Guild Wars 2

no way.

Monsteratic.5487:

no way.

I don’t expect everyone (or even most people) to agree with this. But why do you think this is a bad idea specifically?

Honestly I don’t care how they address it, BUT when fighting in T1 I have found occasionally when facing blobs all my skills (including heal) lock. Now I know it is only caused when engaging as when i retreat or respawn they work again.

Also I have only chosen utilities with a casting time of <1/2 simply because the lag trying to use anything of longer casting time will never go off, or stalls for so long I may as well wave a white flag .

I understand that anet is trying to reduce the lag and the queues, but something has to give because what they are doing isn’t working in a ZvZ enviroment. When you are reduced to hitting your auto attack in a fight everyone may as well play a guard with a staff so they can tag; most do now anyways.

Speaking as someone from a server that got swamped with free transfers and consequently queues, I’m worried about new arrivals having the power to push out the resident population. If this change goes hand in hand with raising barriers to transfers (after a properly managed balancing period), that’s less of an issue.

But in general terms, I’m all for this. You would have to adjust the cap during the seasons to handle the influx of players – maybe a different cap for each league.

If a player been hit for +5 enemies don’t drop loot = No more 40/60 men zergs in this game.

mango.9267:

I realize this sounds viscerally unappealing at first, and I don’t pretend there are no cons to it. But after thinking about it, it would help with many of the recurring issues. Thought I’d open the thought for discussion here.

Many have been asking for this for all the reasons listed in the OP for a long time but before EotM people would throw a hissy fit over the mere suggestion. I was hoping things might be different now but I haven’t seen it catch on yet. There is still a lot of people who seem to think 50v50v50 battles are not big enough. I can’t even get near Garri during a regular battle lately. Skill lag has just been stupid for some reason.

+1.

been proposing this for ages now.

Nobody should be against this; it would go leaps and bounds to eliminating skill lag. Nobody needs to be running around in 50-60 man blobs, it’s completely unnecessary.

The only argument that logically could come forward is it could create astronomical que times. Unfortunately that doesn’t work, transfer to a lower server, many of them are free now to transfer too, problem solved. Guilds don’t need to be running more than 50 people at once in any given map at any given time.

What I would like in addition to something like this though which I think would greatly help is to add 2-3 more maps. Instead of 4 maps, have 6-7 with a cap of 50-60 people on it.

So essentially only two guild groups will get to play on a map in prime time(if they even get enough players past the pugs), and the rest will have to go to eotm to get their wvw fix?

This suggestion has been brought up before and for the reason to force players and guilds to spread out more into the lower servers, which at one point I agreed to. But I think it’s a little late to do that, as I think wvw players are at the point that if you do anything negative to that part of the game, players will seriously start to leave instead.

Even if you reduce the caps now people will continue to zerg, it’s still more efficient and quicker to take towers and keeps that way. If you want to hurt the karma train then need to do something about their supply gains. If you want to hurt the zerg busters then hurt their tagging and bagging, urieldhynne.2743 is on the right track. Raise the percentage damage for required tagging for reward, other games have it set to 50% damage instead of one hit for tags, you will see how fast people move back to smaller groups because less people to fight over tagging.

Xenesis.6389:

Even if you reduce the caps now people will continue to zerg, it’s still more efficient and quicker to take towers and keeps that way. If you want to hurt the karma train then need to do something about their supply gains. If you want to hurt the zerg busters then hurt their tagging and bagging, urieldhynne.2743 is on the right track. Raise the percentage damage for required tagging for reward, other games have it set to 50% damage instead of one hit for tags, you will see how fast people move back to smaller groups because less people to fight over tagging.

None of those suggestions would fix the population/coverage imbalances. The current player cap allows one server to grossly outnumber another, whether that be in a giant blob or many smaller groups. Reducing the players allowed on a map would reduce the influence of coverage and population on score, along with many of the other problems.

Thought you were trying to fix map blobbing not population imbalance?

There’s always going to be population imbalance no matter what you do, they need to price server transfer fees better to start fixing the problem. Which in combination with the lower wvw caps would help prompt people to move to lower servers. But this is an idea that was needed to be done 6-12 months ago when all those blowout matches were happening, instead we got a ratings parameter adjustment.

