Guild Wars 2

I understand what u mean with the zergs ankittenired of them too sometimes, but all your points u have listed here would affect everyone and specially small groups. It would backfire and people would stop playing….

LEts say 50 people zerg comes on the map…
-ok swiftness nerfed:they will still get to the keep
-5 people are defending the keep
-your 20 man zerg is in an other bl but cant switch maps because map jopping is affected
-you could have 10 nore people but they gotta run allllll the wayyyy from spawn to help u,because the wp contesting is 4min or longer and the zerg sent a few thieves to tap the other keepgates
-The 50 man zerg has no aoe limit so will hit and destroy EVERY siege,npc and player on the wall and hit the gate at the same time
-te tower rewards wont change zergmentality at all as most of them want points for the server and not points for themselves
-u cant really prevent large guilds from playing together.It would be horrible if i wasnt able to play with my friends only because we have a big guild.maybe people standing at spawn should be removed quicker if they arent doing anything

A). they aready nerf some major group swiftness by making them have a player limit or they do not stack if the player already has the boon

B) Errr it very easy to congest a waypoint. WP are already punished for the expensive supply requirement, time invested and the fact that it contested easy

C) WP are a tactic. There isnt any abuse for using wp

D) Map hoping? There is already a limit to a number of WvWvW players

E) melee attack assist feature? Please elaborate

F) Capper only get like 2s. So, I do not think most player are doing it for the money

G) Top 3 tier servers already have too many people playing. Queues can get to 1 hour+ long.

I) I do not think it is possible. ANet have scaling issues with their engine. Removing the limit would put a severe lag.

Yeah I think this is getting to alot of people, myself included. My first thought was to give a damage or health or some stat “debuff” if a group had over a certain amount of players in a specific area. IE If over 30 player +1% incoming damage or -1% outgoing damage, if over 35 +2% incoming damage or -2% outgoing damage. Not sure how that would work out.

Totally agree with the AoE thing. Although I think the Ele needs a nerf lol.

1. Remove teleports. Being able to port to your spawn or to upgraded keeps allows a single zerg to effectively surf the map. Disabling teleports makes it critical to split your forces up so you don’t wind up losing everything you own while your 80 man zerg is taking a supply camp on the other side of the map.

2. Increase the amount of people needed to mark any objective as under attack. make it so 10 people can attack any objective and no swords will appear on the map. (Honestly, I would prefer to just remove the map indicators entirely. These maps are not so large that you need neon signs to find someone to fight.)

Either of those suggestions should help split up the zerg a bit without altering the combat aspects of the game. Sure you can zerg it up and face roll across the map, but you will probably lose more than you gain.

3. Change the maps. Eb can remain the same, one zergy battlefield should be enough. The borders, however, have an incredible amount of wasted space. With orbs gone fighting rarely occurs in the northern parts of the map. Between pve areas, the ridiculously large home team spawn camp, and the lake half the map really isn’t even used.
I imagine the lake is hard to let go of but if you are going to have a successful long term game you have to be willing to admit when something is not working as intended. Very, very little combat occurs in the lake. You can either revamp underwater combat and try to find something a majority of people find more enjoyable or you can fill the lakes in. Either way you will greatly increase the area used for fighting.

4. Put in a group option for 10, 15, or 20 players. If you design a larger group size and incorporate that into the ui, then people will naturally switch to using that size group.

To those arguing what we have currently is in anyway tactical….. sorry opening you map and running your 80 man herd to the nearest orange swords or contested objective is not tactical.

Yshyr.8709:

To those arguing what we have currently is in anyway tactical….. sorry opening you map and running your 80 man herd to the nearest orange swords or contested objective is not tactical.

you will be surprise by moving your troops and making sure they are supplied is an important tactic. I guess this is why have more then three commanders will create a mess in the battleground

nirvana.8245:

Totally agree with the AoE thing. Although I think the Ele needs a nerf lol.

