Guild Wars 2

I know Anet want zergs. I don’t mind. But I don’t like zergs I want to roam. So you say no one is stopping you why are you qqing. True no one is making me zerg but since zerging is the most effective way to get Wxp I am semi forced to zerg, More importantly even when I don’t want to zerg the roaming population is gone. Because a lot of roamers are over achievers they want the ranks and they are no dummy they are zerging it up.

So how about give us roamer a bone, implement a ranking system based on solo kills. Sort of like DAoC lone enforcer title. You get the ranks as you get more and more solo kills, no need to give out any extra other than title. Just give us soloers something to work towards and something to be proud off. It take away nothing from the zerglings and it would go a long way to create a fun solo community.

Create a thief. Hide. Keep moving.

Well, according to the current point system, solo roamers and small groups actually add fewer points to the board for their server than a czerg, even if they can solo the same objective.

The prime example of this is Dolyaks (Supply Caravans): It was just confirmed by the Devs yesterday that you do, in fact get more points for killing a Dolyak for each person who tags it. I’ve personally witnessed Dolyaks giving 10 points instantly dozens of times in the last 24 hours, and 10 seems to be the most commonly referenced number. So it appears that if you run in any group smaller than 10, you are effectively penalized for roaming, as you can do the exact same task as a larger group, but simply add fewer points for the server than if you had zerged that task, even though you’ve managed to solo the objective (Dolyak, in this case), which should have the exact same effect on the match. This, of course, means that zerging a Dolyak actually gives your server 9 BONUS POINTS in comparison to soloing it, despite the fact that zerging a Dolyak requires far less work from each person involved, and zerging through enemy territory involves far less risk for each person than soloing.

So yeah, they could add a title to the game (though if it’s like the other WvW titles, it will take 5+ years before you see people with it), but as long as rules like the “1 point per tag” on Dolyaks exist in the game, solo roaming or running around in small groups is basically playing to lose, and it’s designed to be that way by the gaming company. If you NEVER look at the score and only play WvW for fun or some PvP challenge, then this doesn’t affect you directly, but indirectly it means you’ll find far fewer roaming groups to PvP against, since most people do actually care about the score; at least a little bit, anyway.

It’s honestly one of the worst rules I’ve seen in a PvP game anywhere. It makes no sense at all, and gives totally unnecessary bonus points for zerging an objective that really is a 1-person job, incentivizing one of the most complained about tactics on these forums (unnecessarily zerging all over the map.)

This rule really needs to go. I would also support some sort of titles for Roamers, as I think that’s a great idea, but kind of irrelevant as long as the point system is designed so that solo roamers are effectively costing their servers points simply by their very playstyle.

Straegen.2938:

IMO enemy groups of 25+ should show on the maps. Large moving groups should have some disadvantages but nothing terribly game breaking.

Yeah

Otokomae.9356:

This, of course, means that zerging a Dolyak actually gives your server 9 BONUS POINTS in comparison to soloing it…

Ok here’s the thing, you can’t compare the impact of one roamer to that of ten zergers… you have to compare similar values, ie: 10 roamers vs 10 zergers.

so sure, 10 players grouped together do get 10 points from killing a dolyak.. just like 10 players roaming on their own could get 10 points from each killing a different dolyak at the same time. Which of those two scenarios is actually more damaging to the enemy’s supply chain?

I agree with Oto, zerging a yak, shouldn’t provide more points than a solo player slapping it. I also think that a small % increase should be given for the roamers when they cap sentries and camps. For instance Supply Camps PPT are 5, then why not provide an instant +5 points to the servers score if its capped by 5 or fewer players +3 for 5-10 players and none for any more than 10.
A similar thing could be worked for defending an area. Today we had 10 invaders attacking Klovan, Im generally by myself so I shout on map chat that I need 5 or so players to come to Klovan to help me wipe the group attacking it…. no one comes and the group destroy’s the cannons/oil. I continue to shout that I need a few ppl come to help wipe, 30 seconds later our entire EB zerg comes and wipes them 70-80 ppl to wipe 10 players. Pathetic really.
Why not lower the reward for a successful defence of a tower by a zerg, but double it for say less than 10 players, likewise with camps and such.
I’m not saying these are great ideas, but the community needs to help the developers come up with creative solutions to stop the 70 – 80 zergs and promote the 15-20 man groups relieving seiges.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Otokomae.9356:

This, of course, means that zerging a Dolyak actually gives your server 9 BONUS POINTS in comparison to soloing it…

Ok here’s the thing, you can’t compare the impact of one roamer to that of ten zergers… you have to compare similar values, ie: 10 roamers vs 10 zergers.

so sure, 10 players grouped together do get 10 points from killing a dolyak.. just like 10 players roaming on their own could get 10 points from each killing a different dolyak at the same time. Which of those two scenarios is actually more damaging to the enemy’s supply chain?

