Guild Wars 2

So large armies in all wars have a huge issue that is completely ignored in the large troop movements in WvW, supply lines. Without a mechanic that forces a zerg like force to behave as if it was one then we get the problems we have right now.

There is no collision detection in this game, no i am not advocating for it, but its a fact that if there was then a zerg can easily be handled at bottle necks by smaller forces. Right now all a zerg commander has to do is call out for stability and then charge the gate/stairs/valley/gap with everyone occupying the same space as everyone else.

Outnumber buff was a decent idea but it is catering to the wrong end of the problem, that being the smaller numbers, what needs to happen is an implementation that deters the larger numbers all in one blob.

I think that if a condition was added that reduced all speed to slower than normal, say 90% of normal, and it cancels out swiftness or any passive speed buff, then we would have a simulated “bottleneck” effect. Maybe increase the speed debuff even more when the zerg numbers go higher, tiered to slower and slower speeds.

This is in line with what would happen in large armies, they cannot be as mobile due to the sheer numbers, and it would play well with siege based tactics.

Bottlenecks are pointless in this game simply because all players can occupy the same space at the same time.

Maybe i am missing the mark here, i do not hate zergs, but i do feel that because of the game mechanics a zerg is not being handled properly and the devs have not implemented the correct tools to deal with them. Personally i think this would be a simple fix that could go a long way to fixing the “Zerg” problems.

Removing downed state would be a good start.

Chuck Zitto.2367:

Removing downed state would be a good start.

Yes, addressing downed-state, limiting resurrections to out of combat and changing the rally-mechanic to dodge-ball rules (1 rally for 1 kill) would help a lot.

What might also help is if Swiftness was not so easily applyable through combo-fields. That may slow down a zerg, where you have Swiftness 90% of the time, and give individuals more time to react.

But honestly I don’t think it would have a huge effect.

I don’t see swiftness being that much of a problem, especially while in combat.

The biggest change needs to be in rally mechanics.

Chris.3290:

I don’t see swiftness being that much of a problem, especially while in combat.

The biggest change needs to be in rally mechanics.

apparently this guy has never ran into hackers, or a thief. or gotten out the middle of his zerg blob. or ran anything other than a warrior or guardian bunker build.

They won’t make any changes to discourage any kind of game play, no large group debuffs ect. Although they are encouraging small man with things like the ruins.

Large zerg tactics are slowly being abandoned in T1. Not sure about other tiers.

Just because the current meta is to have 1 large blob moving around the map, doesn’t mean it’s the best way to maximise PPT. With bloodlust ruins worth around 35-40% of your score, it is way more important to keep a sizable force in a map to contest ruins for your server than to defend a tower, which is only worth 10 PPT (whereas stomp points can be worth up to as much as 200 points during a tick in large fights).

It is also better to have at least two forces on a map to try cap different targets, simply because of how easy it is to take down structures with current overpowered offensive siege.

Increase base supply capacity for players to 20. Decrease supply stored in keeps/towers to 200 max. Eliminate stored supply when towers/keeps flip. Allow upgrades to be started regardless of stored supply, and have yaks automatically deposit supply into upgrades in progress. Add supply counts for locations near their icon on the world map along with Righteous Indignation timer for supervisors. See thread below.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Fixing-the-zerg-problem-Supply-Capacity/first#post3259574

Chuck Zitto.2367:

Removing downed state would be a good start.

Yeah because removing downstate would just take away some extra strategy and make the battles go faster. It would do nothing about the zerg. *sigh

Zergs are a part of wvw. There is nothing wrong with it. WvW is supposed to include large scale combat.

The problem is that the maps are too small, making zergs more effective than they should be. Make the maps bigger and the size of zergs will be forced to reduce so that they can cover more ground on the map.

Personally, I have no problem with they way they are at the moment. My loot bags per hour has never been greater.

Dradiin.8935:

Bottlenecks are pointless in this game simply because all players can occupy the same space at the same time.

Maybe i am missing the mark here, i do not hate zergs, but i do feel that because of the game mechanics a zerg is not being handled properly and the devs have not implemented the correct tools to deal with them. Personally i think this would be a simple fix that could go a long way to fixing the “Zerg” problems.

Pro tip: 1 choke + 1 superior ballista + a bit of mastery = 1 dead zerg after theit commander called out stability and charged everybody through the tiny space.

Pro OP tip: 1 choke + 2 or more superior ballista + a bit of… you get the idea.

