Guild Wars 2

Some easy fixes to remove some of the zerging:

Remove X´s from the map when there is combat. This was intreduced sometime into Warhammer and was a terrible idea back then, and still is.

Remove the waypoints. Maps are small enough as they are, and people get back into combat way to fast.

Increase death penalty. The way it is right now, people can faceasmash their keyboard in a 60 man zerg and still get out with a positive gold gain. ( Im talking about Karma trains here )

Increase rewards for defending. That could increase peoples motivation towards defending instead of following the nearest blue dot on the map.

Make private squads that are invite only or have a password. Right now alot of guilds are forced to run around without the commander tag, simply because they dont want the tail of pugs. That denies us the option of getting supply info, an easy target for regrouping and other benefits the commander icon gives.

Sounds like most of you should probably be doing something other than a military-style scenario if large groups of troops moving in the same direction together bothers you.

Easiest way to combay a zerg would be for them to raise the cap for AOE targets. Then a coordinated 5 man group could wipe a full zerg if they decided to clump. This would empower the idea of 5 man parties roaming but allow zergs for certain elements.

IComeInPeace.1768:

WvWvW reward system must incorparate a DAOC type reward system.

All 5 man groups get a 25% increase in WvWvW points. (aka realm points)

A rank 1 rated toon is worth 100 points. If the player is killed by 10 people who damaged him, they will recieve the points reative to the % of damage done.

Example: I solo and rank 1 person. I get 100 points
5 people kill the rank 1 person. I did 55% of the damage. I get 55 points
20 peopel kill the rank 1 person. I did 4% of the damage. I get 4 points

5 man partys get a 25% bonus only if under 10 people damage the target.

As you rank up your value is higher. Example: rank 5.5 = 155 points.

Good point, but you forgot a few things which are important:

1. Points should be splited evenly between party members (like in DAOC). Maybe this should be expanded to squads!? dunno.

2. Points should also be granted for other defensive actions, e.g. healing (like in DAOC). So when you heal someone who kills someone who is worth points, then a (small) portion of the points should go to the healer.

3. Killed players should not be worth any points for a period of time (e.g. 5-10 minutes) to prevent kill farming (like in DAOC).

They had the answer to zergs, but double nerfed it.

Lift the AoE cap. Then, make it so each target can only be hit by 1 AoE at a time, first in first out method. Restore AoEs to their pre-patch damage.

It won’t end zergs but it will make them easier to farm badges from.

Essentially, Anet’s stand is “5 players shouldn’t be able to defeat 30”. I agree. And they can’t if that 30 is using legit tactics. Spreading out, laying down fields of fire. Etc.

BUT when those 30 players all run in a ball and roll 1 – 0 on their keyboard and shout “WIN!”, that’s cheese. Lift the AoE cap!

I recall a specific instance where I was disappointed with how the game encouraged mindlessness over tactical play.

We were defending a tower while severely outmanned. With those odds, there was no question that the tower was going to fall, eventually. At the first attempt, the enemy zerg built some flame rams that we quickly destroyed. Then, they resupplied and built some catapults. We countered again with our own siege.

At that point, I swear it was as if I could hear them say “we’re done with this silly game of siege, let’s just bash the door open”. They decided to hit the door with regular attacks and quickly burned it down.

It feels like, in specific ways (the ability for players to damage doors, the imperfect righteous indignation buff, the AoE limits, the culling), the rules of the game start breaking down the more people you have.

I don’t think anybody is saying that huge battles or large amounts of players are bad, but instead how some of the mechanics of the game make those encounters less interesting than they could be.

The easiest way to fix zerging in WvW would be to uncap AoE. It would force people to spread out, make zerging, botting and culling-exploiting less viable.

Of all the problems of WvW, zergs aren’t one of them. People that often complain about zergs often find themselves in zergs. A small group of 10 players could EASILY wipe a mindless zerg that you’re complaining about of 30+. Tactics are far superior than numbers. The only issue with numbers is if you have enough to participate in the maps or not.