So… 1 solo roamer gets 1 point from killing a Yak. On the other side of the map, a 10-man-group gets 10 points for killing another Yak. “Which of those two scenarios is actually more damaging to the enemy’s supply chain?”

All that’s happening here is that servers who can spare more people to do an unchallenging PvE task are getting bonus points simply for sending the extra people out. We already know that numbers usually determine the winner of a WvW matchup, but most people don’t realize that big servers are actually getting BONUS POINTS simply for fielding more people on the map! If 3 servers manage to hold the combined 4 maps in WvW to a draw for a full week, the server who fields the most people could actually win through this “hidden mechanic” of bonus points going to the server that send out larger groups for what really are 1 person tasks.

The worst part is, of course, that if 1 or 2 servers are outnumbered by a larger server, there is simply almost no chance that they can pull off a win through skill, tactics, or strategy. This goofy Yak-slapping rule means that Dolyaks are potentially worth more points than ALL OF THE STRUCTURES IN WvW COMBINED. So a large server that can spare 10-man groups on all the Dolyak routes can win through sheer numbers, even if the smaller server kills the same (or more!) number of Dolyaks with fewer people!

If a Dev or ArenaNet employee would like to make sense of this rule, it would be greatly appreciated and very much welcomed.
(^_^)

Otokomae.9356:

Well, according to the current point system, solo roamers and small groups actually add fewer points to the board for their server than a czerg, even if they can solo the same objective.

The prime example of this is Dolyaks (Supply Caravans): It was just confirmed by the Devs yesterday that you do, in fact get more points for killing a Dolyak for each person who tags it. I’ve personally witnessed Dolyaks giving 10 points instantly dozens of times in the last 24 hours, and 10 seems to be the most commonly referenced number. So it appears that if you run in any group smaller than 10, you are effectively penalized for roaming, as you can do the exact same task as a larger group, but simply add fewer points for the server than if you had zerged that task, even though you’ve managed to solo the objective (Dolyak, in this case), which should have the exact same effect on the match. This, of course, means that zerging a Dolyak actually gives your server 9 BONUS POINTS in comparison to soloing it, despite the fact that zerging a Dolyak requires far less work from each person involved, and zerging through enemy territory involves far less risk for each person than soloing.

So yeah, they could add a title to the game (though if it’s like the other WvW titles, it will take 5+ years before you see people with it), but as long as rules like the “1 point per tag” on Dolyaks exist in the game, solo roaming or running around in small groups is basically playing to lose, and it’s designed to be that way by the gaming company. If you NEVER look at the score and only play WvW for fun or some PvP challenge, then this doesn’t affect you directly, but indirectly it means you’ll find far fewer roaming groups to PvP against, since most people do actually care about the score; at least a little bit, anyway.

It’s honestly one of the worst rules I’ve seen in a PvP game anywhere. It makes no sense at all, and gives totally unnecessary bonus points for zerging an objective that really is a 1-person job, incentivizing one of the most complained about tactics on these forums (unnecessarily zerging all over the map.)

This rule really needs to go. I would also support some sort of titles for Roamers, as I think that’s a great idea, but kind of irrelevant as long as the point system is designed so that solo roamers are effectively costing their servers points simply by their very playstyle.

Was the point per person per Dolyak difference actually confirmed by the Devs?

I know on the weekend the new WvW dev posted it did not vary by number of attackers. Was this statement revised on Monday?

I’m not saying the current system is good/correct, just that you can’t compare the point gaining effectiveness of different play styles if you’re also using different population numbers for each of them.

Scientific method yo, gotta isolate your variables! =)

Honestly, I think they could do away altogether with giving points from dolyaks. It already has enough benefits; you get WXP and you prevent the other team from getting supply.

It doesn’t make sense that an evenly played game (if it ever occurred) would be won by the team with the higher number of people, simply because they had a few more turn up than the other teams.

Thrumdi.9216:

Was the point per person per Dolyak difference actually confirmed by the Devs?

I know on the weekend the new WvW dev posted it did not vary by number of attackers. Was this statement revised on Monday?

The statement was revised on Monday: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/How-many-points-is-a-Supply-Caravan-worth/first#post1742511

I do wish that sitting a wall or upgrades counted for xp too. I may not have the stats to rukittenerg or a powerball but I can upgrade and repair that gets what in this game?

