constraints. They don’t. Zergs exist to faceroll the opposition — be it towers, keeps or opposing zergs.

Zergs don’t always use all the supply available. I’ve been in 50 man zergs that only use two rams to take a tower or keep’s gate. The rest of the people just twiddle fingers until the gates go down, and don’t even use their supply.

As for Havoc Groups… I’ve flipped towers with just two people. Three is better, so at least default supply capacity can build a ram. But there were times when I had two people with 15 supply take a tower and it works. I gaurantee you, we already do it.

I just want to add my two cents that I actually hate Zergs. When I think WvW I imagine a vast open map with multiple groups carrying out various maneuvers throughout the battle field. Whenever, I find myself enjoying some WvW action I refuse to be just a small cog in the Zerg machine when I can feel like my actions have meaning.

The current necessity for large numbers to effectively take Keeps and Towers limits the number of available pieces in the field and pretty much makes defending obsolete. Rather then the field of battle peppered with skirmishes big and small, we have two opposing balls of ordered chaos dancing around each other with the occasional clash. While the current scenario does have some strategic appeal it is enjoyed solely by the commanders leading the Zergs. And honestly, a majority of the potential strategy has been reduced to, “who can take empty fortresses faster.”

What would you rather play? A game of Rock’em Sock’em Robots, playing the part of a cog that twists an arm? Or an Intricate game of chess where you could play the role of a flexible knight, a relentless bishop, or a defensive rook? Hell, lets throw in a couple smaller Rock’em Sock’em Robots on that chess board because with OP’s suggestion there would certainly be room for them.

There is no “zerg” problem. These “zergs” are what most people come to WvW for in the first place…. if they wanted reliable 5v5 or 8v8 or smaller they could join sPvP.

There is a problem that fights over 5 people start to get uninteresting sometimes, but that’s because the combat and classes are designed for 5v5 and there’s nothing to be done about that in the immediate future.

There’s a problem that stuff falls much faster in siege than people can meaningfully respond to it. That’s because of things ArenaNet could fix if you badgered them enough, I guess. Hookpoints for rams, trebs, and golems to limit the number you can use against a structure. Remove superior siege completely? Nerf WvW abilities that increase damage against walls and doors? Probably other stuff….

Though I really like your idea and wish they would implement it, I don’t think it will stop zerging. Zerging is a safe and easy way to complete objectives and get bags. The rewards of zerging a tower or keep vastly outweigh defending it.

If my server is in the lead or grossly in the lead; I don’t think i’d care if 5 people are taking over a tower. It just means we’ll flip it soon ourselves and get rewards for it. Now, if the rewards for defending were either equal to or greater than the rewards for capping, then I could see people caring more about defense.

Part of the problem with giving people more supply is it means larger groups will vaporize doors and walls that much quicker.

i think the basic setup of WvW is good, but has large flaws. namely population and the advantages of zerging in almost every situation.

the double supply capacity i think is a nice idea. i think the smaller population servers would find that it helps them more than it helps a larger zerg. the defenders of a low WvW population server would certainly have more of an advantage than they already do. and the zergserver that does not fortify because it can come back and easily cap will have to change tactics.

the lower population server will always be at a disadvantage against a higher populated one. but with the double supply the gap will be closed a little. especially if there were more tower/keep defenses which took supply from the attacking zerg as someone already suggested.
maybe building siege in a keep/tower you own either cost less supply, or a worker will help build with effectively “free supply” then the smaller population server will find defense easier against larger numbers.

evenly matched servers will notice little difference as it will still basically be even. but the smaller population servers i think will find things easier overall. as one persons efforts will go further. in a larger zerg… they had the people for it anyway and each effort by an individual is watered down by the efforts of others.

maybe cap the amount of siege that can be placed by location. a keep allows for 20, tower 10. open field 3 with a minimum distance between other open field siege. then to build two catas the zerg has to split to build and guard them. giving the lower population server at least some chance against half the attacking zerg before the other half can run to their defense. this would make seige placement more criticle and could force larger zergs to split up more often.

the dismantling of siege is a good idea which has been mentioned. especially rams. mayhap a new WvW ability of “seige engineer”. can repair them a little. but never to full health. maybe can always repair 30% of what health they have remaining at the time.