Playing as a zerg as a guild isn’t much different than playing as a PuG. Those big guilds that allow anyone in are hardly different than a PuG zerg except they’re QQing on VOIP together.

Play with strategy, have everyone know their roles, and you’ll wipe anyone.

Well, I like to play the tanky support build not to mention I do like GvG battles. It’s less about the individual and more a group coordination battle. It requires skill, albeit another sort of skill, and hours of practice so fight another organized guild.
I like it, you don’t.
Agree to disagree I guess.

However, there should be more obstacles and terrain effects. Collision would be awesome, but will never happen. Portable barricades, so a small group could actually dig in with their siege. There are ways to improve WvW, without gimping GvG.

Another option is ofcourse to introduce GvG as sPvP so we don’t have to do it in WvW.

Uncap the aoe

Zerg vs Small Group fighting is now balanced

Checkmate

Raven Paradox.1860:

Of all the problems of WvW, zergs aren’t one of them. People that often complain about zergs often find themselves in zergs. A small group of 10 players could EASILY wipe a mindless zerg that you’re complaining about of 30+. Tactics are far superior than numbers. The only issue with numbers is if you have enough to participate in the maps or not.

Playing as a zerg as a guild isn’t much different than playing as a PuG. Those big guilds that allow anyone in are hardly different than a PuG zerg except they’re QQing on VOIP together.

Play with strategy, have everyone know their roles, and you’ll wipe anyone.

This is just not true.

Play on a high tier server, fight a big guild zerg of 25+ and tell me it’s no different than facing off against a PUG.

The big guild zergs are indestructible except when fought with another big guild zerg. This is a combination of tactics (use of portals, coordinated flanks etc.) and game mechanics (the AoE limit, culling).

And because the big guild zergs are so effective it forces everyone on high tier servers either to join or follow them. It forces out any sort of small group play.

Ugh, this is war people. Stop these pointless threads. More people = quicker point captures, which is the point if wvwvwvw. These topics are beyond pointless, just no. And this is coming from someone who rolls with 1 other person and jumps into zergs alot.

1. Lift AoE cap
2. Put in Fog of War, if you don’t have anyone near the camp at the far end of the map, you shouldn’t know that a supply yak is on its way.
3. Allow construction of forts, so you don’t have to defend offensive siege with so many people.

I know Darkhaven is in a low tier atm but I have been a part of Darkhaven since the launch and have seen our server rise, fall, and rise again. Zergs used to bother me until I learned how to use them to my advantage. If the enemy server is running in a zerg attacking or defending a certain point I take a small group of my guildies and cut the enemies supplies and then attack where they aren’t. My guild has taken a fully upgraded garrison twice this week with under 10 people simply because the enemy was out zerging and not watching their defenses. I don’t feel like you should penalize people for running zergs yet add a different type of reward/daily/monthly to help the ones who prefer smaller groups. Use rewards to promote gameplay and not penalties. Hmm, makes me think of how to motivate people in the real world….sugar or vinegar?

Thrumdi.9216:

Raven Paradox.1860:

Of all the problems of WvW, zergs aren’t one of them. People that often complain about zergs often find themselves in zergs. A small group of 10 players could EASILY wipe a mindless zerg that you’re complaining about of 30+. Tactics are far superior than numbers. The only issue with numbers is if you have enough to participate in the maps or not.

Playing as a zerg as a guild isn’t much different than playing as a PuG. Those big guilds that allow anyone in are hardly different than a PuG zerg except they’re QQing on VOIP together.

Play with strategy, have everyone know their roles, and you’ll wipe anyone.

This is just not true.

Play on a high tier server, fight a big guild zerg of 25+ and tell me it’s no different than facing off against a PUG.

The big guild zergs are indestructible except when fought with another big guild zerg. This is a combination of tactics (use of portals, coordinated flanks etc.) and game mechanics (the AoE limit, culling).

And because the big guild zergs are so effective it forces everyone on high tier servers either to join or follow them. It forces out any sort of small group play.

You are from TC? You’ve never been to T1. I’ve been there plenty. Tactics defeat zergs. As a TC player, you should know since the major guild on your server has a ton of PuGs.

