Guild Wars 2

Removing white swords solved the problem like a charm. But no one wanted that. People don’t like adapting to anything new. Period. Which is why we will be hopelessly trapped in a blob vs blob WvW indefinitely.

MightyMicah.7451:

Removing white swords solved the problem like a charm. But no one wanted that. People don’t like adapting to anything new. Period. Which is why we will be hopelessly trapped in a blob vs blob WvW indefinitely.

Problem with whitesword was not an adaptation problem, removing swords itself isnt a solution, the problem lies at the core of them game, servers continued to blob and karma train becouse there was no whitswords and was easy to cap things. most servers dont have even player to scout or they are just a very few that they cant cover besides garri and bay, since is to easy to cap stuff with 3 or 4 ram players building siege on north gate when they arrive south gate group is already in, this is an example of how population is even more important without the swords, wvw was created to go there once in a while, where no one cared about wvw ranks some playground for the casual pve to pvp and spend all they flipping towers like they were Alliance battle shrines from gw1.

its a design and dynamics problem, hope they will improve game with the new suposed framework being it pve and wvw

When ppl go full down they are set back to there home point with no time to be relived. Much like what happens in EotM if you pick off ppl from the main blob though making them fall off the map then they must work there way back to the blob the blob can not save them.

i like the NO rez once downed idea.

also what if each Fort/keep (whatever they are called) has the ability to upgrade and have a portal. now once its under attack it cannot be used (this mech. is already in use). now your going to say people will just port to the next closest fort…. well here is a possiblility for splitting up “the blob”, if a good commander is on the will have some people go to that close fort and attack ….. also it will make the defenders have to go and clear out (also stay and defend) that closer fort/keep. this will make for staying and defending more necessary. ..and if they introduce better rewards for defending… win win, imo. also this makes healers waaayyy more needed. so many pros over cons with this idea.

just an idea…

X T D.6458:

Here are 2 possible ideas to counter blobbing in its current form:

1) Lower the population cap per map- This could lead to more queues on certain servers thus more spreading out of forces on other maps and might help keep maps from being dead for long stretches. This way players wont need to join a map hopping group constantly and will be able to stick to one map. Will make it easier for Guild drivers to lead smaller guild raids against larger enemy groups.

2) Increase scaling of Keep Lords- Increasing the scaling of the Keep Lords would essentially stop them from being melted in seconds by enemy blobs and leaving little time for defense or response teams, essentially promoting blobbing karma trains. If they were scaled say like a world boss is based on the number of enemies in the area to last longer it would make for a lot more interesting fights and make defense a little easier. Basically the more enemy players the more time it takes. The problem with this is that it might make ppt harder and take longer to cap so the scaling would have to be adjusted very carefully.

XTD said it all. Those are the best ways to prevent massiv zergs. 80 Man blobs will destroy everything if they want. They don´t need even siege weapons. The destroy the gates by hand. With the first wave the destroy all the arrowcarts when you have build alot of them around the Keep Lord. If you manage to wipe them, they just have to come back and eventually they will get it. Only way to defend against that massiv amount of people ist having yourself that amount of people. Primetime we have, but not at night or morning and then they just karmatrain.

Lauri.1342:

X T D.6458:

Here are 2 possible ideas to counter blobbing in its current form:

1) Lower the population cap per map- This could lead to more queues on certain servers thus more spreading out of forces on other maps and might help keep maps from being dead for long stretches. This way players wont need to join a map hopping group constantly and will be able to stick to one map. Will make it easier for Guild drivers to lead smaller guild raids against larger enemy groups.

2) Increase scaling of Keep Lords- Increasing the scaling of the Keep Lords would essentially stop them from being melted in seconds by enemy blobs and leaving little time for defense or response teams, essentially promoting blobbing karma trains. If they were scaled say like a world boss is based on the number of enemies in the area to last longer it would make for a lot more interesting fights and make defense a little easier. Basically the more enemy players the more time it takes. The problem with this is that it might make ppt harder and take longer to cap so the scaling would have to be adjusted very carefully.