Zosk.5609:

There is no “zerg” problem. These “zergs” are what most people come to WvW for in the first place…. if they wanted reliable 5v5 or 8v8 or smaller they could join sPvP.

There is a problem that fights over 5 people start to get uninteresting sometimes, but that’s because the combat and classes are designed for 5v5 and there’s nothing to be done about that in the immediate future.

There’s a problem that stuff falls much faster in siege than people can meaningfully respond to it. That’s because of things ArenaNet could fix if you badgered them enough, I guess. Hookpoints for rams, trebs, and golems to limit the number you can use against a structure. Remove superior siege completely? Nerf WvW abilities that increase damage against walls and doors? Probably other stuff….

Perhaps Zerg “problem” is a poor choice of words, but wouldn’t you say the scenario OP describes could alleviate the problem you describe? The one about “anything greater than 5v5 eventually becomes boring”

Keep in mind Zerging would not be eliminated as long as there are people who want to Zerg. Rather the optimal strategic ratio would shift from one Large Zerg and a few Havoc Groups, to something like two moderate zergs and five havoc groups.

Also regular sPvP would not be a legitimate substitute to OP’s scenario because those matches have too much structure.

WvW can offer spontaneity that sPvP cannot provide. Should OP’s suggestion come to light, a 5 man Havoc group may have a typical encounter similar to something in sPvP…..or they could encounter a 6 man group or a 3 man group. This could happen out in the field on their way to attack a tower, or they could already be attacking the tower, or maybe they are defending the tower.

This type of thing may occasionally happen now. But the current system makes it a rarity rather then the norm (and the norm it should be). And one aspect that is definitely not happening now is that while these two small squads are facing off there are several others like them interacting with each other around the map.

Zikory.6871:

I think its a bad idea. This is coming from my perspective in T1. I’ll use this one situation as a example. We are on a enemy BL wanting to hit Garrison. Were full on supply (with your 2x idea) We swing by NW tower and drop 2 rams and leave 2-5 people there to take the tower and the rest of the zerg proceeds to garrison. So say we take down outer gate, we move to inner and build siege. Say you take out that siege and the gate is still at 80%. Now normally we would be very low on supply and it may be hard to get siege up but since we have double the normal supply, we don’t need to leave.

Ok here’s a different example. Say we have a 60 man zerg, (can be common in T1) thats between 600-900 supply if were full on supply depending on the +5. That’s 6-9 golems that can be flash built at your door step. While that is more then enough to take the keep, doubling the supply will reduce the amount of people needed to do that. Now you have a 30 man zerg able to golem rush with 6-9 golems they built at your door step. Now bakc to the 60 man zerg, if you double the supply the now have 1200-1800 supply….the can build 8-12 Omega golems at your door or 12 to 18 alpha golems. Or they can build 5 AC’s and 10-16 golems.

My point is while yes you would allow for smaller groups to do more, you are buffing zergs to a possible extreme amount. I know you can say not all servers are like T1 and I understand that but the change would be global. In T1 scouts are very very common and for the most part ninjaing a keep or tower is not probable.

The main concern I am hearing, and it is a valid one, is that doubling supply capacity will make it harder to prevent things from getting flipped. Here is my counter argument: I am on Jade Quarry (a T1 server), I have been on teamspeak, following our commander, fighting with the zerg when we stop 40 man zergs full on supply with a couple of golems in tow. Personally, I can’t remember a time when we stopped a 60 man zerg full on supply with golems in tow. Less and less people actually scout or build defensive siege at all anymore. The way it is now, we only stop a zerg like this when our entire server is working together in teamspeak and playing defense, and it only works if our zerg is strong enough to fight the enemy zerg. But what about all the times when your server isn’t building defensive siege or scouting? What about the times when our 40 man zerg can’t stop your 60 man zerg?