Coordination, communication, and tactics beats numbers. Zerging is not an issue. People choosing a poor play style has nothing to do with the design of WvW.

I’ve seen small groups defeat zergs. I’ve defeated zergs as a small group. I’ve been laid waste while following a PuG zerg from coordinated groups.

Play smarter, and don’t follow the masses and you’ll see how zergs aren’t an issue.

- Remove orange swords
- Making the map bigger is the base idea, but probably not feasible, so reduce normal running speed
- Make siege weapons a threat making them do more damage/hit a bigger area ie: trebuchet oneshot in a small area in the middle of the impact, does heavy damage outside that area

First and foremost, I’m not even agreeing that zerging needs to be fixed because to fix something you need to accurately define it.

Ask 10 people and get at least 5 different definitions on what constitutes a zerg. The only commonality I find among the various definitions for zerg is that one side was heavily outnumbered.

Second, I see a lot of comments stating that lifting the AoE cap will resolve zerging. In this context it seems to be defined as a smaller group could take out a larger group if the cap was lifted.

However, as the larger group would still be able to AoE and bring more AoE to bear being the larger group, I fail to see how this would fix so called ‘zerging’.

I must be missing something.

Sureshot.6725:

First and foremost, I’m not even agreeing that zerging needs to be fixed because to fix something you need to accurately define it.

Ask 10 people and get at least 5 different definitions on what constitutes a zerg. The only commonality I find among the various definitions for zerg is that one side was heavily outnumbered.

Second, I see a lot of comments stating that lifting the AoE cap will resolve zerging. In this context it seems to be defined as a smaller group could take out a larger group if the cap was lifted.

However, as the larger group would still be able to AoE and bring more AoE to bear being the larger group, I fail to see how this would fix so called ‘zerging’.

I must be missing something.

I agree with you. There are a lot of DAoC players around (which I’ve heard was an awesome game) who want GW2 to be more like DAoC. Even if the AoE cap was lifted, player stats are different, damage on skills is different, classes are different, etc. It’s not the same game in a million different ways. So even if the AoE cap was removed, I bet that these players would still find it harder to “destroy whole zergs with only 5 players” (something I doubt actually happened) because of all the different things, and come back to the forums complaining that the game still isn’t like DAoC.

Players run around in large groups because it is easy to do while still feeling like you are contributing, simple as that.

I’m not sure why you would want to eliminate zerging in the first place? If you don’t like the idea of people teaming together for a greater cause.. then go play spvp or roam solo or something, or hide under a rock, who cares. If you are having a hard time beating a zerg, that might mean you need a bigger zerg of your own with quality players. Cant get your own zerg? then your server will go down in rank =) THATS THE POINT OF WVWVW. Stop complaining and learn to pvp. A good player can take on 2-3 baddies without breaking a sweat. In other words, 10 good players should be able to take out 20-30 man zergs.

And don’t give me this bull poop about downed state. Its simple, when they are downed they arent dead yet, so keep DPSING.

Sureshot.6725:

First and foremost, I’m not even agreeing that zerging needs to be fixed because to fix something you need to accurately define it.

Ask 10 people and get at least 5 different definitions on what constitutes a zerg. The only commonality I find among the various definitions for zerg is that one side was heavily outnumbered.

Second, I see a lot of comments stating that lifting the AoE cap will resolve zerging. In this context it seems to be defined as a smaller group could take out a larger group if the cap was lifted.

However, as the larger group would still be able to AoE and bring more AoE to bear being the larger group, I fail to see how this would fix so called ‘zerging’.

I must be missing something.

Currently, because of the 5 man limit on AoE, a 5 man group attacking a 20 man has actually been handicapped to 25% of its ability. The AoE of the 5 man will only hit 1 in 5 of the 20 people.

But since the small group only has 5 people, the 20 man group operates at 100% ability. The AoE of each person in the 20 man group will hit every member of the 5 man group, since they are under the 5 man limit.

In effect, the AoE limit is a double whammy. It reduces the attack effectiveness of small groups against large, and increases the effectiveness of large groups against small. Under these circumstances, it is inevitable zerging becomes the main tactic.