XTD said it all. Those are the best ways to prevent massiv zergs. 80 Man blobs will destroy everything if they want. They don´t need even siege weapons. The destroy the gates by hand. With the first wave the destroy all the arrowcarts when you have build alot of them around the Keep Lord. If you manage to wipe them, they just have to come back and eventually they will get it. Only way to defend against that massiv amount of people ist having yourself that amount of people. Primetime we have, but not at night or morning and then they just karmatrain.

i still think my idea is best option. i’d like to see it tested out on a test server. there is sooo.. many different tactics that could be used with my idea. like defenders could send out a havoc grp to the attackers closest base and put swords on it, so they wouldnt be able to use there portal (because there is no downed rez any more) attackers would have to leave defenders at there closest base also…. so many options/tactics… would finally be stop blob imo.

Actually one other thing I really would want to see made into a Sneak Attack event would be No PvD. Remove player damage to doors. Force people to use siege or never get a tower etc. This would make defenders much more useful, they could actually fight off a large zerg as long as they could take out all the siege, stopping them from taking down the door.

also, let say the portals needed to be “re-supplied” every so often to keep them working. tht would mean keeping and maintaining a supply camp very very important.
and yes, they need to take pvd out! agreed.
—-where is our WvWvW specialest!?! you need to give this to ANET!

Dusty Moon.4382:

There must be some modifications to the WvW mechanic that can be done to prevent massive blobs. It just makes it impossible for anyone to defend anything when you get 100 people blobbling and rolling over everything.

What can be done to change this phenomenon?

You want to prevent blobs because they are hard to fight….. but if you had an equally large blob you could fight. On the other hand, if you take 25 people up against 100, shouldn’t the 100 have an advantage?

In battle, numbers matter. And they should.

joneirikb.7506:

X T D.6458:

morrolan.9608:

Remove aoe limits for 1 thing. ESO is doing this for exactly this reason.

The problem with removing or increasing the aoe limit is its a double edged sword, it will simply encourage more blobbing, because smaller groups will get hit more. If you can hit more targets so can the blob, how long do you think a smaller group will last then. And I cant see anet ever allowing players weapon/utility skills being able to hit 50 players at once.

Listen to X T D, he understand the consequences of knee-jerk solutions.

Yup. Anyone who’s actually played a game without AoE caps or taken the time to think this through knows what a disaster it would be.

Red circles aren’t that big – zergs would still zerg, they would just have to spread out a little bit during combat (like that doesn’t happen already). A bigger group could saturate a larger area with aoes while enveloping smaller groups. Sure, the bigger group would lose some players, but the smaller group would lose all their players.

Also, no one likes dying instantly without really having a chance. The new instagib meta would have players quitting in droves.

Don’t support them. In fact, in addition to not supporting them you should advertise a smaller group and support smaller objectives. It’s not enough to just say you don’t like it, you’ve got to take action on how you’re going to fix it.

In theory, three smaller teams can take objectives quicker than one large group if if each is using the same amount of force which is likely. Large zergs have way too many people taking one objective. It’s actually a complete waste of resources. If you have 40 people using four rams to take a gate down opposed to 4 people doing the same thing then what use are the other 36 people? that’s an extreme comparison but what if we said we had two groups of 20 hitting different objectives opposed to 40 hitting one? Seems more efficient don’t you think?

-Corpse Colision

/15 char

Make a new event like sneak attack we had.

Event name: Skyhammer Test Complete
Rules: Whenever 40 players of the same alliance are within an area of 1200 units, now FULLY ARMED AND OPERATIONAL skyhammer battery keeps constantly firing skyhammer blasts to center of the group. Frequency of the blasts is 1Hz and they will only affect players of the team who triggered the cannon.

As a result of skyhammer test being complete the map would also be removed from SoloQ.

Removing the AoE cap would make a pretty big difference.

I’m still a proponent of the “crowded” debuff. It would read something like if/while =>20 within the radius of “x”, then Crowded.

Crowded = -50% crit chance, -50% movement speed

Of course these numbers are flexible but it would discourage inefficiently large groups and it makes sense in that if that many people were really that close I don’t think they’d be able to move very fast or accurately strike.