Otokomae.9356:

Thrumdi.9216:

Was the point per person per Dolyak difference actually confirmed by the Devs?

I know on the weekend the new WvW dev posted it did not vary by number of attackers. Was this statement revised on Monday?

The statement was revised on Monday: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/How-many-points-is-a-Supply-Caravan-worth/first#post1742511

Thanks for the link! That clear things up.

U
N
C
A
P

T
H
E

A
O
E

Straegen.2938:

IMO enemy groups of 25+ should show on the maps. Large moving groups should have some disadvantages but nothing terribly game breaking.

That is a great idea.

So sayeth Supreme Commander of Gates of Madness, ARM

Dynnen.6405:

U
N
C
A
P

T
H
E

A
O
E

Yeah that is an even better idea, i vote for that!!!!^^^^^

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Suggestion-From-Solo-and-Small-Group

ARM.3912:

Dynnen.6405:

U
N
C
A
P

T
H
E

A
O
E

Yeah that is an even better idea, i vote for that!!!!^^^^^

Buy siege if you want uncapped aoe

I kind of enjoy making enemy zergs chase me, yet are unable to catch me.

It makes my day

Doomdesire.9365:

I kind of enjoy making enemy zergs chase me, yet are unable to catch me.

It makes my day

same and when most of them stop chasing, turn around and kill 1 or 2 of the stragglers.

someone mentioned it’s better to compare 10 roamers to 10 zergers, instead of 10 zergers to 1 roamer.

10 roamers snipe 10 yaks = 10 points, while they aren’t getting points for their team directly, however, they ARE disrupting the enemy far more than those 10 zergers against 1 yak.

Of course it takes them longer to do so…but killing pack yaks is easy and fast, and the time difference really is negligible.

I don’t think they should straight up “uncap” AoE. Right now its at 5 bump it up to 10 and see how that works. Fully uncapping AoE could end up being a bigger problem in the end. You say is will give the small groups a chance or discourage zerging. I think it would make AoE to powerful and out shine single target damage altogether. Which anet has talked about in the past.

Over all I don’t think fully uncapping it is the right way to go but thats not saying 5 person limit is the right place either. I just don’t want them to over do it and fully nerf or buff something to a extreme and it back fire and brake part of the game.

Otokomae.9356:

So… 1 solo roamer gets 1 point from killing a Yak. On the other side of the map, a 10-man-group gets 10 points for killing another Yak. “Which of those two scenarios is actually more damaging to the enemy’s supply chain?”

Your logic is off:

• 10 solo roamers can kill 10 yaks for ten points, denying 700-1400 supply from the enem(y)ies.
• 10 zergers can kill 1 yak for ten points, denying 70-140 supply.

Even if the zergers move, so too can the roamers -> roamers cover more area for less man power in less time. 10 solo roamers can cover every supply line on a borderland. 10 zergers cannot do this and zerging every supply line means you 0 standing army ready to go or moving on the map to pressure anything.

This is why the yaks rewards are structured as such. There is reward for a small group of 10 (when did this become a zerg anyway?) but the damage is best done by people soloing them but such a damaging maneuver earns a lesser reward as a sort of personal sacrifice for the server.

Dynnen.6405:

U
N
C
A
P

T
H
E

A
O
E

Buy siege, use line spells, stop posting this.

Vena.8436:

Otokomae.9356:

So… 1 solo roamer gets 1 point from killing a Yak. On the other side of the map, a 10-man-group gets 10 points for killing another Yak. “Which of those two scenarios is actually more damaging to the enemy’s supply chain?”

Your logic is off:

• 10 solo roamers can kill 10 yaks for ten points, denying 700-1400 supply from the enem(y)ies.
• 10 zergers can kill 1 yak for ten points, denying 70-140 supply.

Even if the zergers move, so too can the roamers -> roamers cover more area for less man power in less time. 10 solo roamers can cover every supply line on a borderland. 10 zergers cannot do this and zerging every supply line means you 0 standing army ready to go or moving on the map to pressure anything.

This is why the yaks rewards are structured as such. There is reward for a small group of 10 (when did this become a zerg anyway?) but the damage is best done by people soloing them but such a damaging maneuver earns a lesser reward as a sort of personal sacrifice for the server.

This. WvW is fundamentally structured to reward LESS for MORE effective play and vice versa. This kind of ridiculous system controls skill differences so that instead of bad players whining about how they can’t get any points they don’t deserve, you have good players whining about how they can’t get any points they do deserve (Guess which one’s the majority?). Because obviously that noob ranger who pew pews behind 5 allies should get more xp/wxp off a solo roamer that’s been alive for the past x-hours than that solo roamer stomping said noob ranger while 5 allies try to revive/interrupt/kill. No offense to any rangers.