Removing the AoE limit at least puts small and large groups on the same footing, which is all people are asking for. Just the chance to make an impact against the zerg. Perhaps to wipe one if its not too much larger, or your small group is much more organized. At least to feel you are having an effect.

If that can happen, then small group play will be feasible in the game again, because small groups will make a valuable contribution (instead of PvE’ing camps). This will lead to more small groups fighting each other, which is currently missing.

Troll or…?

Isnt zerging kind of the point of wvwvw, one world against another? Why would this need to be fixed?

Better solution, new class called the eldritch who can PBOA for the win, that was why the zerg was rocked in daoc. Mindless zerging is no fun and absolutely skill-less

I would like to clear a few things up:

1. Zerging absolutely should remain a viable way to play WvW.

It’s accessible to casual players and an easy concept to understand. It also gives less committed or up-leveled players a way to contribute.

2. However Zerging should absolutely NOT be the most effective/rewarding way to play WvW.

Currently Zergs offer too much safety and don’t have enough effective counter-mechanisms in play. They need more effective counters and less safety in numbers.

willwill.9318:

Better solution, new class called the eldritch who can PBOA for the win, that was why the zerg was rocked in daoc. Mindless zerging is no fun and absolutely skill-less

Skill is where you find it my friend. Do you know that something as simple as rock paper sissors championships even has regular champs?

Just because you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there

Dee Jay.2460:

I would like to clear a few things up:

1. Zerging absolutely should remain a viable way to play WvW.

It’s accessible to casual players and an easy concept to understand. It also gives less committed or up-leveled players a way to contribute.

2. However Zerging should absolutely NOT be the most effective/rewarding way to play WvW.

Currently Zergs offer too much safety and don’t have enough effective counter-mechanisms in play. They need more effective counters and less safety in numbers.

Thats a nice opinion piece. But why should zergs not be rewarded the same? Your incorrect supposition is assuming the game is built for 5 man elitism when it clearly is not. Buffs are based on radius, not groups. The game is clearly a break away from group based dynamics and that is its success story.

I’m not really fond of the idea of Garrisons, Keeps, and Towers going down by a handful of people. I play WvWvW, because I love the giant armies going at it for land and supplies. Armies with large number placing an enemy stronghold on siege and wiping out minor warbands as we ride, united, to combat in resupplying our siege needs.

I don’t know why people are against this, it’s an aspect of War in which servers are at war with each other. Small scale battles and small scale objective conquering is satisfied in sPvP or tPvP.

Easiest way to fix the zerg would be the ability to lay large traps around castles, keeps, towers, etc. that cannot be seen. If more than 10 people step on it at once, it goes off, dealing mass damage, enough to throw most of them into down state, making them easy prey for sieges.

Will this happen? Most likely not, but it’d be hilarious to see regardless.

Could someone explain to me whats the big deal regarding zerging in a large scale war map? Because i’ve been trying really hard to understand whats the point in all of these complaints and still didnt found any sense..

Tons of middle age wars were won by…an army surrouding and zerging a castle/city afaik, not by splitting your army in groups of 5 and sending them to each city in the country. Napoleon invaded russia with an army of like 600k also and i’m almost sure he didnt splitted his army into a bazillion of groups.

If zerging isnt fair then lets fix thieves using guerilla tatics aswell, how dare they strike our supply caravans in a blink of an eye to make our keeps and towers suffer supply starvation!!

Just two small examples that complaining about war tatics in a war environment is just…pointless

Belmont.4682:

Could someone explain to me whats the big deal regarding zerging in a large scale war map? Because i’ve been trying really hard to understand whats the point in all of these complaints and still didnt found any sense..

Tons of middle age wars were won by…an army surrouding and zerging a castle/city afaik, not by splitting your army in groups of 5 and sending them to each city in the country. Napoleon invaded russia with an army of like 600k also and i’m almost sure he didnt splitted his army into a bazillion of groups.

If zerging isnt fair then lets fix thieves using guerilla tatics aswell, how dare they strike our supply caravans in a blink of an eye to make our keeps and towers suffer supply starvation!!

