Guild Wars 2

I keep seeing references in threads to WvW being a game mode based around epic, large scale battles. I understand that this was probably the vision when Anet created WvW, but let’s be realistic; is this what really happens?

To be clear from the start: I’m not complaining about anything, nor am I suggesting players should play in one particular way. I simply wish to find out whether things are more complex than some posts seem to claim.

Here’s a couple of thoughts to spur the discussion.

• We already talk about peak time and off peak time. By definition off peak has fewer players, so at best the “large scale combat” involves smaller groups.
• Personally, I think the scout who called out the attack on Hills is as important as the zerg that ported in to defend it.
• Are several havoc groups more effective for your server score than one large blob?

I’m interested to read your thoughts.

scouts havoc groups and a main zerg are all important.

Also if you are scouting or defending – ask your commander for participation buff.

Like real war, numbers are one part of a larger equation:
Numbers
Builds/food
Organisation
Scouts and Havoc groups
Siege
Guild buffs

All of these and more add up.

Some players only see a part of the whole but a top 1 tier server in wvw has numbers, players playing scout roles, sniper roles, sieger roles and community relations roles. =)

Coverage and population is the simple term for this but it means much more to the broad minded.

Anthony.7630:

scouts havoc groups and a main zerg are all important.

Also if you are scouting or defending – ask your commander for participation buff.

Scouts or defenders in the commander squad!? Such hogwash!!! Guards, necros and revs only, stack or be kicked. Spots left, need more guards.

I only roam with 2 – 3 guys.But WvW IS all about numbers.I remember a time where people still had balls and dared to run in small groups of 2 – 3 ( Just a few left that stil do so,not talking about thieves… ) as i do but now these groups have turned into 5 – 10 running with mercy runes and 80%hp in downed state food.So they can go nuts a bit vs half their numbers,go down and get ressed anyways.When it comes to blobbing,no matter what anet comes up with to make people run in smaller groups,people will still keep on blobbing.

One of the few servers ive seen splitting up their zoneblob is JS so far.And the most dumbest thing by far has to be capping and recapping sm over and over while noticing it lags the server out,then these 3 zone blobs keep going back to that same wooden sm to spamm 11111 again while those same people complain about the lag.Or a comm wanting 60 people on his ass and asking roamers to leave the map cus he has no need for them.Then 3 days later home bl is in kitten and that same comm asks for roamers to cap this and that…

This is why i play for myself,and myself only.

Players are stupid and run in one blob whole time. If you would split your blob like 5 groups it would be much more effective. You go build couple catas with 4 guildmates and germans bring 50 dudes to kill you every time even when they have like 10 defenders in tower.

Junkpile.7439:

Players are stupid and run in one blob whole time. If you would split your blob like 5 groups it would be much more effective. You go build couple catas with 4 guildmates and germans bring 50 dudes to kill you every time even when they have like 10 defenders in tower.

This is something i see often and dont get either.Sieging a tower with 3 people with 5 people inside making siege and 30 seconds later the zoneblob shows up.I dont know why some people even play this game.

It’s not about numbers so much as force. If you can utilize various force multipliers to create more pressure with fewer people, you can win.

E.G. Yesterday I was harassing a T1 enemy Airkeep with 2 random people from my server. We had never met before but loosely communicated in map chat about who was going to slap which Yak and who was knocking down which wall. After about half an hour, we managed to sneak 2 people into the lord room while the ~5 enemy scouts were distracted retaking camps and stopping our third person from knocking down a wall other than the one we entered through. We capped the keep. In this instance, since we had greater mobility as the offensive force, we created a larger problem with our 3 people than their 5 people were able to handle. I consider this the Natural Offensive Force Multiplier.

We then defended the keep from a handful of assaults because they didn’t bother cutting off supply and only attacked in a group. They forfeited their NOFM by refusing to use their mobility to their advantage. After several failed attempts, they brought over 15 people and several golems. We still stalled them for a long while and drained the keep of supply before they flipped it. In this instance, we used our walls, siege disablers, siege and chokepoints as Natural Defensive Force Multipliers. Since the enemy was all in one place, it was fairly easy to ruin their day. We managed to project a larger force with 3 people than they could with 15.