ExZee.8109:

This. WvW is fundamentally structured to reward LESS for MORE effective play and vice versa. This kind of ridiculous system controls skill differences so that instead of bad players whining about how they can’t get any points they don’t deserve, you have good players whining about how they can’t get any points they do deserve (Guess which one’s the majority?). Because obviously that noob ranger who pew pews behind 5 allies should get more xp/wxp off a solo roamer that’s been alive for the past x-hours than that solo roamer stomping said noob ranger while 5 allies try to revive/interrupt/kill. No offense to any rangers.

The individual soloers still get full reward for their yak kills, I was speaking of point breakdowns and why the yak is worth less for a solo kill rather than a group of up to 10. There’s not much to be done in such a scenario to better reward the soloer (in terms of personal reward) but you could take steps to less reward the zerger, though I don’t necessarily think that is necessary.

What I’m talking about is balance on the part of how points are rewarded to the server vs. the functions provided. That is to say that something that provides a lot of X will provide less of Y, so for example 5 soloers soloing five yaks rewards only 5 points but denies 350+ supply while a five-man killing a yak gains 5 points instantly but only denies 70+ supply but they can also flip the camp more quickly.
The yaks in the end are a matter of balance on ten or more people killing a yak:

• Less likely and common than a soloer ganking them.
• More manpower intensive outside of coincidental convergence.
• Incapable of covering the same territory as an equal number of soloers

So they earn more points in the instance where they have killed that yak, but in the meantime the soloers have denied much more supply (probably killed as many yaks anyway, making the point idea moot to begin with), covered more ground as scouts, and in general done more favor to their server than some 10 points to the scoreboard.

Straegen.2938:

IMO enemy groups of 25+ should show on the maps. Large moving groups should have some disadvantages but nothing terribly game breaking.

This is why we have scouts. Your solution would make mindless zerging even more mindless.

Vena.8436:

What I’m talking about is balance on the part of how points are rewarded to the server vs. the functions provided. That is to say that something that provides a lot of X will provide less of Y, so for example 5 soloers soloing five yaks rewards only 5 points but denies 350+ supply while a five-man killing a yak gains 5 points instantly but only denies 70+ supply but they can also flip the camp more quickly.
The yaks in the end are a matter of balance on ten or more people killing a yak:

• Less likely and common than a soloer ganking them.
• More manpower intensive outside of coincidental convergence.
• Incapable of covering the same territory as an equal number of soloers

So they earn more points in the instance where they have killed that yak, but in the meantime the soloers have denied much more supply (probably killed as many yaks anyway, making the point idea moot to begin with), covered more ground as scouts, and in general done more favor to their server than some 10 points to the scoreboard.

This is still terribly unbalanced, because you’re assuming a best-case scenario for the server that’s sending out solo Yak-slappers. If a server outnumbers their opponent by a wide enough margin (not a very big IF, since it happens a lot) that they can station Yak-slapping TEAMS on as many routes as their opponent can put solo yak-killers on, then the server with greater numbers is going to get a whopping 10 TIMES MORE POINTS for no other reason than that they simply put more people on the field. They also deny EXACTLY the same amount of supply as their opponents. This situation gets worse when you consider that, if the cap on Yak points is in fact 10, then points from Yak-slapping is potentially TWICE the ppt available from ALL TOWERS, CAMPS, & KEEPS COMBINED!

Now, I’m not aware of a server-wide attempt to really maximize points from Yaks, but if a large enough group decided to put all their manpower into this round the clock, it would make the Supply you listed above completely insignificant, since you could literally ignore every other part of the game and still win a WvW matchup by a wide margin. This all depends on what the point-cap for Yaks is, since we still need clarification from the Devs on this, but the most commonly referenced number is 10 points, which would mean that Yak-slapping alone could give a potential +1,440 PPT if a server really decided to maximize these points. As it is now, it is still a hidden mechanic, since it wasn’t even acknowledged to exist at all until yesterday. But if a server that was really bent on winning knew that they could trade all the Supply you have listed in your example for an above +1,000 PPT, they would probably consider that a good trade.

TLDR: 10 points (same as a Tower) > 1 Yak worth of supply

Vena.8436:

The individual soloers still get full reward for their yak kills, I was speaking of point breakdowns and why the yak is worth less for a solo kill rather than a group of up to 10. There’s not much to be done in such a scenario to better reward the soloer (in terms of personal reward) but you could take steps to less reward the zerger, though I don’t necessarily think that is necessary.