Just two small examples that complaining about war tatics in a war environment is just…pointless

People complain primarily because they come from an open-world PvP background that favored combat between smaller groups. It’s something that they’ve enjoyed in other (now dead?) games, and they’re looking to scratch that itch again. It is their perspective on WvWvW. On top of that, the way the game is currently designed, a sufficiently large group cannot even be dented by a smaller group. This leads to a lot of frustration. Additionally, it is easier for people to feel that they have made a significant contribution and earned their reward, when they are part of a small group, rather than part of a much larger group. Finally, larger groups have a (mostly deserved) reputation of being mindless and skill-less, mostly winning fights by large numbers.

If you mix all these things together, you get a segment of the player base that is very frustrated.

JaironKalach.4938:

On top of that, the way the game is currently designed, a sufficiently large group cannot even be dented by a smaller group. This leads to a lot of frustration.

Why frustation? Ever since the stone age of MMO’s if you werent able to dispatch a group of enemies by going toe to toe with them in a group of same number, you would call for help and then kill them by taking advantage of the upper hand in numbers that you have. Comaplaining/Getting frustrated with this kind of “issue” is the same as complaining/getting frustrated at the fact you cant choose wich item an npc in orr will drop for you.

JaironKalach.4938:

Additionally, it is easier for people to feel that they have made a significant contribution and earned their reward, when they are part of a small group, rather than part of a much larger group.

50%/50% for this one, indeed its great when you and your 3-4 friends group up and manage to take/defend a tower all by yourselves. But considering the exp/karma/money reward for doing so is the same, its kinda pointless.

JaironKalach.4938:

Finally, larger groups have a (mostly deserved) reputation of being mindless and skill-less, mostly winning fights by large numbers.

Well, i do rely most on zergs for some simple reasons: 1) I dont live in the US, and my latency to the game servers is over 300 or so, wich means i’ll always have the disvantage if i decide to fight someones that has an almost real-time response from the server. 2) My gear is kinda crappy and i’m not willing to spend money on it till i get my legendary, thus one more reason to rely on large groups to accomplish objectives.
3) Isnt what grouping together is supposed to do? try to overcome skill gaps between the players involved by outnumbering them?

Also let us not forget about the tons of undergeared/“underreallevelled” players out there that rely mostly on the large groups on WvW in order to be useful in some way :P

JaironKalach.4938:

People complain primarily because they come from an open-world PvP background that favored combat between smaller groups. It’s something that they’ve enjoyed in other (now dead?) games, and they’re looking to scratch that itch again. It is their perspective on WvWvW. On top of that, the way the game is currently designed, a sufficiently large group cannot even be dented by a smaller group. This leads to a lot of frustration. Additionally, it is easier for people to feel that they have made a significant contribution and earned their reward, when they are part of a small group, rather than part of a much larger group. Finally, larger groups have a (mostly deserved) reputation of being mindless and skill-less, mostly winning fights by large numbers.

If you mix all these things together, you get a segment of the player base that is very frustrated.

Fair enough, but there is no reason to revert back to some antiquated norms when this game has just finished smashing them. Small groups with impenetrable meshes of buffs and escapes frustrate a much larger segment of the population than making everyone having to play on the same level.

If anything I just read an idea for a geographic approach might work with having a new city zone with numerous streets that would split people in many different directions. More routes = more divisions = smaller groups in general.

Altering game mechanics to favor small groups = NO!

Belmont.4682:

Just two small examples that complaining about war tatics in a war environment is just…pointless

In all fairness, if you took all the pointless complaining off of the internet, what you’d have left would be 11 cat pictures and maybe a website that sells wigwam socks.

Zerging is not a legitimate tactic in the game due to three reasons:
1. It exploits culling issues that GW2 can’t get rid of.
2. It exploits no collision, making it possible for 30 players to stand in the space occupied by one person.
3. While zerging is a legitimate war tactic it isn’t a very good tactic in real life, because of suppression and other variables that are not made available to us in the game — in WW2 a whole platoon (26 to 55 troops) got wiped by 2 guys with machineguns placed on either side of a wide pathway, their crossfire completely annihilated that platoon in less then a minute.