Honestly I’m on SoS, and if map caps go down and I have wait 2 hours to get into maps in prime time I’ll just quit the game instead of moving. I want to actually play when I want to play on the server I want to play on with the guild I’m in, and eotm is not an option. How many other players out there like me? who knows, they willing to screw with the game in this fashion with competitors around now?

P.S there are other ways to help with scoring even with population/coverage imbalances, made a thread on that 4 months ago.

Xenesis.6389:

Thought you were trying to fix map blobbing not population imbalance?

I’m not trying to fix anything in particular. I just thought something like this would be able to fix many problems, population imbalance among them.

Xenesis.6389:

P.S there are other ways to help with scoring even with population/coverage imbalances, made a thread on that 4 months ago.

I’m aware there are a number of ways to deal with population/coverage, just as there are a number of ways to deal with blobbing, karma trains, and skill lag. However, the appeal of this solution (to me, anyway) is that it’s a simple, one-faceted solution that solves many problems by itself. It doesn’t require drastic changes to other aspects of WvW like changing the way PPT or zerg v. zerg works.

the core idea is lowering map cap will create a much more balanced match up, and at the same time create long queues on stacked servers that will force those players to spread out to more servers and discourage stacking.

Definitely NO

Why?

Even if you reduce the number of player per map you still would face zergs. The real problem is the AoE cap and the lag wich makes smaller groups really difficult to take that big group down.
As someone said before, reducing the rewards for those big groups would be a better solution. I think that for doing such a big change they should algo change the way PPT works right now. Some kind of extra point per capture depending on how many players took the tower/keep and the upgrade of the objective. (Its nonsense that a T3 keep gives the same points as a T1 one)

In addition, reducing the map population cap would only increase the queues and that’s definitely not beneficial for the game since many many more people would fed up and leave the game just because they can’t play.

In my opinion the solution to the zerg problem (there always will be a zerg anyway) would go through a massive change on border maps where more objetives must be put and like i said one of theese 2 options: Somehow reduce the lag and increase the AoE cap or less rewards for big groups + change in the PPT system.

Population cap should not be lowered, no one wants longer queues. I don’t like large map blobs, and I think most of our commanders would even agree, but it’s effective. If I split up my forces into two groups, either group will get crushed whenever it encounters the full force of the other server’s zerg. This was what happened in T1 when the blob was first used by SoR back in the day, and everyone else had to counter it by consolidating our forces into a large group as well. Even if you lowered the cap, you would still have zergs, they would just be slightly smaller.

The answer is to have some kind of game mechanic that encourages splitting up your forces. As it stands, map zergs are able to be mobile enough to respond to attacks all over the map if they get proper warning from scouts. If the maps were larger this might no longer be true, meaning that forces would have to split to cover different areas of the map. I agree that dividing up needs to be encouraged, but lowering population caps is not going to achieve this, and is not a good idea in general.

Mizhas.8536:

Even if you reduce the number of player per map you still would face zergs. The real problem is the AoE cap and the lag wich makes smaller groups really difficult to take that big group down.

Wraith.9426:

If I split up my forces into two groups, either group will get crushed whenever it encounters the full force of the other server’s zerg.

I think both of these arguments, and the ones similar to it, are working from the assumption of a larger map queue. The reason it’s better to blob now isn’t just because the blob wipes smaller sized groups. Rather, it’s because there are enough people not in the blob to scout/defend objectives that the blob can exist in the first place. The non-blob players give the blob intel and time to react defensively.

In a scenario where ONLY 45 people could be on a map, it would be more effective to split into three 15 man groups. Consider server A, with 45 people on the map in one blob, and server B, with three 15 man groups running around. Sure, server A will wipe each of server B’s groups, but while server A spends time wiping one of the groups, they can’t defend their objectives from the other two 15 man groups. And 15 people is more than enough to take upgraded towers/keeps, especially if they’re undefended and unscouted.

Or make smaller battlegrounds and a progressive map system.
Like any other pvp (mmo) game out there..

If I have to sit in a Q for longer than one hour I wouldn’t transfer away from my server.. I’d quit the game. [ A lot of people likely think this also. ]

Vermillion.4061:

If I have to sit in a Q for longer than one hour I wouldn’t transfer away from my server.. I’d quit the game. [ A lot of people likely think this also. ]

Would you (or anyone else with this line of thinking) say the same thing if Anet made bottom-tier transfers free and lower-pop servers very low cost?