The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
~Sun Tzu

The lack of collision or zerg debuff IS the zergs weakness, because his behavior becomes predictable. That is the definition of “ZERG”.

Deli.1302:

Zergs are a part of wvw. There is nothing wrong with it. WvW is supposed to include large scale combat.

The problem is that the maps are too small, making zergs more effective than they should be. Make the maps bigger and the size of zergs will be forced to reduce so that they can cover more ground on the map.

Personally, I have no problem with they way they are at the moment. My loot bags per hour has never been greater.

Map size has less than nothing to do with it. You could double the map size and the zerg would remain identical. Until small groups have a viable way to contribute to flipping points, you will see endlessly zerging. If it has less than 10 people, it’s not even a threat to anything but a camp or a yak.

Realistically I can only think of 2 solutions to end zerging as it is .

1- Collision detection for friendlies aswell as enemies. going right through the enemy zerg would be imposible and so would stacking in a corner like mindless bots. Zergs would still exist, but instead of people acting like idiots it would require a certain amount of tactics. Choke points would matter a lot more, aoe had to be spread, people would need to think instead of following the blue cupcake just “because he said so”.

2- A more drastic solution that would really harm zergs: friendly fire. This is a last resort and i dont think it would work well, but it would certainly end zerging.

Res/rally mechanics are all that really need to be fixed. I shouldn’t be able to mass res my downed pal under ac fire so easily, be able to do it before some one can stomp without cc-ing them, or fully res an ally while in combat (everlasting zerg)… nor should I rally off of some random I tagged once with aoe (along with all of my comrades).

That would cause a huge shift towards more skilled gameplay.

Ross Biddle.2367:

Dradiin.8935:

Bottlenecks are pointless in this game simply because all players can occupy the same space at the same time.

Maybe i am missing the mark here, i do not hate zergs, but i do feel that because of the game mechanics a zerg is not being handled properly and the devs have not implemented the correct tools to deal with them. Personally i think this would be a simple fix that could go a long way to fixing the “Zerg” problems.

Pro tip: 1 choke + 1 superior ballista + a bit of mastery = 1 dead zerg after theit commander called out stability and charged everybody through the tiny space.

Pro OP tip: 1 choke + 2 or more superior ballista + a bit of… you get the idea.

The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
~Sun Tzu

The lack of collision or zerg debuff IS the zergs weakness, because his behavior becomes predictable. That is the definition of “ZERG”.

I agree with this. There is a problem where a lot of people want to beat zergs with a smaller force, without extra effort. So they come up with ideas that simply punish bigger groups to be as effective as their smaller group.

If 40 people clump up in 1 zerg, they cannot defend everywhere and attack only one thing. There are inherent weaknesses to zerging around. 4x 10man groups can attack and cap 4 locations at the same time where a zerg can only rush to defend one.

You want to defeat a larger group of players, a group that has invested more human resources into its force, you need to put something else against that. Be it superior skill, superior planning, superior equipment (i.e. Siege placement).

But you have to pay your dues.

Interesting to see someone else notice the lack of collision. If the “melee assist” feature were forced on in WvW, combat would be very very different and IMHO would be the ultimate way to destroy the ability to zerg. Battles would be more realistic.

Dagraan.2854:

Chris.3290:

I don’t see swiftness being that much of a problem, especially while in combat.

The biggest change needs to be in rally mechanics.

apparently this guy has never ran into hackers, or a thief. or gotten out the middle of his zerg blob. or ran anything other than a warrior or guardian bunker build.

The topic is about busting zergs, take your roamer talk to a different thread.

Chaba.5410:

Interesting to see someone else notice the lack of collision. If the “melee assist” feature were forced on in WvW, combat would be very very different and IMHO would be the ultimate way to destroy the ability to zerg. Battles would be more realistic.

Collision on melee assist is something that im guessing is impossed by the client and not the server.

Adding collision detection to the game all the time, would just put a massive load on the servers which are already choking. More skill lag, more delays, more culling issues.

Terrahero.9358:

Ross Biddle.2367:

Dradiin.8935:

Bottlenecks are pointless in this game simply because all players can occupy the same space at the same time.

Maybe i am missing the mark here, i do not hate zergs, but i do feel that because of the game mechanics a zerg is not being handled properly and the devs have not implemented the correct tools to deal with them. Personally i think this would be a simple fix that could go a long way to fixing the “Zerg” problems.