Given these three things, I conclude that one of the three is correct:
1. AoE cap should be removed.
2. Player collision should be implemented.
3. There should be more tactical counters, available guerrilla tactics, that are effective against zerging.

The first option, in my opinion, is the most viable, as AoE abilities are made to be less effective if the enemy is spread out and devastating otherwise, forcing people to watch their spacing, which is a requirement in any war scenario. It’s one of the reasons formations are used.

I do not feel the the other two are as easy to implement, as they may result in latency issues, development hardships, annoying bugs and other unforeseen issues down the line.

VakarisJ.5619:

3. There should be more tactical counters, available guerrilla tactics, that are effective against zerging.

I would love it if something along these lines could be worked out.

Imagine a big group running down a narrow valley when suddenly a small group jumps down from above and gains some sort of “element of surprise” buff.

Every time someone wants AoE caps removed, I want them to explain to how the game doesn’t devolve into a bunch of Eles spamming AoE?

Roo Stercogburn.9671:

A zerg is a mindless ball of players. Add coordination and leadership its an army. Fixed.

Yep i agree with this – if you took one servers worth of zerg and dispersed them evenly into wvw guilds your server could probably make it into t1 or 2 no sweat.

Ubi.4136:

Reduce run speed based on how many people are nearby. So, if you “zerg” with 30+ people, you are essentially doing the walk animation. You are no longer a group, you are an army. And, in an era with trebs and cats, armies walked…slowly.

Small groups can still hit and run. Well, maybe not run, but jog…I mean, you should at least wait for your friends.

I second this idea. I think the map should also be increased in size with more capturable camps and nodes. This way you can still zerg, but there will be strategic trade offs that you have to make just like in any RTS game.

JaironKalach.4938:

Every time someone wants AoE caps removed, I want them to explain to how the game doesn’t devolve into a bunch of Eles spamming AoE?

Well for one — every class has some sort of AoE, but specifically for the elementalist:
An elementalist with a focus on AoE DPS loses things like durability, making them easy targets for thieves, rangers and melee classes if they are not blocked by terrain.

Also, AoE always comes at a price of lower per-player DPS, making it ineffective if the opponents keep a decent spread. This would mean that players would incorporate pincer tactics more, instead of a blunt force attack from one side with everything that’s available to spare. We’d very likely see two or three different groups of players attacking the same keep from different directions, making for more interesting play.

VakarisJ.5619:

JaironKalach.4938:

Every time someone wants AoE caps removed, I want them to explain to how the game doesn’t devolve into a bunch of Eles spamming AoE?

Well for one — every class has some sort of AoE, but specifically for the elementalist:
An elementalist with a focus on AoE DPS loses things like durability, making them easy targets for thieves, rangers and melee classes if they are not blocked by terrain.

Also, AoE always comes at a price of lower per-player DPS, making it ineffective if the opponents keep a decent spread. This would mean that players would incorporate pincer tactics more, instead of a blunt force attack from one side with everything that’s available to spare. We’d very likely see two or three different groups of players attacking the same keep from different directions, making for more interesting play.

Thanks for the reasonable response. I suppose I should have clarified my concerns a little further. Mostly I’m thinking about choke points. For example, any given gate or wall breach. It seems like it would become ridiculously easy at any of these necessary choke points to have 5-10 folks sitting at a reasonable distance away, just spamming the AoE into the breach. They would have sufficient numbers to cover any problem with duration, reduced damage, and size of AoE spread.

Tell you what though, I’ll give in on this one if you get rid of stability so that people are constantly running through my dang guardian fields. ;-) Or at least make it so stability always applies a cripple. Then I can control zergs and you can nuke them.

JudgeDredd.9865:

Zerging is caused by players not wanting to lose. What will happen is everyone splits off in there 5 man grps. team A brings there 5 but team B doesn’t wanna lose so they bring 6. Grp A goes screw this and brings 7. ect ect

You hit the nail on the head there. In addition, the zerg forms spontaneously in response to some perceived threat or need, for example, if you know theres a 20-man enemy zerg running around, then you need at least 20 (probably more) to be able to counter it.

