Guild Wars 2

Zerg wins…need I say more?

If you want to distinguish yourself from all the other “zergs suck” posts you will have to say more, yes.

There are better ways to balance than prevent players from logging into WvW. Too many ways were already suggested, but the devs just don’t listen and I’m tired of writing walls of text over and over again. The first step to balance rankings is to apply modifiers to the score gained from objectives, depending how many people play on your side currently. If you’re outnumbered, then holding a single tower against great odds would be almost equal as holding the entire map as a dominating server. It’s not the complete answer but the first step.

Another addition would be to unlock additional NPC forces you can recruit if youre outnumbered. This way you don’t prevent people from logging in, but get a boost for yourself. Siege could cost less when youre outnumbered, you could deal more damage with the siege, take walls down faster.. etc. Straight damage boosts for the players would not be a good idea though. Imagine a group of 5 thieves with a +300% damage buff :P But boosting a team by proxy.. like by boosting the siege they use, or giving more HP to the towers they hold.. that’s a step into the right balanced direction.

Another company with orcs in it fixed the issue…the answer is obvious. How much design talent must one have not to be able to implement a solution that is widely accepted.

AFAIK the developers don’t see the issue. I don’t know how they couldn’t, but I’ve just never seen them say, let alone do anything about it.

You would have to change the name from World vs World to something else. maybe World vs Just some of that World.

http://youtu.be/piaREGjCWNo?t=1m45s

looks like zergs lost

Skill will always win. Sad enough, AC’s don’t involve skill. AC’s are the problem, not zergs.

AoE cap removal would solve alot of zerg issues… that said their servers can’t handle it supposedly.

Odaman.8359:

AoE cap removal would solve alot of zerg issues… that said their servers can’t handle it supposedly.

And you’d die of retal. AoE cap wouldn’t solve anything. Be happy there is an AoE cap!

Main thing should be that every server have always same amount players in map.

If their was not an AE cap you would not be able to take any thing other than a tower without dieing to AE. Need hundreds of supply to take a defended keep. Fights without a AE cap would be more about who attacks who first instead of using any type of advance tactics.

Odaman.8359:

AoE cap removal would solve alot of zerg issues… that said their servers can’t handle it supposedly.

Retaliation ftw in that situation, small group self-destructs. Turtling would come back and ppl would just mass stack with retal and guardians.

Nerf retaliation? then retal becomes way underpowered in small scale fights.

yup…. limit numbers pls (lower them).

do justice to your servers (physical servers).

Junkpile.7439:

Main thing should be that every server have always same amount players in map.

If you play in higher tier where most maps are often que’d for all sides this is true^ ^.

Luiz Swordbreaker.6547:

http://youtu.be/piaREGjCWNo?t=1m45s

looks like zergs lost

That was a beautiful wipe<3
A group of ~20 skilled, organized players wipes a (mostly)mindless zerg of ~50.
OP should take notes, and probly read this.

zerospin.8604:

There are better ways to balance than prevent players from logging into WvW. Too many ways were already suggested, but the devs just don’t listen and I’m tired of writing walls of text over and over again. The first step to balance rankings is to apply modifiers to the score gained from objectives, depending how many people play on your side currently. If you’re outnumbered, then holding a single tower against great odds would be almost equal as holding the entire map as a dominating server. It’s not the complete answer but the first step.

You do realize if anything like this were to be implemented, it would immediately lead to the large guilds on a server demanding that they get entire maps to themselves to maximize their point gain.
New and inexperienced players already get enough hostility under the current models.

It’s not that the devs don’t listen, it’s that they know kitten ideas when they read them.

a limit on players…like 80 to 100 that is all ready in place…perhaps instead of punishing the servers who get ppl out of pve and into wvw the servers complaining should try and get ppl to try wvw..you never know they might like it and want to stick to playing it instead of pve or spvp/tpvp

The no1 problem with limiting numbers is a lot of people won’t be able to play WvW…which would be far worse than having zergs or inbalance. As not being able to play a game is obviously the worst possible thing that can happen…

This is probably why Anet would never do this…

A possible solution however, could be limiting 1 server to no more than the number of players the other 2 servers have put together…

So if B has 125 & C has 200, A is only allowed 325 maxium. At least then B&C know if they make a alliance they can have a fair fight with the big server…

They need to limit the numbers in WvW to eliminate skill lag, not balance the numbers on each side

Meglobob.8620:

The no1 problem with limiting numbers is a lot of people won’t be able to play WvW.