The main problem is, not everyone who gets on WvW nowadays is gonna contribute to defending or to zerging. The reason is because both are boring. Only the top tier WvW only guilds will ever help build defensive siege. The way it is now, more and more people simply won’t join the zerg, or help defend. They just run around the ruins and camps, picking up supply they don’t even use. If you double supply capacity, a true split, multi pronged offensive because viable. Maybe you increase the health of all gates by 1.5 to compensate. Honestly, you might not even need to. This way if I know your server is using a now twice as strong unstoppable 60 man zerg, my server will tell two 20 man zergs to go attack two of your upgraded keeps. So if you take our upgraded keep, we’ll take two of yours. Anyway this is the idea. It will also mean more defensive siege, everywhere.

There is no way to stop the blob… it is all-encompassing and will soon engulf and consume us until there is nothing left. But it all seriousness, whilst I like the idea, I can definitely see the cons of it just further strengthening the existing zerg trend though it would also empower smaller groups.

I’d love to have my party of 5 people be able to build siege without having to run back and forth. TL;DR: Yes, it empowers smaller havoc groups but it doesn’t solve the zerg dilemma.

So many people in this thread have no clue. Want to know why people zerg? Here is the shocking answer…. because it is the most fun for them. Rewards are not the most important.

Surprise! A lot of people actually like seeing large open field fights.

i’d be all for doubling the amount of supply that can be carried. there’s a major reason why it wouldn’t benefit zergs nearly as much as smaller groups. where’s that supply coming from? supply management when leading a zerg has far more to do with where and when you can pick supplies up, than how many people can carry supplies. say i have a 40 man zerg. now, they can hold up to a maximum of 400 supplies right now, but that means that they have to drain 4 camps to get it. if it’s doubled, then can hold up to 800 supplies, but would have to drain 8 camps to get it. most likely, they’ll hover around 200 supplies regardless of size, unless they stop by a keep and fill up there. because when you’re being pressed, you don’t have the luxury of the time required to lead your zerg in a circle around the map to cap and drain all the camps. at best, you could flip a keep and get 500 supplies, minus however many you needed to use to take it. so 6 superior rams (3 per gate), costs 300 total supplies, so you’d end up with an extra 200 to work with. that’s assuming there’s no complications. if one set of rams get taken out, now you’re down to 50 supplies as profit. most likely, you’re going to grab 1 or 2 camps, and get all those bodies back to where they’re needed.

and if they do happen to to stop in a keep to fill up, no problem. that keep would need to have several upgrades done to it just to be able to hold that amount, and it would take time for it to fill up to that amount. plus, if we drain it, now that keep is low on supplies to repair or build defensive siege. so it becomes vulnerable.

either way, zergs really wouldn’t be affected all that much, but small groups would get a major boost. because a 5 man group can flip a camp and drain it, and end up with enough to actually do some damage. defenders would be able to set areas up a lot faster, so defense would get a boost as well. (though they still really really do need to increase the rewards for defending)

If by Zerg you mean a lot of people roaming around together, that’s because more people are generally more powerfull than less, so the motivation is wining, and people want to win.

If by Zerg you mean a profesional tightly packed bunch of organized players facerolling anyone not tighly packed themselves that’s becuase attacks in this games are limited to 5 targets mazimum no matter how large the area is, so any player over the 1st 5 inside a lava font doesn’t get damage: the motivation here is outgoing damage concentration and incoming damage spread. It’s quite stupid actually since in real life armies spread out to mitigate damage, they din’t stack together under the boiling oil.

Guess damaging everyone in an aoe would dilute zergs, or at least spread them out in a front, but then ranged players would dominate the meta most probably.

style.6173:

So many people in this thread have no clue. Want to know why people zerg? Here is the shocking answer…. because it is the most fun for them. Rewards are not the most important.

Surprise! A lot of people actually like seeing large open field fights.

I beg to differ. Many people have no clue how to fight without a zerg. Trail a zerg as a solo and pick on the stragglers. They have no idea on how to fight one on one and would rather run after their zerg, as fast as they can, taking hits all they way rather then turn and fight. I have picked off many zerglings this way. Sure I get caught from time to time if the zerg turns on me but more often then naught they are single minded in their objective and ignore all else but that objective. A zerg for the most part is a mindless entity, hence the name zerglings from SC.