If one server has players that can consistently take advantage of force multipliers, they can win with fewer numbers. They won’t win every fight and hold on to every objective, but they’ll do enough that they come out on top.

On the other hand, blobbing is not a force multiplier. Some fight guilds can use advanced tactics to that end, but a blob in and of itself is just a chunk of static force. It is a strategy that is only ideal when your opponents lack blobs of similar size and are unable to take advantage of force multipliers to even things out.

Lahmia.2193:

Like real war, numbers are one part of a larger equation:
Numbers
Builds/food
Organisation
Scouts and Havoc groups
Siege
Guild buffs

All of these and more add up.

This and more is correct. Coverage and Numbers play a very big part of WvW, but all of this adds up.

BlazeQ.1095:

Lahmia.2193:

Like real war, numbers are one part of a larger equation:
Numbers
Builds/food
Organisation
Scouts and Havoc groups
Siege
Guild buffs

All of these and more add up.

This and more is correct. Coverage and Numbers play a very big part of WvW, but all of this adds up.

Numbers and coverage allow for more of everything else……

WvW isn’t fun when your zerg can’t beat their zerg because of numbers AND you can’t match their scouts, havoc squads, siege, supply, tower/keep upgrades……

It’s like walking up an avalanche.

BlazeQ.1095:

Lahmia.2193:

Like real war, numbers are one part of a larger equation:
Numbers
Builds/food
Organisation
Scouts and Havoc groups
Siege
Guild buffs

All of these and more add up.

This and more is correct. Coverage and Numbers play a very big part of WvW, but all of this adds up.

No, this is all wrong. This mode has nothing to do with real war simulators.

Having full que on all maps 24/7 will make you win each week, regardless of what you ‘dont do’. So long as you ‘do’ something. The mode is setup so u get lots of points just for being active.

Putting all players on a que’d map into a tightknit blob is enough to beat anything that doesnt do the same in primetime where everyone has a que.

WvsW is all about the numbers, even you must admit most zerg fights devolve at some point into spamming 1 and running through up to 20 players, who are actually fighting, without taking noteworthy dmg.

We know that 1 person can defeat 5. And 4 can beat 10. But the higher those numbers go the more slanted the gameplay becomes. Its cause abilities have a target cap (1-10). And dmg from aoe is evenly distributed, so there is no focus fire if u break those caps.
Due to the rally/waypoint/revival system there is no viable way to engage this problem in a meaningful point related way if you have lesser numbers.

WvsW is about, mbe, 80 vs 80 vs 80. At such high numbers, the more you focus ur personnel in a specific spot the more you win.

If it was 20 vs 20 vs 20….it would be a different story.

Nothing I have said here can be deemed wrong. At best you can spin it as situational. But given these supposed ‘situational facts’, can you offer a concrete counter argument based on fact?

You beating 50 with a dedicated group of 30 is irrelevant, ur still not gonna beat 60 or 70 or 80 with 30. And if I could give those 50 full gear and a ‘clump and charge’ order, you’d lose with ur dedicated 30.

And that’s the point….numbers win when we overcome those target caps.

BandwagonGate is overstacked in every time zone way above any other server.

Guess who wins 99 percent of the time?

The only strategy in WvW is figuring out how to fool the devs into opening up an overstacked server for transfers again and again and again.

Cerby.1069:

BlazeQ.1095:

Lahmia.2193:

Like real war, numbers are one part of a larger equation:
Numbers
Builds/food
Organisation
Scouts and Havoc groups
Siege
Guild buffs

All of these and more add up.

This and more is correct. Coverage and Numbers play a very big part of WvW, but all of this adds up.

No, this is all wrong. This mode has nothing to do with real war simulators.

Having full que on all maps 24/7 will make you win each week, regardless of what you ‘dont do’. So long as you ‘do’ something. The mode is setup so u get lots of points just for being active.

Putting all players on a que’d map into a tightknit blob is enough to beat anything that doesnt do the same in primetime where everyone has a que.

WvsW is all about the numbers, even you must admit most zerg fights devolve at some point into spamming 1 and running through up to 20 players, who are actually fighting, without taking noteworthy dmg.