Thats the problem, IF they where going to remove AoE limit they are going to put em self in world of hurt when it comes to balance.

I have said it many times before, leave the AoE limit like it is on player and increase it or remove it on siege weapons.

cyyrix.6105:

A lot of people (including myself) are tired of the mega-zerg mentality that is currently dominating WvW.

I understand that it takes skill to coordinate the movement of a large group of people. Still, when a mega-zerg is so huge that enemies can do nothing but auto-attack (something only seen in epic 3 server battles until recently), the game loses a massive amount of its skill factor. Even with hardware/software upgrades to completely remove skill lag, I think many believe that these massive zergs trivialize the strategy of WvW.

With all of this in mind, here are some ideas Anet could consider that might dissuade the zerg mentality:

A lot of people complain that the maps feel too small. While it would be difficult to change the map completely, nerfing zerg movement would help to create the illusion of a larger map, and might encourage massive groups to split up forces. This could be done by:

A) Nerf swiftness in WvW. CDs, duration, AoE. Who knows? But zergs shouldn’t be able to run around with 100% swiftness uptime.

B) Increase the contested duration for waypoints. Zergs CONSTANTLY run to defend one keep, port, run to attack another, port run back to defend the first, etc. Decreased access to waypoints would mitigate this.

C) Charge for waypoint abuse. Another way to slow down zergs’ abuse of WP’s. Give players x free waypoints per hour, then start charging more and more for additional uses.

D) Slow down map hopping. I’m undecided on this one. It might adversely affect small, coordinated groups, too. With disconnects and whatnot, it’d probably be technical nightmare to implement anyways.

E) Turn on the melee attack assist feature with friendly targets. Drastic, but it sure would be fun to see! Can you imagine a 60-man zerg trying to rush out of a keep portal at the same time?

Other ideas not related to zerg movement:

F) Divide tower rewards based on the number of cappers.

G) Prevent large guilds from manipulating the “full” server status with blackout hours.

H) Continuously provide free transfers to players on the top two or three tiers.

I) Remove AoE limits on offensive skills.

I know a lot of the WvW forum warriors are members of these massive zergs, but I would appreciate any constructive discussion about these or other ideas.

A) Nope
B) Maybe
C) WvW players are already horribly poor
D) Sounds like longer load screens no thanks
E) Nope
F) Possible, seem more likely for people to get angry and simply tell others to “go away”
G) Pretty sure no servers are full atm, even Jade Quarry is Very High population
H) Nope
I) Nope, too many penalties for aoe unfriendly classes

Skill lag is incredibly annoying. If it ever dissapears I think some people will be suprised how much quicker organised guilds and groups will be able end these fights, rather than stalemate super lag map for the next hour.
Rather than free transfers to tier 3 servers which have these mega zergs, maybe more transfers to lower tiers for people who arn’t enjoying themselves. (It’s only 1800 gems if you are despising it that much)

I have an idea. i’m no game designer or anything, but I think it’s a good one.

Remove the AOE limit on siege weapons.

Since there is already a limit on how any SW you can place in one keep, that should prevent SWs from turning into a turtle defense. At the same time, SWs have weaknesses that players do not. (Cannot be moved unless it’s a golem, can’t be repaired, fixed range, cost gold/badges time and supply to build each one, can be destroyed before they are even built, must be manned to do anything, etc.)

This would avoid the issues of removing AoE limits on player skills, while still making zergs far less effective, since anyone who just mindlessly smacks the gate will get Roflpwned by Arrow Carts/ Oil.

Just my 2 cents.

I actually wouldn’t mind trying GW2 with player collision, especially in WvW. The skill and coordination needed would be through the roof, it would be awesome. Definitely sort the men from the boys lol maybe loose half the player base Also roots and imob would be even more overpowered (imob is the bane of WvW atm, just slows everything down and gives a major disadvantage to solo/small group players. When a 40 man zerg is imob heavy and you are not ready for it… Game over.)