So yes people like zergs but the reason they like it is because that is all they know how to do.

As far as increased supply capacity it would take fewer people to gate drop and build a golem then it does now. That would just not work.

Alternative idea:

Make those “Supply removal traps” easier to get & use. They are 15 Badges & 525 Karma + 10 supply to build, now. If you make them as “cheap” as an AC (6 Badges) + 6 supply to build you would see a wider use of them. Also make them more visible on the map (e.g. by some flag posts) and non de-spawing when the player leaves the map. Perhaps change the functionality to that of the other siege items & introduce a refresh mechanic.

You could even go a step further and make those patrolling NPC upgrades drop them in front of a gate automatically.

Gorani.7205:

Alternative idea:

Make those “Supply removal traps” easier to get & use. They are 15 Badges & 525 Karma + 10 supply to build, now. If you make them as “cheap” as an AC (6 Badges) + 6 supply to build you would see a wider use of them. Also make them more visible on the map (e.g. by some flag posts) and non de-spawing when the player leaves the map. Perhaps change the functionality to that of the other siege items & introduce a refresh mechanic.

You could even go a step further and make those patrolling NPC upgrades drop them in front of a gate automatically.

Now that would be fun!

Zerging is the fastest way to cap individual objectives and get that WXP at the end. Unless the reward structure changes, none of the other things will matter.

You’re only asking for the ability to backcap for karma train..

Why would anyone play in a server vs server vs server environment and then complain about zergs? You should play tpvp if you want small group vs small group. Wvw is big, fights are big, that’s the point dude. There is plenty of strategy and skill involved in zerg vs zerg fighting. lol @ “fixing the zerg problem”…. it isn’t a problem. You’re just playing the wrong game

The “solution” to the issue of small groups is already in the game. Its called guild catapults.

A group of 5 people thats claimed a stocked camp will walk away with 75 supplies (minimum). That’s enough for them to build 3 guild catapults, which equal superiors. Meaning those 5 people can wreck any keep they want, even T3 reinforced. Hills, Bay, Garrison, it doesnt matter. You can breach outer and inner walls with the same catapults.

Well, assuming a 60 man zerg doesnt roll over them 30 seconds after they built them, but that’s beside the point. Because its going to happen regardless of the fact they built 1 catapult or 3 catapults.

CyRuS.6915:

Why would anyone play in a server vs server vs server environment and then complain about zergs? You should play tpvp if you want small group vs small group. Wvw is big, fights are big, that’s the point dude. There is plenty of strategy and skill involved in zerg vs zerg fighting. lol @ “fixing the zerg problem”…. it isn’t a problem. You’re just playing the wrong game

The point of this isn’t to debate whether or not ppl like zerging. More and more ppl stop contributing to the zerg and run in havoc groups because being a mindless zergling is boring. They do this even though the rewards aren’t as good. So the fact that many people would rather watch paint dry than follow the zerg is simply a fact. The point of this thread is to find a way to allow people to contribute without being in the zerg, which they can’t really do at the moment.

Low pops should have an option to pray to a god & summon natural disasters at a chosen area.A lightning bolt could destroy the blob at your door with one single BOOM!
Low pop servers need a mechanism to level the playing field YESTERDAY!!!

Drastic.8920:

IMO, increasing the supplies will increase the zerg size. Think of it this way:

Strategy:
1. The 20 man group grabs supplies from their BL camps/keeps at max value.

I don’t think it will increase zerg size as aside from guild groups, the rest of the server tends to blob up under a commander already.

Player supply should reset to zero upon entering a WvW map. That it doesn’t is just another feature that exacerbates population issues.

Carrying more supply is an interesting change. I’m not sure how this would affect zerging though. 60-80 man server blobs don’t exist because of supply IMO.

Dawdler.8521:

The “solution” to the issue of small groups is already in the game. Its called guild catapults.

A group of 5 people thats claimed a stocked camp will walk away with 75 supplies (minimum). That’s enough for them to build 3 guild catapults, which equal superiors. Meaning those 5 people can wreck any keep they want, even T3 reinforced. Hills, Bay, Garrison, it doesnt matter. You can breach outer and inner walls with the same catapults.