Pro tip: 1 choke + 1 superior ballista + a bit of mastery = 1 dead zerg after theit commander called out stability and charged everybody through the tiny space.

Pro OP tip: 1 choke + 2 or more superior ballista + a bit of… you get the idea.

The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
~Sun Tzu

The lack of collision or zerg debuff IS the zergs weakness, because his behavior becomes predictable. That is the definition of “ZERG”.

I agree with this. There is a problem where a lot of people want to beat zergs with a smaller force, without extra effort. So they come up with ideas that simply punish bigger groups to be as effective as their smaller group.

If 40 people clump up in 1 zerg, they cannot defend everywhere and attack only one thing. There are inherent weaknesses to zerging around. 4x 10man groups can attack and cap 4 locations at the same time where a zerg can only rush to defend one.

You want to defeat a larger group of players, a group that has invested more human resources into its force, you need to put something else against that. Be it superior skill, superior planning, superior equipment (i.e. Siege placement).

But you have to pay your dues.

I’d add to this by adding more objectives (if we could get larger maps). More things to split off and do that would cause more coverage issues if everyone balled up. Just make things more inefficient for one big group to do. Current tower design takes a little bit too long for a 10-man group to quickly grab too, so maybe another type of objective between tower and camp difficulty.

A 10man group with supply can plonk down 2 superior rams. Two people with ram mastery 3 or up and you will melt the gate. Especially with a 30sec headstart.

A 40man zerg that is sticking to zerging as a blob will be able to respond to 1 location being attacked like that. The other 3 he will not be able to reach in time. Even keeps can be capped fairly quickly with relatively small groups

A 10man group can build 4 guild catapults. Build them at the right spot at Hills or Bay and these can hit both the outer and the inner wall. And these walls will melt.

People arent splitting up because they dont want to. Adding more objectives sounds nice in theory, but the maps are to small for it, and it will probably just give roaming groups something more to do (which is great, dont get me wrong) but it wont pull zergs apart.
Especially not in the current way WvW is played, with a lot of pve zerkerlings. I’ve never seen people who can pull 10g/hour so scared of a 2silver repairbill.

Firstly, zergs will more than likely always happen. Why send in 5 guys to take a tower when 50 can take it much faster and easier? While a team of 5 can take the tower it wouldn’t take more than one defender with an AC or treb to fend off most small scale attacks.

Secondly, zergs can be really fun, especially when the zerg on zerg action involves 2 or 3 zergs of relatively equal size. (minus the lag caused by it, of course). I think that many players that complain about zergs are those that simply don’t like the imbalance in zerg sizes, also known as zerg-envy. That ‘can’ be countered simply by players recruiting more WvW players to their world or map; but the problem is players all tend to choose winning servers or to at least group up on just a few servers. So now you have low population servers and small zergs in WvW.

Balance will never happen so long as players are ‘put in charge’ of that balance. I would guarantee that if the end keg brawl chest held a higher chance for a victory chest to contain a precursor that players would opt to overload their teams just to get it.

To achieve some sort of balance, WvW would need to be revamped in such a way that prior to matchups or seasons, players would pick their preferred WvW guild, guild leaders then register for the match up, at the end of registration each guild is then assessed for WvW strength based on membership, the member’s past WvW experience/achievements, possibly even PvP experience/achievements, god forbid any GvG rankings/tourney results, should Anet ever add GvG, and also each guild’s average hours of WvW activity. Once all that is determined, the guilds could then be more evenly balanced into 1 of 3 teams such that each team is given a fair amount of players and time zone coverages roughly equal to that of the other teams. Players/guilds remain representing the same team for the duration of the matchup/season; new players are not allowed in and transfers between teams not possible. Players not part of any registered guild at the time of the registration would still be able to WvW in a separate ‘casual’ or ‘just for fun’ matchup for the duration of the organized matchup/season.

Even with this pre-matchup/season balancing, there could still be cases where scores begin to get lopsided, so I would further recommend that in those instances, dynamic events could trigger when any one(or two) team’s score exceeds a certain threshold above their nearest competitor such that the higher score team has their tower or keep attacked by an outside force such as a boss or dragon and his army such that the team must now defend that objective. During the attack, the point count for the keep or tower that is under attack could either be zero, or to make it more interesting, make the point count a negative number such that the team is now losing points. How much that negative number would be would depend on the variance between the overall scores of all 3 teams such as to attempt to keep scores closers between all 3. Should the NPC army be successful in killing a keep/tower lord, that team could then suffer a points loss, such as possibly 50% of their lead over their closest team. If the lord is killed by the NPCs, then that army rampages through the keep destroying all siege and players if they get in the way, and then retreats leaving the objective open for potentially being captured by either of the other two teams. If two teams are both over the score threshold from the 3rd team, then both of those teams could be simultaneously attacked by these NPC armies giving that 3rd team an advantage and a chance to catch back up.