Couple of ideas come to mind.

• Double down means you have to release. This would mean a war of attrition. Siege should help you more in this case.
• Let the poison shot on ACs refresh faster. Less healing = less effective blob.

There are others, but they would have some unintended consequences that I don’t even care to delve into atm.

The bottom line is that when I read this forum it is the eternal complaints of “blobs…blobs everywhere!”, or “don’t mess with my roaming by merging servers!”. If you love roaming and hate blobs move down, if you love blobs move up, but nothing can or will be done about either.

wvw is a blobb-fest and designed as such.
Still you can make it easier for defender to deal with them, without overpowering defenders.

Solutions to decrease the effectiveness of blobbs:
- make gates impossible to be damaged by players. (only siege works)
- change omegas’ auto-attack to fire direct projectiles instead or arcing ones (makes siege in general more useful against omegas, therefore discouraging omega-rushes)
- keep waypoints closed for 10 more seconds than the defense event goes, preventing a blobb to portal in right away by actually making waypoints perma-contested if a wall or gate keeps getting hit
- allow hit cannons / mortars / oil to produce white swords, but keep waypoints open until a wall or gate is hit (introduce different alert-states: white swords for permanent siege /camp-lords being hit with a 30sec delay (waypoint remains open), and red flashes (like the ones from dug up chests in silver-wastes) for hits on gates or walls , which do close waypoints, but are displayed on the corner of the minimap for every player currently on that map immediately)

blobbs on the open fields should remain as such, since
a) many people actually enjoy big zerg-fights
b) it gives PvE’rs the opportunity to gain map-completion without the need to dive too deep into the pvp portion of the game (cause many dislike pvp /wvw anyways but need it for their legendaries)
c) roamers have a easier time since the mayority of players is blobbing around instead of camping in every tower / camp permanently

Permanently contesting objectives only further reinforces blob strategies because then a blobby offense will be more effective than it is now seeing as it increases the likelihood of taking major objectives.

Sucks to get trampled by a huge group of people while trying to flip small objectives alone or with a small group, but in most cases strong havoc is what wins in the end. You can have a 100 man blob but if you have no camps and nobody to fight it doesn’t matter.

Wow… is this thread really only 2 days old? I just opened it to say “Please stop necroing 2-year-old threads”…

Introduce collision detection for friendlies AND enemies (basically a “forced melee assist”) and you would see WvW transform into a battlefield instead of two ultra-concentrated globs running though each other.

I know, Anet servers would melt if they did that, as they cannot even handle three-way fights that happen currently.

Still, one can dream. It would open the world to massive opportunities and new tactics, not to mention the fights would look much more realistic and feel even more chaotic than today.

GreyWraith.8394:

Dusty Moon.4382:

There must be some modifications to the WvW mechanic that can be done to prevent massive blobs. It just makes it impossible for anyone to defend anything when you get 100 people blobbling and rolling over everything.

What can be done to change this phenomenon?

You want to prevent blobs because they are hard to fight….. but if you had an equally large blob you could fight. On the other hand, if you take 25 people up against 100, shouldn’t the 100 have an advantage?

In battle, numbers matter. And they should.

If they are equally skilled yes, but that 25 man group could easily be better and down 25 themselves. Only to see them auto rezzed and back up on their feet.
Number in wvw matter, not skill.
Removing the aoe cap would be on of the worst things to wvw I think, that is probably not the solution.

Corpse colision with friendly players would make combat in wvw much more complex. You wouldn’t be able to stack everyone in the same place for hammer train. In pve it would make content harder.

xDudisx.5914:

Corpse colision with friendly players would make combat in wvw much more complex. You wouldn’t be able to stack everyone in the same place for hammer train. In pve it would make content harder.

It’ll never come to PvE because that would open up countless griefing opportunities.

That said, it’ll probably never come to WvW either because of technical reasons, but there it would be awesome.