Well, assuming a 60 man zerg doesnt roll over them 30 seconds after they built them, but that’s beside the point. Because its going to happen regardless of the fact they built 1 catapult or 3 catapults.

It’s difficult to claim that guild catapults are the answer. A guild can make one of those like what once a day?

Zephyrus.9680:

Zerging is the fastest way to cap individual objectives and get that WXP at the end. Unless the reward structure changes, none of the other things will matter.

That is what I’ve come to realize, yes.

You need to start rewarding individuals willing to excel over faceless zergblobs steamrolling everything. If you want to zerg that’s perfectly fine but you should not reap the same rewards as somebody who puts in way more effort than you. This issue isn’t restricted to WvWvW and ANet really should get working on some kind of contribution point system.

Fungalfoot.7213:

If you want to zerg that’s perfectly fine but you should not reap the same rewards as somebody who puts in way more effort than you.

I disagree with this statement. I am part of a coordinated, dedicated WvW guild who primarily work in groups of 15-20, often with a significant group of pugs and members of other friendly guilds. We are often a zerg, and we put in a hell of a lot of work to do it right. We maintain an Spvp arena for maneuvers training, take part in regular drills for both WvW and GvG matches and coordinate scouts, small squad actions and the main train to maximize our effect. In addition we put time, gold and effort into producing the siege and materials we require as well as keeping our builds and strategies competitive.

It pays off. We regularly destroy groups two or three times our size, and backed by the rest of the people I mentioned above we can shatter entire maps and take the most tenaciously held keeps. We work for those results, and see the rewards for them, and when we play poorly we are defeated as we should be.

Small groups have a role to play taking camps, undefended towers and severing supply lines, but to suggest that they work harder due to some mystical inferiority complex is ignorant at best. Of course random players ride zergs for easy rewards, but punishing the workhorses of those groups for being successful and drawing in fair-weathers is pointless.

To address the topic itself: The reason zergs exist is because of AoE capping, map size, siege mechanics and, yes, uniform rewards. A supply cap of 20 would assist smaller groups, but do nothing to stop zerging from being extremely popular, and indeed would only make large-scale operations easier.

I think a better way to reduce a zerg’s effectiveness will be to reduce the rate of supply generation at camps. Half the cost of all upgrades, half the supply capacity of all structures, half the rate at which supply camps generate supplies and yak deliver supplies.

With less supplies objectives will be harder to defend, but it will be balanced by the attacking zerg’s lack of supplies. No supplies = no offensive siege. This will limit the rate a large zerg can cap stuff while not affecting the effectiveness of a smaller zerg. It will also boost the effectiveness of small group taking and holding camps.

As for the argument that a zerg can just resupply at a tier 3 keep, firstly, the keep’s supply capacity will have been reduced and secondly with the increased importance of supplies, it will totally be your side’s fault for not taking supply camps, kill yaks and cutting off supplies to those keeps. A small group of 5 can drastically decrease the supply flow in a borderland if not cutting it off completely.

I have to admit there might be some merit to this. I know that I consistently feel dismay when I’ve broken off from the zerg to solo camps, and find myself taking a camp with 2-4 other people. There’s an undefended tower nearby, but taking it means 5 minutes of running supply, a long time with 0 rams up, and a long time with only 1 ram up, and odds are we get overrun right about the time we finish the 2nd ram. If small groups were more capable, people would run them more. And map volatility is a good thing.

However, more supply probably isn’t a good answer. In most cases, a blob vs blob keep assault succeeds or fails when they cap the circle, or run out of supply. Doubling the supply will just prolong the fight. In all honesty, if they fend you off and destroy your seige, they deserve to see you pack it up and go home.

There’s a very easy way to buff havoc squads without buffing zergs.

1. Raise tolerance for Outmanned, so it procs when your world’s players are half or less of an opposing worlds forces OR your world has 10 players or less, regardless of opposing forces.
2. When a world is Outmanned, allow all players in the world to carry 20 supply instead of 10.
3. When Outmanned fades, current supply carried by players remain held, but any new pick up of supply will be back to 10.