We know that 1 person can defeat 5. And 4 can beat 10. But the higher those numbers go the more slanted the gameplay becomes. Its cause abilities have a target cap (1-10). And dmg from aoe is evenly distributed, so there is no focus fire if u break those caps.
Due to the rally/waypoint/revival system there is no viable way to engage this problem in a meaningful point related way if you have lesser numbers.

WvsW is about, mbe, 80 vs 80 vs 80. At such high numbers, the more you focus ur personnel in a specific spot the more you win.

If it was 20 vs 20 vs 20….it would be a different story.

Nothing I have said here can be deemed wrong. At best you can spin it as situational. But given these supposed ‘situational facts’, can you offer a concrete counter argument based on fact?

You beating 50 with a dedicated group of 30 is irrelevant, ur still not gonna beat 60 or 70 or 80 with 30. And if I could give those 50 full gear and a ‘clump and charge’ order, you’d lose with ur dedicated 30.

And that’s the point….numbers win when we overcome those target caps.

While overall numbers and coverage will let you win the ppt game. Fights are a different story. If your players are coordinated enough and in the right builds/comp and play well its entirely possible to wipe map queues with lower numbers. I’ve won plenty of fights this week alone running ~25 vs 50-60+. Just because someone has bigger numbers in a fight doesn’t mean you’ve lost at the start based on that. Those 50 players having gear means nothing if they aren’t coordinated and don’t play well. The only time I would say that the 50 will beat the 30 every time is if there is equal skill level between both groups which will never be the case or the 30 just isn’t very good.

I can see that numbers make a difference, but it seems like what constitutes a “large” group can vary.

I’ve never seen a group of 30 plus players. They just don’t happen when I’m on because it’s usually off peak. Likewise the only time I’ve seen queues in WvW in the past 4 years was just after the reward tracks changed.

Whilst WvW may have been envisaged as epic large scale battles, a lot of the time* it is epic battles between small groups. This isn’t a problem until Anet come to try to balance classes…

(*This is a literal statement referring to time overall, not personal experience.)

What has been interesting is how players see, and utilise, the difference between zerg, havoc, scout and roamer.

GrahamW.5397:

Those 50 players having gear means nothing if they aren’t coordinated and don’t play well.

I’ll elaborate on where you are correct with this statement, and where you are wrong with it.
In your main post though you are trying to push an argument based on what you probably saw ingame a few times in situational cases.

I can see 1 guy kill 50 ingame, does it mean roamers need to be nerfed? no lol. The point is, its situational. And you are describing a specific scenario where 1 side is well organized and the other is not, maybe to the extent that they have no commander at all! The guidelines to judge what really happened aren’t there! That’s similar to fighting a squad of 50 unorganized uplevels with white gear as a group of 20 with full ascended. I think everyone would say you would win if you were organized with ease.

So let me clarify: Assuming everyone is exotic level or higher…

The point was that:
Increased squad size, aka more people, allows your fighting power to grow ‘exponentially’. Its hard to say if its literally exponentially, but as an adjective can we not agree on that statement?

Whereas playing well/properly and organized does NOT increase your fighting power anywhere near as much.

And THIS is something every server everywhere sees on a regular basis: WE don’t see an organized server split their forces into 4 groups of 20 at primetime and come home heroes. WE see them come home ded, and maybe manage ppt equal to the enemy blob while wayyyyyyyy behind on ppk.

Thus my talking about how at a certain point….when your enemy can’t go past those target caps, its just a case of mowing people down and spamming 1.

I mean we reallly have to streamline this to the generic case:
-open field combat
-50 exotic level 80 geared players vs 30 ascended level guild group on coms
-the 50 have a commander who issues 1 order which all 50 follow: blob and charge
-the 30 have a commander and dedicated ranks whom follow the commander and every one of their orders in classic meta fashion.

What happens? Well in the generic case the 30 will push through the enemy and then bomb a section of it, creating a scenario where their target caps aren’t all beat. In other words they are closing a section of the fight off so the numbers are in their favour. From an aerial point of view, you can think of it as cutting a small section of the map out. Then placing that entire group of 30 there vs whatever number of the 50 are in that part, and judging it as an independent fight.