+1 for 2 reasons: It helps (a small improvement now is better than a solution that never happen) on a lot of problem-area and it can be done within 1min.

mango.9267:

Vermillion.4061:

If I have to sit in a Q for longer than one hour I wouldn’t transfer away from my server.. I’d quit the game. [ A lot of people likely think this also. ]

Would you (or anyone else with this line of thinking) say the same thing if Anet made bottom-tier transfers free and lower-pop servers very low cost?

A lot of people help build communities on a server… I enjoy the community that I’m apart of so transferring away from it will never happen.

Reducing how many people can get onto a map wouldn’t fix anything.. It would just make things more painful to do. [ Defending keeps would be so easy if you just have to worry about 30-40 people instead of a map Q of 70+ ]

You will never see keeps flip.

Vermillion.4061:

A lot of people help build communities on a server… I enjoy the community that I’m apart of so transferring away from it will never happen.

Well, presumably, the people who value your community less than you do will move, and you’ll still be able to play on your server with the other people who value the community.

Vermillion.4061:

Reducing how many people can get onto a map wouldn’t fix anything.. It would just make things more painful to do. [ Defending keeps would be so easy if you just have to worry about 30-40 people instead of a map Q of 70+ ]

Why is this a bad thing? It’s a common complaint here that zerging down an objective with a blob is too easy, and that defending is too difficult. This is an especially pertinent complaint when talking about offhour coverage, where some servers only have 15 defenders against 70 people. It sounds like the general attitude is that defending should be made easier.

Vermillion.4061:

You will never see keeps flip.

This is just false. I’ve seen plenty of keeps flipped without 70 people. Many skilled guilds have managed to flip well-defended keeps while outnumbered, and a keep can definitely flip to 30 people, even if it’s defended. If anything, it seems like this would make the offensive team rely on good communication and skill, as opposed to sheer numbers, to flip harder objectives.

mango.9267:

Vermillion.4061:

If I have to sit in a Q for longer than one hour I wouldn’t transfer away from my server.. I’d quit the game. [ A lot of people likely think this also. ]

Would you (or anyone else with this line of thinking) say the same thing if Anet made bottom-tier transfers free and lower-pop servers very low cost?

I’ve just bought 2 copies of a new game today. (No, it’s not TESO). No, I haven’t left… yet. It’s close though. Currently the only thing keeping me in this game is playing WvW with my guild (friends from over 26+ years) and our server.

Like I’ve said ad nauseam out here, I typically run with a small 4-man team. We don’t usually run with zergs, we end up busting some up. We prefer small group play. Our type of play would be perfect on a smaller server.

However, there’s this thing we enjoy more: our server community. When the call goes out, or when we see our server mates need help, we jump in and join the zerg. It’s what we do on our server.. All of us. We come together and cover each other’s backs. Support, appreciation is widely shared out there between guilds, commanders, militia and new- to-WvW players. It’s a very real community.

I know we aren’t the only server out there that acts/feels this way.

Speaking of which, to directly answer your question: been playing on BG since headstart. There are numerous guilds out here as well as individuals that we know in both PvE and WvW. Our small “swat team” has acquired a reputation for helping where needed (in both).. We love that. Whats more: we love the community, even back in the days before we were even close to the top 3 servers.

As I’ve said before: if BG fell to T6 and from there to T8, I would not transfer off.

Would we transfer if it was free or low cost?

I won’t tell you how much I spend on this game per month. It would probably make many of you cringe.

Would capping the map population, possibly leading to long queues cause me or my guild to leave the game?

BG attracts both PvE and WvW players in a way that creates many “temporary” residents that have no interest in our community. Many of these are just there to “use” us. Longer queue times would be an annoyance and could potentially add feelings of resentment. Hey, we’re human. Nobody likes feeling used. Not being able to get all four of us from our swat team into the map at the same time, or at all, which would deny us our ability to play the game we both enjoy and believe contributes to our community’s success would of course not have us rage-quitting. However, three of the four us have extremely limited playtime (just Friday and Saturday evenings) to play as that tight-knit swat team. Adversely impact both our playtime and our ability to help our community and the good feelings that come from that, and of course we would have to reconsider why we play the game.