This should encourage people to start attempting to cap Outmanned borderlands, and in doing so draw a few people away from each zerg.

If a zerg moves to a borderland, it will fade Outmanned before anyone from the zerg can possibly pick up supply, so 60×20 is impossible.

Zerg players are unaffected, as 60×10 is still more than enough supply. There’s also little appreciable difference, as even if 10 people decided to move to a BL, 50 people are still in the zerg.

By the way, I run a guild specialising in small-group tower (and occasionally Keep) captures, using golems in conjunction with rams/superior rams. It’s not impossible to take a tower with 2-3 people (and almost guaranteed with 4+), but it involves running a golem from a supply camp to the tower, which is unfairly expensive to use on the Commander.

I highly dislike zerging because in those circumstances, results of battle are generally dictated by the number of people, and each person in the zerg adds very little battle power to the overall power of the zerg (2.5%?)… whereas in havoc squads, a skilled player may represent up to 30-40% of the power of a 5-man squad alone.

I have taken towers with only the wife and myself, no golems. Usually the two of us will use catapults to open the gate/wall and then take the tower. Mind you it is a bit tougher if it is guarded by anyone other then npc’s.

Edit: We took the NE tower two times in one night with a mesmer and a guardian duo but failed on our 3rd attempt as we were laughing so hard at the hapless enemy that failed to sweep we forget about the RI on the tower Lord!

A Lizard Bolting Skin.7426:

It’s difficult to claim that guild catapults are the answer. A guild can make one of those like what once a day?

Guild catapults you buy with guild mission currency. There is no limit how many you can build in a day. They cost 1.34g on the TP at the moment.

That said, I will concede that guild siege is slightly on the pricey side and assumes your entire guild does missions every week and pool their resources – a large guild at that. If we assume only dedicating half your tokens to giving the guild commander catapults that’s a mere 2 catas per member per week.

It would be great if Anet made regular guild siege and superior guild siege (regular would just be less supply demanding regular siege which small guilds can use, like getting 5 for 1 token or something) but I dont see it happening. Or any other “solution” that’s proposed.

Gric.3851:

Zosk.5609:

There is no “zerg” problem. These “zergs” are what most people come to WvW for in the first place…. if they wanted reliable 5v5 or 8v8 or smaller they could join sPvP.

There is a problem that fights over 5 people start to get uninteresting sometimes, but that’s because the combat and classes are designed for 5v5 and there’s nothing to be done about that in the immediate future.

There’s a problem that stuff falls much faster in siege than people can meaningfully respond to it. That’s because of things ArenaNet could fix if you badgered them enough, I guess. Hookpoints for rams, trebs, and golems to limit the number you can use against a structure. Remove superior siege completely? Nerf WvW abilities that increase damage against walls and doors? Probably other stuff….

Perhaps Zerg “problem” is a poor choice of words, but wouldn’t you say the scenario OP describes could alleviate the problem you describe? The one about “anything greater than 5v5 eventually becomes boring”

Keep in mind Zerging would not be eliminated as long as there are people who want to Zerg. Rather the optimal strategic ratio would shift from one Large Zerg and a few Havoc Groups, to something like two moderate zergs and five havoc groups.

Also regular sPvP would not be a legitimate substitute to OP’s scenario because those matches have too much structure.

WvW can offer spontaneity that sPvP cannot provide. Should OP’s suggestion come to light, a 5 man Havoc group may have a typical encounter similar to something in sPvP…..or they could encounter a 6 man group or a 3 man group. This could happen out in the field on their way to attack a tower, or they could already be attacking the tower, or maybe they are defending the tower.

This type of thing may occasionally happen now. But the current system makes it a rarity rather then the norm (and the norm it should be). And one aspect that is definitely not happening now is that while these two small squads are facing off there are several others like them interacting with each other around the map.

No, ‘zerg’ is a meaningless term that just means ‘their side had more than my side’ in pretty much all of these games.

If you want to meaningfully discuss problems with the game, you have to avoid using the word. It is the case that combat and classes designed for 5v5 and smaller fights is a huge problem…. but the answer isn’t to make WvW about 5v5 or smaller fights. What is the point? And how could you even do it? (You can’t, honestly, even if they doubled the number of maps).

