Guild Wars 2

As someone who had been extremely disappointed in Anets direction with guild wars, the current ideas in, my mind, are in the right direction. But that’s not what this is about. This is an idea to help control zerging and bringing thoughtful play into WvW.

Stampede: There are too many people around to move freely! Applies to the center of groups of more than 10 people of the same server in a 600 radius circle. At 11 people the movement speed reduction is 10% up to at 20 people 25% reduction. Reapplies every 5 seconds, lasts for 10 seconds. Doesn’t stack above 10 seconds.

Reasoning: In Guild Wars, zergs can move just as easily as a handful of people. That’s just ridiculous. This allows for smaller groups to out maneuver zergs, as they should be able to. Small man groups will be able to engage in guerrilla warfare, have just enough supply for very basic siege, and stragglers from large zerg fights would have a chance to escape, but would still have 5 seconds of lower move speed to make it difficult.

But CnaeusDane then pugs will mess everything up and will have to learn how to WvW properly in order to maximize efficiency!

Yes. Yes they will. And small groups of 10 who know what they’re doing will be much more efficient. Discuss.

You already know that one of Anet’s biggest policies for GW2 is to encourage group play.

You also know that people are allowed to play the way they want to. Whether that’s solo roaming or running in a blob. Anet is indifferent to both.

So why make a thread suggesting something that is doomed from the start.

Group play doesn’t mean you have to zerg. And running a group of 10 or 100 it’s still group play. And just because you’re allowed to play that way doesn’t mean it should be encouraged. It takes away from the WvW experience if you can only muster 10 people on your server and there’s 20 people who will wipe you every time. (Extremely simplified)

CnaeusDane.2938:

Group play doesn’t mean you have to zerg. And running a group of 10 or 100 it’s still group play. And just because you’re allowed to play that way doesn’t mean it should be encouraged. It takes away from the WvW experience if you can only muster 10 people on your server and there’s 20 people who will wipe you every time. (Extremely simplified)

Why shouldn’t it be?

What statement from Anet are you using to support your argument? I came into this game, with the distinct impression, that it was specifically designed for large battles that me and my 40 guilds who are logged in, can all participate in, simultaneously.

This idea that large forces need to be artificially broken up, has no merit to support it, in my opinion.

coglin.1867:

CnaeusDane.2938:

Group play doesn’t mean you have to zerg. And running a group of 10 or 100 it’s still group play. And just because you’re allowed to play that way doesn’t mean it should be encouraged. It takes away from the WvW experience if you can only muster 10 people on your server and there’s 20 people who will wipe you every time. (Extremely simplified)

Why shouldn’t it be?

What statement from Anet are you using to support your argument? I came into this game, with the distinct impression, that it was specifically designed for large battles that me and my 40 guilds who are logged in, can all participate in, simultaneously.

This idea that large forces need to be artificially broken up, has no merit to support it, in my opinion.

Why does it have to be all about what Anet wants is my question? As a player who has been in top tier and low tier WvW servers and part of large guilds and small guilds the largest complaint against WvW is that the zergs are too mobile. On top of that, if they had meant for the game to be huge battles why did they put a 5 person hit cap on most skills? And further more, why would decreasing their speed mean that there still wouldn’t be a large zerg to fight head on? It would give low tier servers a chance against high pop servers by allowing for more strategy and high pop servers still get to bash their heads against each other

to be honest, big zergs are naturally more clunky, just because it takes abit longer till the full group responds. Good guilds can easily exploit that situation by cutting off the slackers slowly. In case the small and the big group are equal skilled, i don’t see any reason why the small group should be able to wipe the bigger one.

CnaeusDane.2938:

coglin.1867:

CnaeusDane.2938:

Group play doesn’t mean you have to zerg. And running a group of 10 or 100 it’s still group play. And just because you’re allowed to play that way doesn’t mean it should be encouraged. It takes away from the WvW experience if you can only muster 10 people on your server and there’s 20 people who will wipe you every time. (Extremely simplified)

Why shouldn’t it be?

What statement from Anet are you using to support your argument? I came into this game, with the distinct impression, that it was specifically designed for large battles that me and my 40 guilds who are logged in, can all participate in, simultaneously.

This idea that large forces need to be artificially broken up, has no merit to support it, in my opinion.

Why does it have to be all about what Anet wants is my question? As a player who has been in top tier and low tier WvW servers and part of large guilds and small guilds the largest complaint against WvW is that the zergs are too mobile. On top of that, if they had meant for the game to be huge battles why did they put a 5 person hit cap on most skills? And further more, why would decreasing their speed mean that there still wouldn’t be a large zerg to fight head on? It would give low tier servers a chance against high pop servers by allowing for more strategy and high pop servers still get to bash their heads against each other

Maybe because it is Anets game. Also not sure what WvW you’ve been playing but I’ve never heard anyone complain about zergs being too mobile. That’s a new one for me. With the waypoint changes they talked about, it will also help out those low populated servers. Instead of the zergs just wp’ing into a keep when timer is about to reset, they will now have to run from there spawn waypoint. SM is a different story.