Bottom line answer: no. Here’s why:

Finding a good game with interesting gameplay: good $$ value.
Finding a good game that promotes old-school community-oriented play: fantastic $$ value.
Finding a good server with that old-fashioned DAoC feel: priceless.

mango.9267:

As the title suggests, the idea is to lower the number people able to play on a map. I’m not sure how the algorithm works now, but the current system makes 50-60 man blobs possible without queueing the map. The proposal is to make the queue hit at, say, 40-50 players on the map.

I feel this could address many of the recurring problems that players bring up here.

1) It decreases blobbing. If the queue is 40-50 people, it becomes inefficient to stay in a 40-50 man blob. Zergs would probably naturally split up into 15-20, with smaller havoc and roaming groups.

2) It decreases the influence of coverage without being biased towards any time zone. If the player cap is decreased on all maps, it becomes a bit easier to defend structures. As it is now, some servers are able to run 60 man blobs over BL’s of 10-20 defenders.

3) It decreases the influence of population. Same reason as above.

4) It discourages server stacking. If the player cap is lowered to 40-50 people per map, some servers will easily see 250+ in queue for all maps, even post-Season. At some point, it becomes better for guilds to just transfer off to a lower populated server. This offers guilds some reason to look into dead servers.

5) It decreases the amount of lag players experience. Self-explanatory.

I realize this sounds viscerally unappealing at first, and I don’t pretend there are no cons to it. But after thinking about it, it would help with many of the recurring issues. Thought I’d open the thought for discussion here.

Add in scaled server transfer costs while you are at it to ease the pains of forcing the player population to self balance better instead of stack to win. Just make sure to update the ranks/cost scale as often as feasible to properly let it react to population migration.

And possibly a couple extra borderlands maps with similar limitations. A sky and underground version of the EB map might do the trick there. Spread people out across more maps; thus reducing the blob sizes.

This would ruin WvW imo. Queues would be immense, commanders and wvw vets would be even less able to get in in time and if 10 PvE casuals or uplevels get in, the server would be at a major disadvantage.

Overkillengine.6084:

Add in scaled server transfer costs while you are at it to ease the pains of forcing the player population to self balance better instead of stack to win. Just make sure to update the ranks/cost scale as often as feasible to properly let it react to population migration.

And possibly a couple extra borderlands maps with similar limitations. A sky and underground version of the EB map might do the trick there. Spread people out across more maps; thus reducing the blob sizes.

Limit the map population and you would need to open more maps. I like this idea.

This might work for larger servers.

Not sure that adding even more maps would help the smaller pop servers already hurting.

I think most of the players out here, as well as ANet understand that server population is a complex problem requiring multiple approaches to solve. And as a book on Urban Studies from over 40 years stated:

Any intuitive change to a complex system will inevitably leave that system worse off.

Lots of good ideas have been proposed out here. What we haven’t given ANet are the experiments which will prove which of these ideas will have the desired effect.

Well, yes, there is no one magic bullet for the flaw of allowing players to team/server stack to the extent that was allowed, especially well over a year of letting it happen.

Either way; it would behoove the Devs to prioritize doing something about it since quite frankly WvW is effectively the endgame right now. Sure, you also get Living story releases that are gated by how fast they can be created at the minimum acceptable quality, or endlessly running dungeons/open world events that do not change in any meaningful fashion…..but WvW will always have shifts in tactics and builds and opponents often enough to keep it far fresher than the other content.

Agreed.

/15 chars

Reducing map cap = less fights per map while also having bigger queues

So……… no.

mango.9267:

As the title suggests, the idea is to lower the number people able to play on a map. I’m not sure how the algorithm works now, but the current system makes 50-60 man blobs possible without queueing the map. The proposal is to make the queue hit at, say, 40-50 players on the map.

I feel this could address many of the recurring problems that players bring up here.

1) It decreases blobbing. If the queue is 40-50 people, it becomes inefficient to stay in a 40-50 man blob. Zergs would probably naturally split up into 15-20, with smaller havoc and roaming groups.

2) It decreases the influence of coverage without being biased towards any time zone. If the player cap is decreased on all maps, it becomes a bit easier to defend structures. As it is now, some servers are able to run 60 man blobs over BL’s of 10-20 defenders.

3) It decreases the influence of population. Same reason as above.