Personally I think waypoints should remain contested for an additional 5 seconds after a defense event ends. This removes the stupid free waypointing during a siege.

Yshyr.8709:

1. Remove teleports. …

2. Increase the amount of people needed to mark any objective as under attack. make it so 10 people can attack any objective and no swords will appear on the map. ….

3. Change the maps. …

4. Put in a group option for 10, 15, or 20 players. ….

1. I can see people getting turned off of WvWvW from that alone. Classes with great mobility already have an advantage and I doubt anyone finds constantly running across the map fun as it is(the dead guys in a battle who know they have no chance of getting rezzed but lay there anyway). This splitting up of forces will affect small groups as well, the server with the most people throughout the cycle still wins.

2. Finding someone to fight and actually stopping people from taking an structure is different. 10 people can take a keep in minutes if no one is doing the explosively fun and rewarding task of keep/tower sitting and now you want them to do it without waypoints or maybe even sword indicators. It would be more like playing Whack O’ Mole than it is now.

3. The lake is filled with CC spamming Krait and it doesn’t offer any tactical spot to hunker down and defend. I does however provide some kind of cover for people to move around/escape. I use it all the time and I’ve had my share of 1v1-2s in there.

4. Then you’ll have 3 groups of 20 hanging together and so forth, I doubt it’ll change anything. Most, if not all support skills work on an ally and not party basis.(or else things like Dynamic events wouldn’t work so well).

Honestly, making WvWvW persistent mode was a bad idea. Making damage trump everything else was even worse. So much time/money to upgrade structures, very little time/money to burn that kitten to the ground, especially since one goes at the pace of the players and the other doesn’t.

None of these suggestions sound like they would work. They would just make zergs slower, but in the end the mass amount of players running around is superior to anything else.

Best idea I’ve heard so far is to remove the AoE limit on attacks, but keep it on boons and heals and stuff.

gennyt.3428:

Yshyr.8709:

1. Remove teleports. …

2. Increase the amount of people needed to mark any objective as under attack. make it so 10 people can attack any objective and no swords will appear on the map. ….

3. Change the maps. …

4. Put in a group option for 10, 15, or 20 players. ….

1. I can see people getting turned off of WvWvW from that alone. Classes with great mobility already have an advantage and I doubt anyone finds constantly running across the map fun as it is(the dead guys in a battle who know they have no chance of getting rezzed but lay there anyway). This splitting up of forces will affect small groups as well, the server with the most people throughout the cycle still wins.

2. Finding someone to fight and actually stopping people from taking an structure is different. 10 people can take a keep in minutes if no one is doing the explosively fun and rewarding task of keep/tower sitting and now you want them to do it without waypoints or maybe even sword indicators. It would be more like playing Whack O’ Mole than it is now.

3. The lake is filled with CC spamming Krait and it doesn’t offer any tactical spot to hunker down and defend. I does however provide some kind of cover for people to move around/escape. I use it all the time and I’ve had my share of 1v1-2s in there.

4. Then you’ll have 3 groups of 20 hanging together and so forth, I doubt it’ll change anything. Most, if not all support skills work on an ally and not party basis.(or else things like Dynamic events wouldn’t work so well).

---

Honestly, making WvWvW persistent mode was a bad idea. Making damage trump everything else was even worse. So much time/money to upgrade structures, very little time/money to burn that kitten to the ground, especially since one goes at the pace of the players and the other doesn’t.

Agree with that last point all too much. I spent over 50 hours last week escorting yaks and spent over 50 gold upgrading strutures, only to see them get wiped in seconds from 100 man zergs in a minute whilst me and three other people are manning siege and its barely bothering them. Occasionally it payed off and the complete upgrades and building siege and defenses just purchased enough time for the ällied zerg"to react. Often it didn’t. For my WXP upgrades Ive gone 2 upgrades in Siege damage straight up because Im in the case quite often.