There is enough capacity to have everyone who plays WvW. The problem is with the current population cap being so high and the game designed around winning by population and coverage that the vast majority of those WvW players are in high tiers. Visit a low tier server like ET or FC and you can have empty maps for the taking.

I think one sound idea would be for ANet to actually announce they would reduce pop cap on maps (instead of just trying to sneak in a change like the past couple times..), and then give everyone maybe 2-3 weeks of free transfers for population to spread out accordingly. Currently, even in primetime, there’s always one map outmanned, even in T1. But a population reduce would both improve skill lag, and also help out to spread the population a bit.

There was one idea floating around which I thought was decent. Allow players to hire npc’s with them in town that would follow and fight by their side. The more outnumbered you are, the higher the quality of npc’s.

Make it range from veteran to legendary. So per say if a server is severely outnumbered, they could hire a handful of legendaries to take with them that would fight, attack bases, revive players.. basically do everything a player would do. Perhaps even make it that the person who hired them, could give them instructions (kinda similar to how a ranger controls the pets). If more players enter the map, the NPC’s disappear.

It could even things out, because yes a handful of legendaries probably could easily wipe out a zerg if the players within that zerg aren’t very good. So in essence, it could help break apart zergs.

Meglobob.8620:

A possible solution however, could be limiting 1 server to no more than the number of players the other 2 servers have put together…

So if B has 125 & C has 200, A is only allowed 325 maxium. At least then B&C know if they make a alliance they can have a fair fight with the big server…

“You have been transferred to Lions Arch.” – because a player from other servers just left WvW. If you happened to be in combat you will get armor damage penalty. Any loot bags on ground will be left behind.

Servers B and C can agree not to log to WvW except during a short period at night to capture everything – then for rest of the week server A can’t go to WvW to recapture nodes.

No thank you.

Nerf the other guy so Icanhazwinplsthx.

As someone above mentioned: Limiting the numbers of players only to fix skill lags. If you want balanced numers play sPvP.

The only think I think they could do in WvW is changing how the points tick.

Now at the moment we have a rating system that makes it possible to gain rating with much less points than your enemy if you a lower rating(you don’t need to to that much to get + rating).

But this is not shown in game. Not a real incentive to fight. The players see: zomfg they pwn us 300k to 150k points we lose… leaving WvW making the own server even weaker.

If they transfered that problem – which is solved by the rating at the moment – into the game… it would be much better. Just let the the server with less players get more points per tick(of course with some caps – the server with more players should still have an advantage but not “unlimited”).

Let’s say we have 1 map for example which has objectives worth of 90. Each team can have 100 players.

1 team has 50. 2 others have 100 players on that map. 250 players in total.

The team with 50 should be able to hold stuff worth 18 points. The teams with 100 should be able to hold stuff worth 36 points.

Now give the team with 50 players 1.5 times the amount of points. They would get 27 then – smaller difference between 36 and 18… but still a differene so the bigger team could have an advantage.

And if the smaller team gets even more than their 18 base points they must be better in skill and coordination so it is okay to still get 1.5 times the amount of points for every objective.

This only as an example… but it should work like this. Different tiers of multipliers to the amount of points you tick with. And to prevent abuse there needs to be a timer so there can’t just leave 50 people then rejoin then leave… just to get more points but effectively being able to play at full strength.

Korgov.7645:

Meglobob.8620:

A possible solution however, could be limiting 1 server to no more than the number of players the other 2 servers have put together…

So if B has 125 & C has 200, A is only allowed 325 maxium. At least then B&C know if they make a alliance they can have a fair fight with the big server…

“You have been transferred to Lions Arch.” – because a player from other servers just left WvW. If you happened to be in combat you will get armor damage penalty. Any loot bags on ground will be left behind.