4) It discourages server stacking. If the player cap is lowered to 40-50 people per map, some servers will easily see 250+ in queue for all maps, even post-Season. At some point, it becomes better for guilds to just transfer off to a lower populated server. This offers guilds some reason to look into dead servers.

5) It decreases the amount of lag players experience. Self-explanatory.

I realize this sounds viscerally unappealing at first, and I don’t pretend there are no cons to it. But after thinking about it, it would help with many of the recurring issues. Thought I’d open the thought for discussion here.

i agree on this as an emergency solution ,because the game is designed to have ONLY ONE AND ONLY SINGLE TARGET.

what i mean . in eb the main target for all are the SM and KEEPS . a small area where all forces are concentrating to fight each other. the same logic followed to borders.

if they re-design the castles and the maps ( bigger castles/towers s and bigger maps ) and inside the castle the forces should capture more points than a single one as it is now IN THE SAME TIME , then all forces will split up in more than one location and the game clients and servers will work as indeed .

an example of why this is correct is the home borders. when all forces in the map fight in garrison all have skill lag , but when all forces fight in more than one area ( hills and bay for example ) nobody has lags or skill lags

this is why i asked in the past a merge of home borders in just one (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Dear-Anet-possible-merge-for-old-WvW-Maps/first#post3695241). the fights will split up in all map and not in a single point . with 3 garrisons , 3 main keeps and difficult approached towers and the bloodlust in the middle all forces will split in the whole map to have better results in the same time

This could work but it could also hurt the game far more than it helps. Keep in mind that the players that crave large fights usually swarm the top tier servers and stay in that bracket. That is fine, like minds will form a clique so long as it doesn’t overflow and effect the players that want smaller population based wvw such as the rising bandwagons servers that occasionally effect the NA servers not sure about EU.

The bigger problem for anet is most likely server lag which is why there’s limits on wvw ques to begin with. Many times my computer has had no problem running in wvw but the skill lag prevents me from doing anything productive while fighting larger forces especially 3 way battles. You do have a point and done well it would help balance out the servers but a hastily made plan rarely works as intended. You have odiously thought it out and do have some good points. But let anet work it out if its valid in their minds they will work on it eventually.

Decrease – no but I am all in favour of capping the maps so no one server can have more than say 10 more players than any other server.

Let’s do some Math to force coverage by people to spread out on all servers more balanced:

ANet should measure
mean number of players in the matches and queues for every hour for NA and EU, i.e., sum up how many people play (on a WvW-map) and want to play (in queue for a WVW, but not on a WvW-map) at every hour in NA/EU over the week:
E.g.
…
at 3:00-4:00: 450 ppl
….
at 20:00-21:00 6000 ppl
…

Of course we have 4 maps, 3 BL and 1 EB, EB should have a slightly higher capacity than BL, so set: EB = 31%, BL = 23% (31+3*23=100)
NA has 24 server EU has 27 server. Goal is to ENFORCE an equal distribution of player.
so set for every hour max capacity of all maps to:

sum over all server(mean for that hour in the last week)/Nr of servers * 1.1
Give it a overstocking tolerance of 10% (*1.1). This would give on each server max capacity:
…
at 3:00-4:00: 450/24 *1.1 => 7 ppl on EB and 5ppl per borderland
….
at 20:00-21:00 6000/24 *1.1 => 85ppl on EB and 63 per borderland
…

If you are on a server that has more than 10% more than the mean of all servers, you end up in a queue quite often and have some motivation to transfer.
At the same time the map limit balance coverage issues and it cannot manipulated by any single server as it averages over all servers.

Transfer costs should be dropped, as they would only hinder balance. Matches are more balanced, as no team is allowed to field more than 10% more people than the mean of the league. Of course several (~half) servers will be below mean, but they more likely get people.

As a further improvement: Make 3 leagues
- large scale league
- guild-size league
- small-scale league
and compute the capacity per league.

Xavi.6591:

Decrease – no but I am all in favour of capping the maps so no one server can have more than say 10 more players than any other server.

So then you end up punishing server’s that have people play at different times? So because xx server has everyone asleep, yy can’t get anyone in? That’s stupid.

This is an interesting discussion. Lets try to stay on topic though.