Victim.3016:

I actually wouldn’t mind trying GW2 with player collision, especially in WvW. The skill and coordination needed would be through the roof, it would be awesome. Definitely sort the men from the boys lol maybe loose half the player base Also roots and imob would be even more overpowered (imob is the bane of WvW atm, just slows everything down and gives a major disadvantage to solo/small group players. When a 40 man zerg is imob heavy and you are not ready for it… Game over.)

Hahaha this would make everyone so confused. Could make things pretty interesting in terms of flanking.

ANet wants zergs. Deal with it.

Zergs do move around the map entirely too quickly. It seems to me that smaller groups should be faster, due to their ability to be more coordinated. Thanks to AoE and ground based swiftness buffs, you can keep swiftness up on every person in your zerg without them even being in your group. Even solo players can run at top speed without having the buff built into their character. This makes small groups almost pointless. Not only can you not reliably outrun zergs, you can’t even finish a fight with another group of similar size before a zerg shows up. The swords on the map, way points, and constant run speed allow them to collapse on you before the fight is complete.

cyyrix.6105:

GuardianOMS.8067:

ANet wants zergs. Deal with it.

You certainly live up to your name, Sgt. Killjoy. Thanks for your input!

ANet should just change its name to Killjoy then. ANet has stated they want massive groups of players and caters to the fact with their obvious neglect to small scale fights and servers. People have been complaining since launch saying the same things over and over, making the same threads over and over. ANet has not made any effort to realize the troubles of smaller groups and they have blatantly clear they intend not to.

Deal with it or switch to less zergy servers.

Also, this belongs in the suggestion subforum, that’s my real input.

I) Remove AoE limits on offensive skills.

Only this will help, if they do this then we will see real strategy.
Think of what only a few flanking staff eles can do to a zerg if no aoe limit.
Or a sqad of long bow rangers would have done if they had a mesmer to help them get in position.

loseridoit.2756:

B) Errr it very easy to congest a waypoint. WP are already punished for the expensive supply requirement, time invested and the fact that it contested easy

If you think the zerg had anything involvement in building those waypoints outside of moaning that they weren’t done yet in map chat, you need to lay off the smarties.

They should just come up with some new maps that would cater better to smaller fights. For example a map with cap points/keeps that are bubbled off with some asuran technology that only allow even numbers of enemies (i.e. a single player holding a point can only be challenged by a single opposing player, a group of 3 you’d have to gather 3 players, etc)

I really wouldn’t want to be the person breaking your bubble, since I really hate how WvW has turned out. I had really hoped to get some epic fights with my adrenalin going crazy, but that never happens.
Threads like these are very common in this section, but ever since launch Anet has pretty much done the exact opposite of suggestions like these. This means that this is not the direction they want WvW to go, and to some extend i guess that is fine.
Browsing through the replies a lot of people actually seem to like this kind of gameplay, and if only a minority would want skill to matter/smaller group skirmishes i understand Anet’s decisions.

The first way to promote smaller or medium sized forces spread out on the map…. is Actually have a grouping system that allows it!. You either have a 5 man group or a commander pin which is basically a zerg. If we actually had the tools to make private squads or another grouping system for multiple groups….. people would actually use it and we’d have smaller sized forces on the map.

Pretty hard to prevent orange swords and stay under the 25 person limit when you pop a pin and have no control over how many people follow you. At least allow people to hide the commander pin AND still retain all the functions of the squad system.

Any discussion here is academic, and I’m starting to just accept it. I hate it but killjoy is right. Anet wants zergs and doessent understand or frankly know what it would take to make a more robust game.

There need to be zergs in WvW, if they did something to completely removing it it wouldn’t feel right. It’s an open world PvP mode, more people=more succes, it’s the way it is, always has been.

One thing that would be really effective though, is if AoE damage would be noticable higher the more people affected by it. It would defenitly spread things out a bit. But It’s just a theory, it’s nothing I would like. On the other hand everyone would roll an Ele!