I don’t know that there’s any answer when developers and designers seem set on being a MOBA-style MMO game and an e-sport….. but I do know that throwing around fuzzy terms like ‘zerg’ is pointless….

Here are 3 more potential changes they can make to improve this:
1) reduce the amount of stored supply in towers and keeps to 200 max (have upgrades store their own supply and yaks automatically feed upgrades in progress).
2) allow players to deposit supply into fortification upgrades in progress
3) eliminate stored supply when a tower or keep (but not camp) is flipped

Doing these changes combined with increasing the player supply capacity to 20 gives smaller groups of players more viable ways to contribute, promotes defense, and eliminates the ability of a rampaging zerg to resupply at a flipped fortification. This vastly decreases the amount of ambient supply stored on a map.

It’s less about eliminating zergs, and more about lowering the required number of players to perform a specific task. IMO WvW should be more about combat and tactics, offense and defense, than about collecting a massive number of bodies, blueprints and supply.

Brow.9425:

I have to admit there might be some merit to this. I know that I consistently feel dismay when I’ve broken off from the zerg to solo camps, and find myself taking a camp with 2-4 other people. There’s an undefended tower nearby, but taking it means 5 minutes of running supply, a long time with 0 rams up, and a long time with only 1 ram up, and odds are we get overrun right about the time we finish the 2nd ram. If small groups were more capable, people would run them more. And map volatility is a good thing.

However, more supply probably isn’t a good answer. In most cases, a blob vs blob keep assault succeeds or fails when they cap the circle, or run out of supply. Doubling the supply will just prolong the fight. In all honesty, if they fend you off and destroy your seige, they deserve to see you pack it up and go home.

My new added idea, in addition to the supply capacity increase, is to decrease the storage capacity of keeps and towers to lets say, 200, and make it so flipping keeps and towers eliminates any stored supply in that keep/tower. If you do this, you have a maximum of lets say, 2000 supply total on a given map at a time (only 1400 of that is capturable), excluding golems, and supply held by players. Then you would make it so that upgrades have their own separate “storage” so that players cannot take from supply for upgrades, and have yaks automatically deposit supply into upgrades in progress. Also upgrades would be able to be started regardless of stored supply. If you made these changes, you limit the available supply to a would be zerg, and make it so that if they use a massive amount of supply on an offensive, they cannot resupply at the newly occupied keep or tower. Supply lines and camps become more important.

Increasing player supply capacity and reducing supply storage for keeps and towers sounds really promising. Anet should do this.

Limiting supply capacity to the enemy is part of the available strategy currently through traps, use, siege builds, upgrades. If your leadership isn’t managing available resources it isn’t A nets fault. Logistics is part of the fight. Knowing to pop an upgrade and having someone there to do it before a camp flip is a reflection of forethought and situational awareness. Eliminating supply capacity kills momentum on both sides. Just like market limitations reduce economic activity.

Phlogus.2371:

Limiting supply capacity to the enemy is part of the available strategy currently through traps, use, siege builds, upgrades. If your leadership isn’t managing available resources it isn’t A nets fault. Logistics is part of the fight. Knowing to pop an upgrade and having someone there to do it before a camp flip is a reflection of forethought and situational awareness. Eliminating supply capacity kills momentum on both sides. Just like market limitations reduce economic activity.

Yeah. I play in a T1 server. What you’re suggesting doesn’t actually happen. If the enemy has a fully upgraded keep that you can’t flip with your current zerg, you don’t spend hours sieging it while ensuring the enemy supply lines are cut. You simply give up on that keep until you can get a large enough zerg with the siege and supply needed to overwhelm it. Why? Because it is WAY easier. Eliminating KEEP and TOWER supply capacity simply means you can’t show up in a borderlands with no activity drain all the supply and capture entire maps utilizing a zerg with overwhelming siege and supply. Increasing PLAYER supply capacity means that flipping any fortification requires half as many ppl. This makes flipping and defense twice as likely. I suppose if you like the way things are now, with a 60 man zerg draining a borderland and then capturing an entire map with no resistance, then you’d be against this idea.