Also some people like to zerg. Others like to roam or small group play. Seems you just want to punish people who play a different style then you prefer. If zergs are too mobile, why not try and get rid of swiftness instead as that would effect everyone and not just those that prefer to zerg. That was a bit of sarcasm right there but really zergs being too mobile is a major problem for many players that WvW? Seriously???

I have an idea! How about when people group up in a large zerg, we have nuclear bombs begin to drop on them to wipe them out. Also, maybe we need to have airstrikes also shoot them. And earthquakes.

And sharks. (With these anti-zerg lasers!)

CnaeusDane.2938:

Group play doesn’t mean you have to zerg. And running a group of 10 or 100 it’s still group play. And just because you’re allowed to play that way doesn’t mean it should be encouraged. It takes away from the WvW experience if you can only muster 10 people on your server and there’s 20 people who will wipe you every time. (Extremely simplified)

I play T1 and have seen 20-25 man groups push back and wipe 40-50 man blobs plenty of times. This game mode does indeed promote good skill and positioning.

If you can only muster half their force, muster a good half. If you can’t muster a good half, then you shouldn’t win a pvp mode. Plain and simple.

If you only ever want to fight on equal terms, spvp is right there.

CnaeusDane.2938:

Yes. Yes they will. And small groups of 10 who know what they’re doing will be much more efficient. Discuss.

They arent efficient already?

Yesterday we held a 50+ man blob and a 25ish guild group from capping bay with just 30 peeps on tag. We had to bring in EB. That’s how much we wanted to keep that T3 bay. The fight lasted an entire evening.

Guess who took bay at the end? A god kitten 8 man guild group that had been harassing us all evening. Bay was swiss cheese, we where fighting hard at the south camp to kill a treb and… a havoc group capped bay. kitten.

The thing is, this “stampede” debuff wont stop blobs. Especially not at 600 range. You’d need like 5000 range. The only thing its going to hurt is stopping to stack, which is generally either for utility (stack to see supplies) or for defensive and regroup purposes (which can be very dangerous in combat against larger/equal forces).

On top of that, its a system that punish players. You dont want to punish players for playing. You want to encourage players not to blob yes, but that’s a whole other thing than adding a debuff. This is the eqvivalent to instead of having outmanned buff, the game had a overpowering buff where the sides not outmanned get -25% speed, -25% power and -25% vitality. Yeah. People would go apekitten. Its a bad, bad practice.

What you want instead is a buff to smaller groups.

Example: You tag up as commander. 10 people join your squad. Now you get a “commanding presence” buff which give those 10 people and you a small boon. If you want to give that buff to the other 20 people in your zerg… Those need to be in 2 different 10 man squads. It doesnt force a split, but it encourage more commanders on the field and simple tactics of a zerg (you, red commander, go right with your 10 man buffed squad!).

Dawdler.8521:

What you want instead is a buff to smaller groups.

Example: You tag up as commander. 10 people join your squad. Now you get a “commanding presence” buff which give those 10 people and you a small boon. If you want to give that buff to the other 20 people in your zerg… Those need to be in 2 different 10 man squads. It doesnt force a split, but it encourage more commanders on the field and simple tactics of a zerg (you, red commander, go right with your 10 man buffed squad!).

Well your buff idea would hurt smaller roaming groups that are less than 10. Also whats to stop people from just joining a squad just to get the buff and then they go off on their own? They’d be buffed yet the people they encounter wouldn’t.. Doesn’t sound fair.

briggah.7910:

Dawdler.8521:

What you want instead is a buff to smaller groups.

Example: You tag up as commander. 10 people join your squad. Now you get a “commanding presence” buff which give those 10 people and you a small boon. If you want to give that buff to the other 20 people in your zerg… Those need to be in 2 different 10 man squads. It doesnt force a split, but it encourage more commanders on the field and simple tactics of a zerg (you, red commander, go right with your 10 man buffed squad!).

Well your buff idea would hurt smaller roaming groups that are less than 10. Also whats to stop people from just joining a squad just to get the buff and then they go off on their own? They’d be buffed yet the people they encounter wouldn’t.. Doesn’t sound fair.

Your logic is as silly as arguing that having a commander is unfair. Shall we remove the commander? They seriously hurt single players engaging 50 man blobs.

The point was to encourage splitting your forces rather than punish sticking together.

You have to draw a line somewhere. 10 people sounded like a nice figure. Could it be multi-stage buff? Sure. Maybe it gives a certain percentage per member in the group. Of course the buff would be given in a range around the commander as well. Have a little imagination. Because that’s all it is, an idea that’s never going to happen.

And the debuff idea would hurt 20 people engaging 50 people. If those 50 people are scattered they have no debuff, while the 20 will need to stack to survive… and thus get debuffed. Doesnt sound fair.

Dawdler.8521:

briggah.7910:

Dawdler.8521:

What you want instead is a buff to smaller groups.

Example: You tag up as commander. 10 people join your squad. Now you get a “commanding presence” buff which give those 10 people and you a small boon. If you want to give that buff to the other 20 people in your zerg… Those need to be in 2 different 10 man squads. It doesnt force a split, but it encourage more commanders on the field and simple tactics of a zerg (you, red commander, go right with your 10 man buffed squad!).