Servers B and C can agree not to log to WvW except during a short period at night to capture everything – then for rest of the week server A can’t go to WvW to recapture nodes.

No thank you.

On your 1st point once your in, your in, no kicking out to LA…this already happens atm…if a large zerg transfers into a map at once taking it over the allowed limit they still get in…lots of servers exploit this bug/feature to outnumber there opponents.

As a rather unpleasant side effect however, it can cause anyone on that map to disconnect from the game…

On your second point, never going to happen for one but also you could have low miniums, like 20 or something that could always join no matter what enemy numbers were…

The top tiers can still face hours long queues for maps at times so there is no way Anet is going to want to make those queues longer…

I like the gist of Luthans idea, atm no one really understands how the points scored transfer into server position…atm a server could be scoring 350+, in the lead but still losing because it should be beating those opponents by 400+…

Change the points scored for each for each server at reset to what they are expected to score. For example…

Reset night,
Sever A scores 0.2 per point
Server B scores 0.5 per point
Server C scores 0.7 per point

Server C may only hold a few towers, camps, 1 keep but this is better than expected and the points total will show on score that server leading…so everyone knows whats going on at just a quick glance at the in game general scoreboard…

I like my WvW-Overflow maps idea (once posted into the german forum) more:

If only a few are online, only EB is active.
If 2 servers have queue for EB, all the BLs become active (from last saved state)
If 2 servers have queue for all active EBs and all BLs then another copy of EB becomes active

If the population of every server would fit into one map less, one map becomes a shutdown warning of 5min (you transfer away or you will be in LA after the 5min).

Maps are save on shutdown and restored on activation.
Only active maps count for the score ticker.

You can easily reduce the map-limit per map with that system, e.g. to 60% of the current capacity.
Nevertheless, you can fit more player, if at least 2 of the servers have a need for it.

If 2 server went to bed, the 3rd can play only on EB.

zerospin.8604:

There are better ways to balance than prevent players from logging into WvW. Too many ways were already suggested, but the devs just don’t listen and I’m tired of writing walls of text over and over again. The first step to balance rankings is to apply modifiers to the score gained from objectives, depending how many people play on your side currently. If you’re outnumbered, then holding a single tower against great odds would be almost equal as holding the entire map as a dominating server. It’s not the complete answer but the first step.

Another addition would be to unlock additional NPC forces you can recruit if youre outnumbered. This way you don’t prevent people from logging in, but get a boost for yourself. Siege could cost less when youre outnumbered, you could deal more damage with the siege, take walls down faster.. etc. Straight damage boosts for the players would not be a good idea though. Imagine a group of 5 thieves with a +300% damage buff :P But boosting a team by proxy.. like by boosting the siege they use, or giving more HP to the towers they hold.. that’s a step into the right balanced direction.

I have seen all of the suggested “fixes” and none work as they always introduce even worse problems. THE only fix is to balance numbers roughly. It really is not much fun once your server goes away and plays pve because they were outnumbered by 2 servers who both had 2+ your numbers AND double teamed you…so 4+ vs 1.

If they give me 4 times the power then the other people have a special name…targets as I play thief exlusively and would pop out isnta kill with 4 times the damage Lets see I’ve done 14K hits so 48K…with a hit like that it should de-level you (jk)….

This helps the balance on servers as well as the overpopulated ones will travel to lesser populated ones.

The problem is the unbalance in numbers so suggesting new score systems or buffs would just make things worse. The fact the orbs were such a big negative aside from it’s exploits is proof enough. Any suggestions addressing issues other than the WvW population has and will never work, period. People need to drop the notion of players having limited access if a “cap” is implemented because that’s just a stupid philosophy to defend. There are ways to make a cap work such as having many more maps with their own smart cap so that servers can get ready with designated groups per map each week. There’s a reason why every tournaments either in real life or in games has set numbers because only then skills and tactics would become a factor. The lack of number balance has destroyed the quality of WvW because the only tactic that is being use is zerg-balling. If you visit every single matches from T1 all the way to the lowest tier, you will always find a zerg fest and nothing more.