Tom Gore.4035:

xDudisx.5914:

Corpse colision with friendly players would make combat in wvw much more complex. You wouldn’t be able to stack everyone in the same place for hammer train. In pve it would make content harder.

It’ll never come to PvE because that would open up countless griefing opportunities.

That said, it’ll probably never come to WvW either because of technical reasons, but there it would be awesome.

Griefing opportunities? Like making a wall of players to block a bridge or something like that? There options to solve that. Like instead of 100% colision just a chill/slow effect or pushing against the player making it to move a little…..

Maybe character size would affect collisions. For example my overweight norn would belly bounce asura at least 1200.

Embrace the blob!!

On a serious note, get a good guild group, you’ll have a great time smashing blobs. Its not guaranteed but it does promote individual skill more.

If you don’t have any warrior or guardians and you kill blob then i would call it skill. Otherwise it just about specs and lame tactics.

There are many ways to get rid of the blob.

1.) Increased damage debuff the more people are stacked together.
2.) The NPC guards in EotM actually use AoE. The ones in WvW do not.
3.) When you take a large keep, have multiple points they need to capture instead of just blob rushing to the lord.
4.) My personal suggestion has always been new siege called the “Asura lightning cannon”. Lightning shoots out and leaps from target to target, causing little damage at first hit, but increases damage for each target it strikes after.

Stark.1350:

There are many ways to get rid of the blob.

1.) Increased damage debuff the more people are stacked together.
2.) The NPC guards in EotM actually use AoE. The ones in WvW do not.
3.) When you take a large keep, have multiple points they need to capture instead of just blob rushing to the lord.
4.) My personal suggestion has always been new siege called the “Asura lightning cannon”. Lightning shoots out and leaps from target to target, causing little damage at first hit, but increases damage for each target it strikes after.

Your last ideal is not too bad (your other ones would not work) kind of a sprides dot where if one person has it and comes close to other ppl then that ppl gives it to the others you could go well over the 5 target cap and likely keep a full zerg debuffed. How about the new “slow” debuff images how powerful it would be if a full zerg has 25% – 75% longer cast times.

Jski.6180:

Stark.1350:

There are many ways to get rid of the blob.

1.) Increased damage debuff the more people are stacked together.
2.) The NPC guards in EotM actually use AoE. The ones in WvW do not.
3.) When you take a large keep, have multiple points they need to capture instead of just blob rushing to the lord.
4.) My personal suggestion has always been new siege called the “Asura lightning cannon”. Lightning shoots out and leaps from target to target, causing little damage at first hit, but increases damage for each target it strikes after.

Your last ideal is not too bad (your other ones would not work) kind of a sprides dot where if one person has it and comes close to other ppl then that ppl gives it to the others you could go well over the 5 target cap and likely keep a full zerg debuffed. How about the new “slow” debuff images how powerful it would be if a full zerg has 25% – 75% longer cast times.

You don’t think at least #3 is feasible? I don’t mind #2 either – it does make people move. And the one polar bear keep lord does mass AoE – forces the blob to spread out at that point.

In the current state of the game, nothing can be done. The devs have designed it so that zerg = win.

Now they say they are making changes in the expansion, but as a few people have said here and on reddit, if the WvW updates are only for those who buy the expansion, it will create a divide between players. If the new map is chosen does that mean those who have not bought the expansion cannot play that week and are stuck in EB?

The expansion is creating a lot of confusion, and if the above is the case, I feel a lot of people will stop playing due to the past history the devs have with WvW and the community. Why should they pay for the expansion when they have been ignored for so long.

So until the expansion is actually released, and we see what features have been added and changed, everything is up in the air, we dont know what will happen.

Stark.1350:

Jski.6180:

Stark.1350:

There are many ways to get rid of the blob.

1.) Increased damage debuff the more people are stacked together.
2.) The NPC guards in EotM actually use AoE. The ones in WvW do not.
3.) When you take a large keep, have multiple points they need to capture instead of just blob rushing to the lord.
4.) My personal suggestion has always been new siege called the “Asura lightning cannon”. Lightning shoots out and leaps from target to target, causing little damage at first hit, but increases damage for each target it strikes after.