If theres no enemy zerg, then having smaller parties is easier.

JaironKalach.4938:

Every time someone wants AoE caps removed, I want them to explain to how the game doesn’t devolve into a bunch of Eles spamming AoE?

Reduce the overall damage that each person in an AoE circle takes to a level were battles are not dominated by Ele spam.

But just make sure the small group and the big group can inflict the same amount of damage to the same amount of people inside the circle This means zerg clumping would be broken up, and the small group could break up a small part to take on.

One of the MANY problems with most AoE, is there is no counter. I remember the first week when you tried to get through an enemy gate and the damage you took went up to about 40k from all the ground AoE. Projectiles can be countered, so can melee AoE, but ground targeted AoE you just have to suffer through.
Another issue is if they lifted the AoE cap, you could buff 30 people with retaliation. Now if even a single AoE spell hit those 30, that elementalist would recieve about 12000 damage. Zerg wide protection, aegis, healing from different water runes. No thanks.

Mizu.9387:

One of the MANY problems with most AoE, is there is no counter. I remember the first week when you tried to get through an enemy gate and the damage you took went up to about 40k from all the ground AoE. Projectiles can be countered, so can melee AoE, but ground targeted AoE you just have to suffer through.
Another issue is if they lifted the AoE cap, you could buff 30 people with retaliation. Now if even a single AoE spell hit those 30, that elementalist would recieve about 12000 damage. Zerg wide protection, aegis, healing from different water runes. No thanks.

Like I said before…. lift the AoE cap, but make it so that each player can only suffer damage from 1 AoE at a time, first in, first out. 5 Ele’s smapping you gets onlt 1 AoE in on you. However, those same 5 Ele’s can now hit an entire zerg for 1 AoE apiece, instead of only hitting 5 players.

The way it is now, 5 Ele’s drop AoEs on a group, ALL 5 have the chance to hit the SAME PLAYER for insta death. It’s not equitable.

Changing bleed condition to the same way as burn or poison work will also help.
So it stacks over time .

But i agree with Mizu for every kind of attack should be a defence.
So ground cleansing/protecting ground target spells would be nice.

hex.3218:

Mizu.9387:

One of the MANY problems with most AoE, is there is no counter. I remember the first week when you tried to get through an enemy gate and the damage you took went up to about 40k from all the ground AoE. Projectiles can be countered, so can melee AoE, but ground targeted AoE you just have to suffer through.
Another issue is if they lifted the AoE cap, you could buff 30 people with retaliation. Now if even a single AoE spell hit those 30, that elementalist would recieve about 12000 damage. Zerg wide protection, aegis, healing from different water runes. No thanks.

Like I said before…. lift the AoE cap, but make it so that each player can only suffer damage from 1 AoE at a time, first in, first out. 5 Ele’s smapping you gets onlt 1 AoE in on you. However, those same 5 Ele’s can now hit an entire zerg for 1 AoE apiece, instead of only hitting 5 players.

The way it is now, 5 Ele’s drop AoEs on a group, ALL 5 have the chance to hit the SAME PLAYER for insta death. It’s not equitable.

Fair enough, but how would other forms of AoE work, such as defensive ground AoE and AoE shouts? Will you only be affected by one of those as well?
Will whirwind and whirling axe stack or can only one effect affect a target at any given time?
I understand that most defensive abilities grant boons and those kinda sort themselves out with the way they stack, but will several hostile AoEs give you all the conditions but only damage from one effect?

What they can do is to cap a place you need to hold more then 1 spot (now kill lord), like a Supply camp you need to kill all and then hold 2 spots (so you cant take it solo) for 60sec, tower you need to kill Lord and hold 5spots for 60sec, Keep kill Lord and hold 10spots for 60sec, that way you cant just run in with a zerg then run to next target and it will make it easyer to defend. To get the SC, Tower, Keep back for the defenders you need to ress Lord (boss at SC and at SC rest stay dead when boss dead) and kill all enemys at the cap spots.