Sharing equally the wxp between the members of the zerg should be enough. Like an event who actually give 75 wxp would give 1 wxp per person if it’s a 75 players zerg, with 1wxp as a minimum, to allow 75+ zergs

Remove the 5 cap AOE limit. Force people to spread out, play and try new tactics and not have 40+ all standing on one commander, moving and using all their skills at the same time.
Also only limit map switching to every hour or so.

MrHaze.3690:

loseridoit.2756:

B) Errr it very easy to congest a waypoint. WP are already punished for the expensive supply requirement, time invested and the fact that it contested easy

If you think the zerg had anything involvement in building those waypoints outside of moaning that they weren’t done yet in map chat, you need to lay off the smarties.

zerg are indirectly involve in making those wp

To invest in a wp, the server most upgrade the wall to tier 3. A non upgrade wall will easily fall against the zerg. Then, the keep must upgrade the motars to tier 3 which is just as long and expensive process. It take forever to upgrade those keeps.

The real problem is not zerging. If all 3 servers are full capacity, then the war is basically even. Individual strength does not matter in comparison to the intelligence of their generals. WvWvW stimulate this war properly and I am glad that this game encourages. it.

Many servers face the problem with non continuous population. At night, the most continuous and populous server wins regardless of the opposition. JQ have been winning many of their battles against other servers through this method

This will never happen because 85% of the population doesn’t have hardcore player vs player experience thus needs ez mode. Anet will never change from what 85% of their playerbase NEEDS (ez mode) to partake in as their “pvp” experience.

I don’t mind people cutting their teeth on the zerg. But people should move away from that as they get better and want more of a challenge. Nothing kitten es me off more than people who are decent players tromping around in a zergball.

Jscull.2514:

This will never happen because 85% of the population doesn’t have hardcore player vs player experience thus needs ez mode. Anet will never change from what 85% of their playerbase NEEDS (ez mode) to partake in as their “pvp” experience.

true, i am part of the problem since I love playing pve

Really, Anet should make arrow carts supply requirement cheaper. Effective siege weapons will always deter zergs.

I’d rather be run over by a zerg than spend money to stand in one place furiously pushing one button.

Acelerion.6820:

I’d rather be run over by a zerg than spend money to stand in one place furiously pushing one button.

Any war requires siege weapons. Preparing and positing matters in this game. Making siege weapons cheaper will encourage enemies to take supply to stomp enemy zerg.

I know that there is a distaste for one button smashing. However, these jobs are important and should be rewarded and encouraged.

Since supply becomes more valuable, I bet both teams will start guarding nearby supply camps. Managing supply of resources should be part of the game.

To OP:

(F) is the only one I think would work extremely well. Some of the others are debatable but suggestions spark good ideas through follow up comments.

However, this one idea about splitting rewards on the number of participants…that’s one great way to cut down on blobbing up.

WvW is dead to me and many other competitive players. We already moved on.

This isn’t ww2 relived its a video game. If the developers can’t put fun systems in place through the natural course of playing the game its their problem. Why go through the trouble of designing classes when pushing 2, or is it 4? now, on a balista is the best thing you can do.

cyyrix.6105:

A lot of people (including myself) are tired of the mega-zerg mentality that is currently dominating WvW.

..

I) Remove AoE limits on offensive skills.

I play in euro tier #1. I agree that blobbing / zerging, how you call it, is the prevalent strategy. As a defender of versatility, I would want to see several changes to WvWvW, which would make zerging less feasible, yet still keep it very valid and effective.

Unfortunately most of your ideas don’t make sense, except for I. AoE limit should be raised up or completely removed from offensive skills. Defensive skills, aka skills which offer some boon or healing to your allies, should have a 5 man limit. This should be implemented at same time while slightly toning down some of the most powerful AoE skills (cluster bomb, fire storm, churning earth etc). Yes, after this change good AoE characters could seriously hurt a big blob. But if you stand in an enemy red circle, you should be punished!