If I took that small cut out section from the big picture and I STILL saw 30 vs 50….what would happen? What if everytime I cut a section out, it was ALWAYS 30 vs 50 in it?

Those 50 people had only exotic level gear and A SINGLE ORDER they had to follow. The 30 had full coms, full gear, dedicated builds, etc, and had to follow MULTIPLE DYNAMIC orders.

In the meta when groups fight something larger than them they always isolate and bomb sections of that larger thing. And thats the point! EVEN the meta agrees that in large fights the Larger Numbers cannot be defeated by smaller Numbers.

I’m sure there are ‘some’ groups out there that can bridge the gap and fight 30 vs 80. Just as I am sure that there are some people out there that can win 1 vs 10. And some that can win 1 vs 20.

You understand what I am saying? How would ‘you’ yourself win 1 vs 20? WEll if they had white gear….no idea what they were doing….and were just running around with no sense of how to play….
What am I doing when I list those things? I’m thinking of a specific scenario where numbers DON’T MATTER. However it is a SITUATIONAL CASE, as is the other stuff you mentioned in ur own posting.

I guess it depends. If you are facing a 80 man blob and you do not have at least 50-60 people that are running proper builds for group comp, you will probably get stomped. However I have been part of groups (as little as 8 people) that run group comps and know how to work together, that can take on and defeat 20+ man groups(pugs). So really depends. I personally do not like the Zerg mentality very much. I prefer to run small havoc groups that can bust a Zerg up. That is just my take on this. Hope it makes sense.

WvW is about quality, and quantity is a quality of its own.

Grim West.3194:

The only strategy in WvW is figuring out how to fool the devs into opening up an overstacked server for transfers again and again and again.

This pretty much sums up wvw.

Yuffi.2430:

I keep seeing references in threads to WvW being a game mode based around epic, large scale battles. I understand that this was probably the vision when Anet created WvW, but let’s be realistic; is this what really happens?

To be clear from the start: I’m not complaining about anything, nor am I suggesting players should play in one particular way. I simply wish to find out whether things are more complex than some posts seem to claim.

Here’s a couple of thoughts to spur the discussion.

• We already talk about peak time and off peak time. By definition off peak has fewer players, so at best the “large scale combat” involves smaller groups.
• Personally, I think the scout who called out the attack on Hills is as important as the zerg that ported in to defend it.
• Are several havoc groups more effective for your server score than one large blob?

I’m interested to read your thoughts.

It would be a lie to say that it’s only about numbers. However the way this game works and how characters and ability effects work with and interact with eachother, makes the numbers game an effective tactic.

Things that contribute this you can tweak and change to a point, such as number of targets per ability and what they do. Other things that are a major contribution but can’t be changed for the sake of the rest of the game include largely game physics such terrain traversal, block collision, etc.

I could write a book on how all the other things you mentioned affect wvw as a whole in detail, but even this box has character limits.

Yuffi.2430:

I keep seeing references in threads to WvW being a game mode based around epic, large scale battles.

Epic, large scale in wvw means the blob of 50-70 is attacking a tower with 0-20 people in it.

Occasionally, when there are no PvDoor events going, moderate sized blobs face off against each other. When they do, the larger blob nearly always wins because it lags so bad that each side is only auto-attacking. You can be on the other side of the map, and when two zergs are in SMC, the skill lag prevents any skill usage or comes with a 5+ second delay.

I remember how the biggest wvw problem year one was culling. With the changes to culling at the end of the first year, skill lag became the biggest issue. 4 years later, skill lag still persists, even in T4.

Without quantity, there is no quality. Unless there are people to work with, to improve with, then only quality will flourish from there. However, if there isn’t any people to work with, to improve with, quality is non-existence.

We will always need quantity before quality.
Also, another thing is that the amount of good players is also proportional to the quantity of the server. The more people you have, the more good players are in there. It is never possible achieve 100% good players.

Honestly it depends. The winning server will always be the one with the greatest number of players in all timezones. But the best server will always have the highest KDR.

They should buff carts. Kittens me off when blob just stand in arrowcart fire and won’t die.