I heard about this idea a few months ago in another thread about putting less incentive on zerging, and I thought it was a great idea.

The gist of it was that any groupings of players that is greater than a certain number would show up on your map similarly to cross-swords. There probably could and would still be zerg on zerg fighting (especially for keeps), but it would make zergs a lot less effective at offense because a 50 man zerg at a tower can be pretty easily stopped by 10-15 people if the defenders have a heads up. Zergs would become much less efficient at rolling through towers with an indicator of their location.

Kilger.5490:

Dee Jay.2460:

I would like to clear a few things up:

1. Zerging absolutely should remain a viable way to play WvW.

It’s accessible to casual players and an easy concept to understand. It also gives less committed or up-leveled players a way to contribute.

2. However Zerging should absolutely NOT be the most effective/rewarding way to play WvW.

Currently Zergs offer too much safety and don’t have enough effective counter-mechanisms in play. They need more effective counters and less safety in numbers.

Thats a nice opinion piece. But why should zergs not be rewarded the same? Your incorrect supposition is assuming the game is built for 5 man elitism when it clearly is not. Buffs are based on radius, not groups. The game is clearly a break away from group based dynamics and that is its success story.

How can you possibly misread my post in just about every conceivable way?

I never said Zergs shouldn’t be rewarded the same. I said it shouldn’t be the most effective/rewarding way to play. A Zerg should be rewarded based on achievements, just like it is now. It just shouldn’t to be as effective as it is currently.

Ahem…I can’t even begin to assume how you reach your conclusions. I would argue with you if it made any sense…but it does not.

Mizu.9387:

hex.3218:

Mizu.9387:

One of the MANY problems with most AoE, is there is no counter. I remember the first week when you tried to get through an enemy gate and the damage you took went up to about 40k from all the ground AoE. Projectiles can be countered, so can melee AoE, but ground targeted AoE you just have to suffer through.
Another issue is if they lifted the AoE cap, you could buff 30 people with retaliation. Now if even a single AoE spell hit those 30, that elementalist would recieve about 12000 damage. Zerg wide protection, aegis, healing from different water runes. No thanks.

Like I said before…. lift the AoE cap, but make it so that each player can only suffer damage from 1 AoE at a time, first in, first out. 5 Ele’s smapping you gets onlt 1 AoE in on you. However, those same 5 Ele’s can now hit an entire zerg for 1 AoE apiece, instead of only hitting 5 players.

The way it is now, 5 Ele’s drop AoEs on a group, ALL 5 have the chance to hit the SAME PLAYER for insta death. It’s not equitable.

Fair enough, but how would other forms of AoE work, such as defensive ground AoE and AoE shouts? Will you only be affected by one of those as well?
Will whirwind and whirling axe stack or can only one effect affect a target at any given time?
I understand that most defensive abilities grant boons and those kinda sort themselves out with the way they stack, but will several hostile AoEs give you all the conditions but only damage from one effect?

Good points. Boons should act like normal. No limit except where stacking generally affect duration and not amount (like quickness). Conditions should apply to all and each defender should receive each condition, but DoTs would have to limit to 1 stack until it wears off. Confusion and retaliation could be either one or the other.

I realize this would require a lot more work, but it should have been set up like this from the start. Or, instead of 1 AoE per defender, how about an AoE damage max per second equal to one max damage AoE attack (say 1000 or 2000) that way you’d have about 10 to 12 seconds to get your tail our or pop defensive skills etc, but still EVERYONE in the crowd taks SOME damage from being within an AoE, and it doesn’t just randomly hit 5.

What good is 1 to 2k damage? That’s a pretty decent hit and makes defenders take notice and have to act, because next second you might get hit again. Not to mention ST damage.

Wouldn’t it be enough to simply buff the gates/doors to actually withstand a pounding zerg and increase it takes to cap a camp to several minutes. If a zerg decides to take a camp it would occupy alot of players for a long time for no apparent reason.
The problem right now, is that a zerg can do a full sweep of the map and cap everything in less than an hour.