Another thing which makes tight zerg blobs very powerful is retaliation. This can punish the attacker way too severely as has been stated in some other threads. E.g. just one one tool belt skill (grenade barrage) at the tight enemy blob can trigger over 10k retaliation damage, many times more damage than the engineer is doing to any of those enemies (each enemy is suffering just 500-750 dmg).

The most important changes I would want to see:
1. Make all the server side rewards and personal rewards fixed pool E.g. if you kill a dolyak, your always earns XX points. Now 3 people killing 1 dolyak earns 3 times as many points to the server, compared to a solo killer. This severely punishes solo roamers. Similarly capping a tower, keep, castle etc. completing any objective should give a fixed reward to the players e.g. 1500 for capping a tower. If 10 people contributed to that effort, they each get 1500/10 = 150 WXP. If 30 people contributed to it, they would get just 1500/30 = 50 WXP. Also loot should be divided or given randomly to that player who contributed to the kill the most. Now if several people from the zerg attack a poor outnumbered enemy they all get loot. This rewards them too much and thus you see almost all the people following the karma & loot bag train brainlessly.

2. Any group larger than 10 should automatically show on the map, at all times, also to the enemy side. A huge zerg should not be able to roam around the map undetected (such amount of people always make ruckus and trample like elephants). People could still blob all they want, but enemy would see the enemy zergs moving on the map, making anticipation much easier. This would still able even tier #1 servers to use ambush strategies. I have been often solo capping the supply camps (yes, you can do that alone even in tier #1 at prime time) and you certainly don’t need even 10 players to take an enemy tower.

To the TC, all your ideas are bad and would actually make me never want to play WvW until they are gotten rid of, and would actually hurt small groups more than zergs. The answer is no.

New WvW meta: Run around the map and drop 5 ballistae every 1000u. Move in a zerg ball and stack and spam 4 whenever you encounter an enemy.

loseridoit.2756:

Jscull.2514:

This will never happen because 85% of the population doesn’t have hardcore player vs player experience thus needs ez mode. Anet will never change from what 85% of their playerbase NEEDS (ez mode) to partake in as their “pvp” experience.

true, i am part of the problem since I love playing pve

Really, Anet should make arrow carts supply requirement cheaper. Effective siege weapons will always deter zergs.

Like I said “85% of the population doesn’t have real player vs player experience” because the 15% of us that do would never (like Acel said) spend the effort or time sitting in place spamming 2 buttons. Dude….we are from the gaming world where you utilize your character to its MAX against other characters. Clearly over your head. We want to FIGHT OTHER SKILLED PLAYERS interested in the same thing, not interested in sitting on arrow carts/catapults/trebs/ or on keep walls.

Just 1 thought here…

What if instead of removing the AoE limit, but impose the same limit to Buffs as well. only 5 peeps get swiftness buff, only 5 peeps get healing buff…ect.

I may be wrong here, but I’m sure that more then 5 receive the benefits from these skills.

I’d go further and limit it to group members.

No, if you are running in a zerg, then u drop a speed buff, u may be leaving half your group behind, therefore you will pull your group to the side and move together…thus breaking up the zerg.

Also, don’t make u mandatory for benefits to the buff, this will put more thought into where and when u place your buffs.

While I appreciate the OP’s enthusiasm I have doubts as to the results of the proposed changes.

I would think, instead, that the larger a group becomes the slower it becomes. This would encourage very large groups to split up to move more quickly.

The thing is, you’ll never eliminate zerging. Numbers matter in battles. The more troops one side has the better for them.

The way to counter the zerg would be to increase the AoE limit to groups. Allow AoEs to impact 40 people – that’ll spread people out.

You could provide incentives to smaller groups and more penalties for being in a big group but… why?

What exactly are you looking to do with this? Are zergs really an issue as such or is it just something that you are bored with?