It’s a stupid zerg-fest, except for the OP classes aka Necro and recently Ele.
Chrono and Theif can roam just because they are impossible to catch aka kill.
Having a worthless class for WvW (like engineer) you can get by with lobbing mortar shells from a distance as part of a zerg, but that’s it.
Wish Anet would stop wasting development time with this broken game mode. They could at least try some sort of fairness by limiting builds to PvP builds, but I guess they think fairness in WvW is impossible, so why bother?

Cerby.1069:

WvsW is about, mbe, 80 vs 80 vs 80. At such high numbers, the more you focus ur personnel in a specific spot the more you win.

You’re not wrong but you’re not right either becaused you missed an important part – the more you focus your personel at the relevant time.

This is strategy, as opposed to tactics. Ceasar got it right.

To simplify the point, if two groups of 80v80 are fighting for 30 minutes across the other side of the map, the third side running with an 80 man squad is a complete waste of resources. They could run as three 25 man groups and dominate the map in 30 minutes. Can each group beat an 80 man? Unlikely if not impossible. Thats why when the 80 man come to cap a tower, all three groups form up to equal the enemy.

Unfortunetly much too complicated to pull off in WvW most of the time as people cant think further than they can throw their commander, but hey sometimes it happens and when it does, its not just about zerging.

organization is more important. people that think numbers are probably don’t push with tag, don’t run meta builds, and log out after one wipe. on the other hand, people that push with tag and run meta builds play to be outnumbered. that’s what makes wvw fun.

Yes it really is about numbers, this Is why BG wins every week. It’s also evident when one server faces a 2v1, which is a situation that is unwinnable, due to the combined servers superior numbers.

Why can’t we have 2 hour matches so there would be some kind of point try to win?

Jumpin Lumpix.6108:

Yes it really is about numbers, this Is why BG wins every week. It’s also evident when one server faces a 2v1, which is a situation that is unwinnable, due to the combined servers superior numbers.

Numbers over all timezones = coverage – the basis for your win, superior coverage = guaranteed win

Numbers advantage in your timezone = your blob outnumbers opponents during your timezone, opponents do not have the numbers to face yours. PvDoor, no risk play. Blob server wins skirmishes covering your timezone.

KDR = not necessarily a measure of skill, but rather tracks with the out of balance population of your timezone/server versus your opponents. Easy kills when 2x the opponents squads. And can also be attributed to skill. Mostly, it’s numbers. KDR in outnumbered matchups reflects the willingness of players to throw their bodies at, or get caught by the unbeatable blob force. Good players don’t. New players, think they can or think they should.

Morale – Being the large blob, and largely unopposed group feeds the morale of your map blob and keeps the blob intact. Taking T3 structures your opponents worked for hours to upgrade, in just a few minutes with smaller groups attempting to defend your 3 guild-organized groups, feels good, but isn’t a reflection of ‘good’. Opposite is true for your opponents. Morale drops when a significant structure is lost and the server was unable to muster a reasonable defense. This feeds sense of hopelessness for those players. Facing this day after day results in less player support, less play and transfers off that server.

Yep, largely about the numbers.

And, why I continue to ask for clarity for what the go forward plan is to create some semblance of population balance and a mechanism which does not revolve around “Luck of the Link” manual pairings and is responsive to material shifts in populations.

See post discussion here

Pensadora.9478:

Numbers over all timezones = coverage – the basis for your win, superior coverage = guaranteed win

Numbers advantage in your timezone = your blob outnumbers opponents during your timezone, opponents do not have the numbers to face yours. PvDoor, no risk play. Blob server wins skirmishes covering your timezone.

KDR = not necessarily a measure of skill, but rather tracks with the out of balance population of your timezone/server versus your opponents. Easy kills when 2x the opponents squads. And can also be attributed to skill. Mostly, it’s numbers. KDR in outnumbered matchups reflects the willingness of players to throw their bodies at, or get caught by the unbeatable blob force. Good players don’t. New players, think they can or think they should.