Your last ideal is not too bad (your other ones would not work) kind of a sprides dot where if one person has it and comes close to other ppl then that ppl gives it to the others you could go well over the 5 target cap and likely keep a full zerg debuffed. How about the new “slow” debuff images how powerful it would be if a full zerg has 25% – 75% longer cast times.

You don’t think at least #3 is feasible? I don’t mind #2 either – it does make people move. And the one polar bear keep lord does mass AoE – forces the blob to spread out at that point.

You would end up with endless trolling of cap points its already hard enofe to cap one point for a keep even though you can no longer banner the lord. As for more aoe ya i guess that would be nice but the npc would need to hit like a lord who still on timer and be nearly as unkillable to have any real worth.

I think the ideal is to give ppl instinctive to not run in one big group not the just simply have the big group brake up in objective to take it your still kind of a blob just a bit more spread out. So to have a group of say 10 attk a tower when a group of 5 is after camps and a group of 20 is after a keep all at the same time vs just having all 35 after one target.

I think your spreading condition ideal is not that bad in doing this. It would make the game a bit more elites much like rally tends to do (the more pugs you have on you the more likely they will spread it to your group making you burn all the more “outs” to deal with it.)

Stark.1350:

Jski.6180:

Stark.1350:

There are many ways to get rid of the blob.

1.) Increased damage debuff the more people are stacked together.
2.) The NPC guards in EotM actually use AoE. The ones in WvW do not.
3.) When you take a large keep, have multiple points they need to capture instead of just blob rushing to the lord.
4.) My personal suggestion has always been new siege called the “Asura lightning cannon”. Lightning shoots out and leaps from target to target, causing little damage at first hit, but increases damage for each target it strikes after.

Your last ideal is not too bad (your other ones would not work) kind of a sprides dot where if one person has it and comes close to other ppl then that ppl gives it to the others you could go well over the 5 target cap and likely keep a full zerg debuffed. How about the new “slow” debuff images how powerful it would be if a full zerg has 25% – 75% longer cast times.

You don’t think at least #3 is feasible? I don’t mind #2 either – it does make people move. And the one polar bear keep lord does mass AoE – forces the blob to spread out at that point.

Yeah, your #3 point here would actually make the zerg a requirement for even attempting to capture a Keep, since small ops groups of 3-10 would have essentially no chance of ever capturing even an unguarded Keep that was designed like this. Just 1 or 2 players could troll the cap points for hours unless you drop 15+ people on each cap point. I think this would likely make the zergs BIGGER, not force them to scatter.

Quells.2498:

I’m still a proponent of the “crowded” debuff. It would read something like if/while =>20 within the radius of “x”, then Crowded.

Crowded = -50% crit chance, -50% movement speed

Of course these numbers are flexible but it would discourage inefficiently large groups and it makes sense in that if that many people were really that close I don’t think they’d be able to move very fast or accurately strike.

Consider how it could be abused. Don’t like the leader of another guild on your server? Find out when they raid WvW and call out your guild to stick to them like glue so they are debuffed the whole time!

The only real way to prevent blobbing is by reducing the incentives.

Massive scaling of NPC’s to the point of ridiculousness would probably be the most effective. (meaning if you waltz in with a 80 man crew, that lord gonna have so much HP you gonna hack at it for 10 minutes straight and still have only gotten him halfway down)

I WvW for the large scale combat. “blobbing” is exactly why a lot of people play WvW. Why would they ever change that to suit the minority of players whom want to roam? Punishing players who wish to play together sounds like a great way to kill an MMO like GW2.

The issue should not be about how to eliminate or how to prevent blobbing. It is a valid and effective strategy thats why its used. The problem is when something becomes to powerful and offers to much gain for to little risk. This is an mmo so large scale group fighting is what should be expected in a gamemode like wvw. Blobbing turns off people when there is a population imbalance. It can also cause dead maps because everyone is on one map to counter enemy blobs leaving little forces to work on other maps. The use of very large groups affectionally called a blob is commonplace because it works and is used to counter the enemies use of it. The problem is there is not enough counter and balance to it in the game mechanics, and thats what causes the problems for players.