This partiular suggestion would not affect coverage,
An unforseen consequence may be a surge of elitism due to the increased value of a spot on the map.

and i think with transfer inscentive to distribute the top teir heavy competitive wvw concentration we could potentially see the incredible matchup variation that many have been asking for.

Hamster.4861:

This partiular suggestion would not affect coverage,

It would indirectly. The reason coverage is such a big deal now is that during offhours, some servers grossly outnumber others. Servers with strong offhour coverage can send a 60-70 man blob into a BL and roll everything, while 10-15 defenders are scrambling about. However, if the map cap were lower, it’d be much easier for the 10-15 to defend.

Hamster.4861:

An unforseen consequence may be a surge of elitism due to the increased value of a spot on the map.

This would probably only really affect the top 6 or 7 servers. Outside of reset, we almost never have 40 people in each map, even during NA prime, and we’re in the upper half of WvW tiers. For the top 6 or 7 servers, however, this would encourage guilds to spread out to lower servers, and that’s one of the consequences we want.

No no no this is an awful idea. My guild can field 60+ players on reset night. We already almost que a map dropping it down to 45 to even 60 means that my guild alone will que a borderland and we will be leaving a few of our members out. Leave it how it is if you don’t like giant zergs run 2 20 man zerg busting groups and hit the zerg at the same time its that simple.

mango.9267:

Hamster.4861:

This partiular suggestion would not affect coverage,

It would indirectly. The reason coverage is such a big deal now is that during offhours, some servers grossly outnumber others. Servers with strong offhour coverage can send a 60-70 man blob into a BL and roll everything, while 10-15 defenders are scrambling about. However, if the map cap were lower, it’d be much easier for the 10-15 to defend.

If your positions are sieged correctly. Which they should be during the off hours then 10-15 defenders can take down almost any zerg if done correctly. The only exception to this is if they bring 15 omegas. Which if you let them build 15 omegas on your borderland then thats entirely your problem.

Laylie.5703:

No no no this is an awful idea. My guild can field 60+ players on reset night. We already almost que a map dropping it down to 45 to even 60 means that my guild alone will que a borderland and we will be leaving a few of our members our. Leave it how it is if you don’t like giant zergs run 2 20 man zerg busting groups and hit the zerg at the same time its that simple.

Sounds like a personal problem.

Personally, I’d love to see ANet come up with a way to discourage massive omniblobs. That being said, I don’t think this idea is the right way to go about it.

Laylie.5703:

No no no this is an awful idea. My guild can field 60+ players on reset night. We already almost que a map dropping it down to 45 to even 60 means that my guild alone will que a borderland and we will be leaving a few of our members out. Leave it how it is if you don’t like giant zergs run 2 20 man zerg busting groups and hit the zerg at the same time its that simple.

Although it’s impressive that your guild can field so many players, many people on this forum have been complaining about just that fact. I get the feeling that people generally DON’T want guilds to be running 50-60 people, and the fact that guilds can get away with massive blobs like that is part of the problem. That’s not to say larger guilds should kick members or anything; they could easily adapt and split the guild into two groups running in different BL’s. The point is that it would naturally force zerg size to consolidate into 15-20, instead of 50-60.

Laylie.5703:

If your positions are sieged correctly. Which they should be during the off hours then 10-15 defenders can take down almost any zerg if done correctly.

Perhaps, but 10-15 people definitely wouldn’t be able to hold 3 keeps against 60-70 people in their BL, presuming the 60-70 people have half a brain and are able to split up into two 30-40 man groups.

Laylie.5703:

The only exception to this is if they bring 15 omegas. Which if you let them build 15 omegas on your borderland then thats entirely your problem.

You underestimate how easy it is to build golems. I’ve built 15 omegas barely leaving spawn. You can run to the edge of the cliff on the side-exit of your spawn and drop blueprints there. Having 5-7 people running supply to the blueprint from other maps, you could easily build 10-15 omegas in 30-40 minutes.

Moreover, if you had a 60 man blob keeping the 10-15 defenders on their toes, it’d be very easy for a 5-10 man havoc group to go around flipping camps and building golems.

LFServer that will double team Blackgate.

mango.9267:

Laylie.5703:

No no no this is an awful idea. My guild can field 60+ players on reset night. We already almost que a map dropping it down to 45 to even 60 means that my guild alone will que a borderland and we will be leaving a few of our members out. Leave it how it is if you don’t like giant zergs run 2 20 man zerg busting groups and hit the zerg at the same time its that simple.