Well your buff idea would hurt smaller roaming groups that are less than 10. Also whats to stop people from just joining a squad just to get the buff and then they go off on their own? They’d be buffed yet the people they encounter wouldn’t.. Doesn’t sound fair.

Your logic is as silly as arguing that having a commander is unfair. Shall we remove the commander? They seriously hurt single players engaging 50 man blobs.

The point was to encourage splitting your forces rather than punish sticking together.

You have to draw a line somewhere. 10 people sounded like a nice figure. Could it be multi-stage buff? Sure. Maybe it gives a certain percentage per member in the group. Of course the buff would be given in a range around the commander as well. Have a little imagination. Because that’s all it is, an idea that’s never going to happen.

And the debuff idea would hurt 20 people engaging 50 people. If those 50 people are scattered they have no debuff, while the 20 will need to stack to survive… and thus get debuffed. Doesnt sound fair.

Wait what? I didn’t quite understand your point and see flaws in it so my logic is silly? Also never did I state commanders are unfair. I also disagreed with the debuff idea. Do you even read posts? Your idea and the OP idea is exactly the same. You are punishing certain players.. OK I get it they have to be near a commander to get the buff right? Well what if the players are stacked away from the gate? Five players come to try to get into the gate and they send five people to stop them? Those five will STILL be buffed since they are somewhat near the commander yet the ones trying to get in the gate won’t be. If they actually have to be stacked on commander to get the buff well that’s one useless buff..

When I’m on my mesmer people say I’m crazy because numbers are nothing to me as I try to pick players off.. I have no problem dying and do jump into 10+ groups solo at times since I’m a slippery little mesmer. Yes at times they get me but I’ve picked off players this way without being caught many many times. If they can’t catch me I’m one annoying mesmer. Your BUFF idea would ruin that for me. Lots of people joke with me and ask if I’ve solo any zergs today. Not once have I ever solo’ed a zerg but its because I’m not afraid of numbers and they’ve seen me picking off larger groups one by one.

Also buffing or debuffing are both SILLY ideas to begin with. Maybe you haven’t but I’ve been in groups of 5 – 10 players and wiped groups 2 – 3 times our size and we didn’t even need a commander to do it. Not everyone likes to run a commander tag so your idea of say 20 people in a squad buffed would be unfair to the 20 players not in a squad that are engaging them. UNFAIR

CnaeusDane.2938:

Group play doesn’t mean you have to zerg.

No, but you can if you want! Choices are nice to have.

And running a group of 10 or 100 it’s still group play.

Correct!

And just because you’re allowed to play that way doesn’t mean it should be encouraged.

Incorrect! People should be encouraged to play whatever way they like.

It takes away from the WvW experience if you can only muster 10 people on your server and there’s 20 people who will wipe you every time.

It’s not my, or anyone else’s job on any opposing server to ensure your WvW experience is enjoyable. Some people actually like running smaller numbers against larger, in fact zerg busting is pretty much my favorite thing to do in WvW next to duo or solo roaming.

CnaeusDane.2938:

Group play doesn’t mean you have to zerg. And running a group of 10 or 100 it’s still group play. And just because you’re allowed to play that way doesn’t mean it should be encouraged. It takes away from the WvW experience if you can only muster 10 people on your server and there’s 20 people who will wipe you every time. (Extremely simplified)

So you want to take out the “epic” out of epic battles and the “Massively” out of MMO part of this game mode ?

Isnt it better you to to sPvP ?

CnaeusDane.2938:

Group play doesn’t mean you have to zerg. And running a group of 10 or 100 it’s still group play. And just because you’re allowed to play that way doesn’t mean it should be encouraged. It takes away from the WvW experience if you can only muster 10 people on your server and there’s 20 people who will wipe you every time. (Extremely simplified)

20 should beat 10 every single time. The fact that on many servers every single day the 10 can and do beat the 20 is what makes the game fun.

Outnumbered wins are the best wins, and while it can be annoying to run 20 into 40 from time to time, it’s still an awesome feeling when you win that.

I’m sorry that your server is outnumbered, and I can empathize with being outnumbered, but I feel it would be unwise to penalize players for playing the way they wish.

I don’t dislike the base idea myself. I’m biased though, since I tend to small party roam.

But as mentioned above, this is completely against ANet’s design philosophy of never punishing you for other people.

I was thinking about this thread yesterday, and was pondering the limit to 5 targets on most attack skills. What if there was a reverse to this ? That you could only be hit by max 5 people ? (waits for the laughter to end).

Yup it would have gotten weird, really weird.

So if the first 5 players that hit you blocks out the attacks from the other 15 or so (in 20vs1). skilled player would be capable of wearing them down because he can weather a 5vs1 if the skill difference is large enough. The other 15 players wouldn’t be able to do any direct damage, but could still give support (boons, condi cleanse, aoe heals etc) to the 5 attackers.

Setting it to 10 would make it less weird, but still somewhat relevant, since it is much easier to survive against 10 enemies rather than 20 spamming attacks on you.

Never going to make it into the game, for many reasons. But an interesting idea.