MightyMicah.7451:

Removing white swords solved the problem like a charm. But no one wanted that. People don’t like adapting to anything new. Period.

Yeah… nope. All you saw was that less players were in World vs. World during that period of time and you mistook it for players being encouraged to “blob less.” I’m glad I could clear this up for you!

xDudisx.5914:

Tom Gore.4035:

xDudisx.5914:

Corpse colision with friendly players would make combat in wvw much more complex. You wouldn’t be able to stack everyone in the same place for hammer train. In pve it would make content harder.

It’ll never come to PvE because that would open up countless griefing opportunities.

That said, it’ll probably never come to WvW either because of technical reasons, but there it would be awesome.

Griefing opportunities? Like making a wall of players to block a bridge or something like that? There options to solve that. Like instead of 100% colision just a chill/slow effect or pushing against the player making it to move a little…..

Was thinking more like blocking players from escaping monsters and letting them die. And the pushing option wouldn’t work if the other party was actively pushing back. Besides, allowing pushing would be even more prone to griefing. Hey let’s push that fellow player off the cliff

One option would obviously be still allowing dodge rolling through players.

Nokaru.7831:

MightyMicah.7451:

Removing white swords solved the problem like a charm. But no one wanted that. People don’t like adapting to anything new. Period.

Yeah… nope. All you saw was that less players were in World vs. World during that period of time and you mistook it for players being encouraged to “blob less.” I’m glad I could clear this up for you!

Removing white swords gave an incentive for players to pry away from zerging and engage in small group activity. Thus you saw many objectives get constantly flipped by havok teams.

back to my previous suggestion.
If we made it so that bringing any more then 20-30 people into a lords room would scale up the NPCs to a ridiculous level then i think we would see more tactical warfare. Groups would limit themselves to 20-30 (which is a decent size that can be achieved in every tier i know of). The players above this “cap” would simply start forming a second team and take other objectives to prevent hindering efficiency.

It would hurt every layer of WvW equally, it would reward defense as there would be no “cap” on the number of defenders. There would however mean that you have to spread out your defense, or else the other 20-30 man groups gonna flip your stuff.

what we should aim for is not making it less effective to run a 80 man pain train, but not any less fun.
Sure, do your massive three way SMC fights, just know that with 2x 80 man hostiles in that lords room, you will spend forever taking the lord down, giving the defense much more time to chisel away at your numbers.

however “limit” yourself, and say “we blob down the gates, then team A takes lord and rest comes in for the ring” then suddenly you add some strategy to the mix. This would affect pugs as much as the pro. And pugs are often much more compliant with stuff if it has a real purpose. So this shouldnt just hurt veterans or organized guilds, in the long run. To begin with, my suggestion would make a mess. But as players grew accustomed to it, they would start to fill “roles”. Some groups take lord, some defend the hole in the wall/gate, some move on to next target and so on.

That would fight pretty badly against Anet’s manifesto of never having a situation where seeing another player makes you cringe. Those 20-30 man groups would need to post “doormen” at each entrance to lord room to shout “DON’T ENTER!” at friendlies so they wouldn’t swarm in and scale the lord up.

Prysin.8542:

back to my previous suggestion.
If we made it so that bringing any more then 20-30 people into a lords room would scale up the NPCs to a ridiculous level then i think we would see more tactical warfare. Groups would limit themselves to 20-30 (which is a decent size that can be achieved in every tier i know of). The players above this “cap” would simply start forming a second team and take other objectives to prevent hindering efficiency.

What does “killing the lord” have to do in any way, with tactical warfare?

Your literally suggesting that they create an artificial punishment that prevents players from killing the NPCs. This is hte aspect of WvW that offers then the most XP, most gold, most karma, and best loot drops. This would be cutting off your nose, just to spite your face.

Prysin.8542:

It would hurt every layer of WvW equally, it would reward defense as there would be no “cap” on the number of defenders. There would however mean that you have to spread out your defense, or else the other 20-30 man groups gonna flip your stuff.