Although it’s impressive that your guild can field so many players, many people on this forum have been complaining about just that fact. I get the feeling that people generally DON’T want guilds to be running 50-60 people, and the fact that guilds can get away with massive blobs like that is part of the problem. That’s not to say larger guilds should kick members or anything; they could easily adapt and split the guild into two groups running in different BL’s. The point is that it would naturally force zerg size to consolidate into 15-20, instead of 50-60.

Laylie.5703:

If your positions are sieged correctly. Which they should be during the off hours then 10-15 defenders can take down almost any zerg if done correctly.

Perhaps, but 10-15 people definitely wouldn’t be able to hold 3 keeps against 60-70 people in their BL, presuming the 60-70 people have half a brain and are able to split up into two 30-40 man groups.

Laylie.5703:

The only exception to this is if they bring 15 omegas. Which if you let them build 15 omegas on your borderland then thats entirely your problem.

You underestimate how easy it is to build golems. I’ve built 15 omegas barely leaving spawn. You can run to the edge of the cliff on the side-exit of your spawn and drop blueprints there. Having 5-7 people running supply to the blueprint from other maps, you could easily build 10-15 omegas in 30-40 minutes.

Moreover, if you had a 60 man blob keeping the 10-15 defenders on their toes, it’d be very easy for a 5-10 man havoc group to go around flipping camps and building golems.

I know how easy it is to make golems on a BL but im coming from a constantly qued server and so its much harder to run supplies from other BL’s. As for splitting up my guild and running 2 pins yea we could do that. But with 45 people on a BL we would still que nearly 2 maps meaning my guild would ultimately have to find a dead or nearly dead server. This would also make my guild in question one of the few on the server. Very few guilds would be able to run on the server and even less would be able to run with us. We love to work with the community and have others run with us but with this suggestion your alienating larger guilds just because of their size.

Like I said before it is not hard to run 2 zerg busting pins and just break up that blob from 2 sides. We have done it and we have had it done to us.

And don’t get me wrong we blob with 50 people at a time but thats because we don’t see any other way to fix the current situation other then running 2 pins which can be fun at times but when your so used to blobbing 2 pins can become counter productive. Blobbing and splitting off and the opportune times is really just the best way to go. But trying to stop blobbing by restricting players allowed in the map is a very bad idea.

No, my guild runs as an 80 man skill group. If anything, they should increase the map population cap so that we can get a second skill group in the same map to hit multiple objectives at the same time.

Waffler.1257:

No, my guild runs as an 80 man skill group. If anything, they should increase the map population cap so that we can get a second skill group in the same map to hit multiple objectives at the same time.

LuLz 80 man “skill group”.
There is no skill in that many people.
Press #1 and enjoy the lag.
Feed the blob.

I think to that idea is very good. It would be nice to they do something about blobs and population stacks on servers. Would be painful cut for wvw, but in long run that can make alot of good for wvw community and make it more fun to play. Also that would make people to use more tactics in wvw, like split in few smaller groups and not just run as mindless blobs/zergs. Anyway would be nice to WvW face some bigger changes in future cause as i play wvw, everyday is same old things. So i think to would be nice to they do changes on wvw including population & maps, so to they add some new map or to remodel old ones. I really wanna see wvw more competitive then is now, with more fun. Thats why i play GW2 and WvW and i can only say thanks to Anet for good game you made, hope you will able give us some good updates for wvw in future. I really hope so. (:

nice idea, so augury rock could get more of you folks for better balance on league 1 EU

I think coupling your idea with a few more WvW maps that count towards your server’s score would help. I’d say two or three more.

- decrease the pop cap (server wide)
- decrease the pop cap (wvw map)
- lower the transfer fee.

This would be a good idea ONLY if they added more maps. Rather than force everything into more compact maps (means bunching is good), more maps would mean you actually need to think about where you want to prioritize and send groups of people, while also still allowing large numbers of players to join. Say you take 10 off the cap from each side from the 3 borderlands and eternal bg, that allows for another map that could be 40v40v40. Plus, there could be more map based objectives.

Then they have to do the map smaller, remove some buildings and you will need to add 2-3x as many maps, and now with the fix am back to were little lag.