The reality of people is that they group up. The larger the group the more people join in. We do this in our every day life all the time – if a shop is empty no one wants to be the first to go in but if a shop is full there is a human desire to check it out as well.

Street performers do everything they can to get a ‘seed’ audience so they can grow it knowing that the larger the gathered audience the more likely more people will join it without even knowing what’s going on.

Zerging (crowding together) is a human thing. I don’t think you’ll ever ‘code’ it out of a game. Instead, I think the focus should be on being able to provide more organization for a zerg and some sort of mechanism to make being in a zerg more interesting.

Jscull.2514:

loseridoit.2756:

Jscull.2514:

This will never happen because 85% of the population doesn’t have hardcore player vs player experience thus needs ez mode. Anet will never change from what 85% of their playerbase NEEDS (ez mode) to partake in as their “pvp” experience.

true, i am part of the problem since I love playing pve

Really, Anet should make arrow carts supply requirement cheaper. Effective siege weapons will always deter zergs.

Like I said “85% of the population doesn’t have real player vs player experience” because the 15% of us that do would never (like Acel said) spend the effort or time sitting in place spamming 2 buttons. Dude….we are from the gaming world where you utilize your character to its MAX against other characters. Clearly over your head. We want to FIGHT OTHER SKILLED PLAYERS interested in the same thing, not interested in sitting on arrow carts/catapults/trebs/ or on keep walls.

guess what

fighting a zerg to zerg battle does not require much skill either.

When a zerg become large enough, this game becomes a cat and mouse chase.

With quick and simple seige weapons, a group can effectively kite a zerg. Operating a siege weapons is no less skillful than fighting another skill player

I guess you do not understand the concept of properly place siege weapons and flanking

Do you understand a concept of a cannon rush? This tactic is what I am advocating
The whole point of siege weapons is to destroy the enemy.

1 (and only). Disable the ability of reviving dead allies.

Windmoor.9834:

Just 1 thought here…

What if instead of removing the AoE limit, but impose the same limit to Buffs as well. only 5 peeps get swiftness buff, only 5 peeps get healing buff…ect.

I may be wrong here, but I’m sure that more then 5 receive the benefits from these skills.

That used to be the case for a lot of skills (guardian altruistic healing, warrior shout heals), but they were changed to be AoE capped to 5. It’s what broke up stacking and portal-stack chaining. They are all capped to 5 now. The only ability I know that hard exceeds the 5 limit beyond CC skills like Static Field and Sanctuary is Mass Invisibility.

The further away you get from the top tiers, the less existent this problem is. I spent all weekend in WvW and I was frequently on maps where I was taking towers and siegeing keeps with 20 or less people and the defense was similair. People think they need to be in higher tiers to experience the best WvW has to offer. In my experience, WvW is the most fun in the mid to lower tiers where you can get a small to medium sized guild together and take on an entire map with the aid of the handful of allies who come and go.

You had your chance to solve this problem when they had free transfers to medium population servers.

Shiren.9532:

The further away you get from the top tiers, the less existent this problem is. I spent all weekend in WvW and I was frequently on maps where I was taking towers and siegeing keeps with 20 or less people and the defense was similair. People think they need to be in higher tiers to experience the best WvW has to offer. In my experience, WvW is the most fun in the mid to lower tiers where you can get a small to medium sized guild together and take on an entire map with the aid of the handful of allies who come and go.

You had your chance to solve this problem when they had free transfers to medium population servers.

So your idea of fun is PvDoor? That’s exciting please tell me more.

Give more ppt/wxp for holding a tower/keep longer. (+1 ppt for each additional hour, up to 8.)
Add a second ebg and limit player caps from 110 to 85. (also fixes skill lag)
Diminishing returns on wxp/rewards past 40 people in an event.

Anet is trying to balance between skill having an advantage and not completely turning off new players. Not an easy thing to do.