Morale – Being the large blob, and largely unopposed group feeds the morale of your map blob and keeps the blob intact. Taking T3 structures your opponents worked for hours to upgrade, in just a few minutes with smaller groups attempting to defend your 3 guild-organized groups, feels good, but isn’t a reflection of ‘good’. Opposite is true for your opponents. Morale drops when a significant structure is lost and the server was unable to muster a reasonable defense. This feeds sense of hopelessness for those players. Facing this day after day results in less player support, less play and transfers off that server.

Yep, largely about the numbers.

And, why I continue to ask for clarity for what the go forward plan is to create some semblance of population balance and a mechanism which does not revolve around “Luck of the Link” manual pairings and is responsive to material shifts in populations.

See post discussion here

This sums it up right here.

Numbers does play a huge role. But organization is just as important. I’ve seen guild groups easily trash larger zergs of pugs. There certainly are tactics and strategy to large scale battles.

Solstace.2514:

Numbers does play a huge role. But organization is just as important. I’ve seen guild groups easily trash larger zergs of pugs. There certainly are tactics and strategy to large scale battles.

I would agree that organization is important. But it is available to both sides. And, if both sides are organized, it yet again devolves to a greater numbers v lesser numbers issue.

The winner of WvW has always been whoever has the most players. Skill and other smaller things only factor in if the numbers are relatively close.

Accordly to Sun Tzu, number in war is not an advantage. This means, that a server has always the potential to win even if outnumbered: in fact if you organize in a militaristic way your server’s pugs, you will be able to win whitout even fighting, by just siege defence, ambush with roamers, attacking undefended targets, playing at different times from opponent server (nightshifts?), in fact to win against a bigger number server you have to destroy enemies fun by just never facing them in open field. Unfortunately, this is a game, not a matter of life or death, this means you can’t create a militaristic organization on your server, since you would destroy your server friends fun too. Also add to this that server nowadays keep permanently beeing linked to different ones, it makes almost impossible to create a server organization like above, so in fact it makes impossible to you to win against a server when outnumbered.
People don’t go in wvw cuz they want to win the match up, people want to have fun in this game. And to have fun, you have to play in the same way your opponents are, by fighting them in open field. Even the most skilled guilds just die when outnumbered, so yes the actual wvw is rlly about numbers.

Lol, all the bandwagoners on BandwagonGate are trying to convince us that they have skill? Hah.

The only skill it takes to be on BandwagonGate is to be the first to hit transfer when the devs get fooled into opening it up again.

Numbers in WvW are basically just a HULK SMASH tactic. In reality, we have so many hulkbusters its not even funny. a good team of 10 can wipe the floor even in an open field fight vs a group of 50. New elite specs will only add to that. Scourge and Renegade in particular will be VERY effective in moderate sized groups due to their ability to support and condi bomb at the same time.

Since the stab changes, WvW is pretty much solely about numbers. Back when stab kept players up in the AoE CC, a good 25 man guild would tear through a pug zerg twice its size and then some.

Dawdler.8521:

Cerby.1069:

WvsW is about, mbe, 80 vs 80 vs 80. At such high numbers, the more you focus ur personnel in a specific spot the more you win.

You’re not wrong but you’re not right either becaused you missed an important part – the more you focus your personel at the relevant time.

This is strategy, as opposed to tactics. Ceasar got it right.

To simplify the point, if two groups of 80v80 are fighting for 30 minutes across the other side of the map, the third side running with an 80 man squad is a complete waste of resources. They could run as three 25 man groups and dominate the map in 30 minutes. Can each group beat an 80 man? Unlikely if not impossible. Thats why when the 80 man come to cap a tower, all three groups form up to equal the enemy.

Unfortunetly much too complicated to pull off in WvW most of the time as people cant think further than they can throw their commander, but hey sometimes it happens and when it does, its not just about zerging.

I addressed that already. read the entire postings.
‘Win’ is based on entire ppk and ppt stats combined. Its not a subjective pick and choose. You win the game through both, because warscore is based on both.

Read my full postings before you nitpick at them.
“You’re not wrong but you’re not right either” – you describe yourself very well.

Yuffi.2430:

I’m interested to read your thoughts.

1 bear strong
2 bear more strong
you wise now

Right now yes. With the memory leak and lag bugs… Whoever has the most players and gets their bombs off first wins.