I further suggest that players from any team not currently under this siege attack could be randomly offered the opportunity to take on the role of the boss/dragon such that they have the skills of that boss and can be instrumental in the attack. The player would be unable to steer the boss away from the battle, and would need to be actively attacking, otherwise they would be kicked from control, of course. Bonus rewards such as a chest could be offered to teams that successfully fend off the attack, so that this isn’t purely a penalty system for teams just because they have a higher lead.

Chuck Zitto.2367:

Removing downed state would be a good start.

I have no issue with downed state. But once you are fully dead there should be a timer that will kick you to the nearest uncontested WP.
30 seconds to a minute maybe. After that away you go.

It would offer a chance to increase the attrition on the big groups but still leave it to player choice and how well they fight. The impact on small groups is minimal, since most of the time if you are killed in small group format you will be WPing anyway.

Another possible variation of this would be to allow a special (or even a second) finisher that sends the dead to a WP immediately. All kinds of ways you could do it.

Body blocking was a strategy in GW1 as I recall.

Basharic.1654:

Chuck Zitto.2367:

Removing downed state would be a good start.

I have no issue with downed state. But once you are fully dead there should be a timer that will kick you to the nearest uncontested WP.
30 seconds to a minute maybe. After that away you go.

It would offer a chance to increase the attrition on the big groups but still leave it to player choice and how well they fight. The impact on small groups is minimal, since most of the time if you are killed in small group format you will be WPing anyway.

Another possible variation of this would be to allow a special (or even a second) finisher that sends the dead to a WP immediately. All kinds of ways you could do it.

I’d say maybe to the wp timer, but no to the special finisher since it’s usually just something the ‘rich’ players end up having and I don’t like the thought of giving richy rich any more reason to play elitist. Besides that, it would probably favor the large zergs over the small groups anyway. I’ve always thought that dead ‘spies’ should slowly have their screen fade to black after they die. Maybe after a minute of death it would be black and they would be unable to help their team by reporting on enemy activities or wall/gate status. A wp timer would take care of that too, but as for the wp timer having an affect on breaking up the zerg, I doubt it. Zergs have massive res power compared to a small group, so the likelihood it would affect any zerg vs. “Joe & his 5 friends” is slim.

Having spent this week matched against the pitiless Uber Efficiency of Drakkar Lake’s endless Zerg Train (would love to question them about how much fun they get from capturing absolutely everything on the map, all the time.) and having my willingness to log in sorely tested…I drifted here.

Gotta say I think that among the other suggestions two that I would like to see implemented as quickly as possible are:

Collision Detection & AoE affecting more than 5 players.

Same old points:

-Modify the rally system please.
-Better/more varied supply drainage traps.

Just modify the rally system down to 2 players and 2 times before insta death.

While the downed player system does promote zerging in terms of straight combat, the way supply and siege is now, zerging is an absolute necessity. Taking a keep requires 200 supply minimum (excluding times when you have literally zero opposition) which is 20 ppl. Zergs can flip a keep quickly drain the supply there and keep on trucking. If you want to provide a viable alternative you need to do several things. Increase player supply capacity, reduce supply stored in keeps/towers to 200 max, and eliminate stored supply when keeps and towers flip. Please look at my thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Fixing-the-zerg-problem-Supply-Capacity/first#post3273123

Small groups of 3-5 can ninja keeps with 80-100 supply, potentially just 1 trip back to resupply. There’s just no incentive to do so when it takes 3 times longer, much higher risk, and equal reward.

If you want to allow combating zergs with smaller forces, fix rally system so it’s not a free pass for larger groups.

If you want to change the meta, fix the reward structure to better reflect the contributions of smaller groups and individual players.

The way to combat zerging is for anet to introduce aircraft in the game. Dropping bombs on blobs of players would surely discourage zerging.

Reduce movement speed as group size increases. Magnify that reduction at choke points and in constrained spaces.