Why would you believe intentionally “hurting WvW” would benefit is as a whole, much less to intentionally “hurt it equally”?

Prysin.8542:

what we should aim for is not making it less effective to run a 80 man pain train, but not any less fun.
Sure, do your massive three way SMC fights, just know that with 2x 80 man hostiles in that lords room, you will spend forever taking the lord down, giving the defense much more time to chisel away at your numbers.

How dos that help anything?

Prysin.8542:

however “limit” yourself, and say “we blob down the gates, then team A takes lord and rest comes in for the ring” then suddenly you add some strategy to the mix. This would affect pugs as much as the pro. And pugs are often much more compliant with stuff if it has a real purpose. So this shouldnt just hurt veterans or organized guilds, in the long run. To begin with, my suggestion would make a mess. But as players grew accustomed to it, they would start to fill “roles”. Some groups take lord, some defend the hole in the wall/gate, some move on to next target and so on.

So again, when 50 members of my guild are online on any given evening, we can no longer play together and take keeps together, because this horrible idea would force us apart.

If you folks want everyone split up, sPvP is —→, the game mode is designed for it. Drop the ridiculous ideas about a lot of like minded, or guild banded players, playing together as a bad idea. Sounds like Stronghold is for you.

scaling really seems to be the best option.
also ‘defensive scaling’ for each ally nearby scaling up (up to 30players, for example) and for everyone more nearby giving a massive downscale

this might change the meta to having 2 zergs instead of 1 blob
why would anet nt bring scaling to wvw? oO

X T D.6458:

Removing white swords gave an incentive for players to pry away from zerging and engage in small group activity. Thus you saw many objectives get constantly flipped by havok teams.

Yeah but it reduced fights and made regular WvW into more of a karma train.

coglin.1867:

So again, when 50 members of my guild are online on any given evening, we can no longer play together and take keeps together, because this horrible idea would force us apart.

You’re still playing together just splitting up to take objectives. I dunno why this is such an anathema unless you just want to have a security blanket of being with a guild blob all the time.

And it makes for more interesting tactics something which is sorely needed to overcome the general tedium of blob gameplay.

X T D.6458:

Nokaru.7831:

MightyMicah.7451:

Removing white swords solved the problem like a charm. But no one wanted that. People don’t like adapting to anything new. Period.

Yeah… nope. All you saw was that less players were in World vs. World during that period of time and you mistook it for players being encouraged to “blob less.” I’m glad I could clear this up for you!

Removing white swords gave an incentive for players to pry away from zerging and engage in small group activity. Thus you saw many objectives get constantly flipped by havok teams.

I saw tons of roamer/havok complaints that the lack of white swords made it very hard for them find worthwhile fights.

No white swords was a mixed blessing. Over a month later, and still pondering if I actually liked or hated it. I just don’t know, I enjoyed aspects of it, while at the same time was frustrated by other aspects.

One thought I am starting to enjoy, is to link it to Outnumbered, so an outnumbering server gets no white swords, but the outnumbered ones still get it.

Ensign.2189:

Removing the AoE cap would make a pretty big difference.

As half or more of the time aoe is on top of friendlies the chance of all friendly or not in the aoe being hit would make blobs spread out more .

Tom Gore.4035:

xDudisx.5914:

Corpse colision with friendly players would make combat in wvw much more complex. You wouldn’t be able to stack everyone in the same place for hammer train. In pve it would make content harder.

It’ll never come to PvE because that would open up countless griefing opportunities.

That said, it’ll probably never come to WvW either because of technical reasons, but there it would be awesome.

Real Physics and collision (as against the purely visual which is often mistaken )in any game causes many more performance problems than the advantages it is claimed to have.Especially as not all players have the most modern equipment .You design for the median or below .

Blobing will remain as long as it is a viable strategy. 2 amatuers fight, the stronger wins. 2 trained people fight, the one with the higher skill wins, strength takes a back seat.

You need synergy and strategy.
If you can organize it, I’d recommend
http://youtu.be/eeED14SaSL8