What I’m talking about is balance on the part of how points are rewarded to the server vs. the functions provided. That is to say that something that provides a lot of X will provide less of Y, so for example 5 soloers soloing five yaks rewards only 5 points but denies 350+ supply while a five-man killing a yak gains 5 points instantly but only denies 70+ supply but they can also flip the camp more quickly.
The yaks in the end are a matter of balance on ten or more people killing a yak:

• Less likely and common than a soloer ganking them.
• More manpower intensive outside of coincidental convergence.
• Incapable of covering the same territory as an equal number of soloers

So they earn more points in the instance where they have killed that yak, but in the meantime the soloers have denied much more supply (probably killed as many yaks anyway, making the point idea moot to begin with), covered more ground as scouts, and in general done more favor to their server than some 10 points to the scoreboard.

The balance you speak of only applies to the server and that’s fine. That’s not my point anyway. My point is what’s being rewarded to the soloer since his efforts are obviously greater than a group member’s. It remains a fact that it’s much riskier and harder to roam alone compared to being in a small group (especially if you come across enemy players rather than just focusing on yaks) and this difference in skill requirement is completely disregarded in your and wvw’s balancing formula. Added to the fact that your conclusion states that roamers have done more than just earn an equivalent amount of points (scouting, and in general done more favor to their server than some 10 points to the scoreboard), there’s absolutely nothing in-game that confirms this form of effectiveness. Like I said, the more effective you are in this game, the less you are rewarded. And if “less rewarded” means less in relevance to what should be earned rather than relevance to what a zergling earns, then that’s what “less” means. You say there’s not much to be done in such a scenario to better reward the soloer. I say you’re wrong, and especially when it comes to WXP.

WhiteAndMilky.2514:

Straegen.2938:

IMO enemy groups of 25+ should show on the maps. Large moving groups should have some disadvantages but nothing terribly game breaking.

This is why we have scouts. Your solution would make mindless zerging even more mindless.

The best solution would be a WvW rank ability called “Zerg Scouting” that would allow you flash Zerg locations on the map, provided you had a fairly close line of sight. Zergs would either have to split up to avoid the scouting cap, or have their own scouts gibbing enemy scouts.

Otokomae.9356:

As it is now, it is still a hidden mechanic, since it wasn’t even acknowledged to exist at all until yesterday.

We’ve known about this for more than a month if not far longer, the only new information is the clarity on how points are calculated.

Otokomae.9356:

But if a server that was really bent on winning knew that they could trade all the Supply you have listed in your example for an above +1,000 PPT, they would probably consider that a good trade.

No they wouldn’t. They would never win if they let every single yak be killed, do you realize how silly and absurd that sounds? Ten soloers shutting down every supply route to your keeps and towers would make you literally have an order of magnitude more people escorting those yaks and murdering every single thing that moves on the map, rabbits included.

Otokomae.9356:

TLDR: 10 points (same as a Tower) > 1 Yak worth of supply

You are still failing at basic logistics here: 10 points requires 10 people you cannot compare this to 1 point requiring 1 person. Its 10 vs. 10 or 1 vs. 1 but not 10 vs. 1 thats not how scientific arguments or logic work.

ExZee.8109:

It remains a fact that it’s much riskier and harder to roam alone compared to being in a small group (especially if you come across enemy players rather than just focusing on yaks) and this difference in skill requirement is completely disregarded in your and wvw’s balancing formula.

Its not anywhere near a fact.

A soloer (usually a mobile class) is hard to catch. Its also hilariously stupid when 20 people are chasing said 1 person who is, more than likely, specced for mobility. If you see a thief soloing a yak, unless he’s tunneled visioned or improperly specced, you’re never going to catch him unless he suicides for the yak. The only soloer who will ever be finding it harder to survive than in a group setting is either (a.) not very good or (b.) not very aware of his surroundings. You’d have to have your camera pinned against a wall to not see a zerg coming for you from a mile away.

ExZee.8109:

Added to the fact that your conclusion states that roamers have done more than just earn an equivalent amount of points (scouting, and in general done more favor to their server than some 10 points to the scoreboard), there’s absolutely nothing in-game that confirms this form of effectiveness.

Sure there is:

• Winning
• Holding your property

ExZee.8109:

Like I said, the more effective you are in this game, the less you are rewarded. And if “less rewarded” means less in relevance to what should be earned rather than relevance to what a zergling earns, then that’s what “less” means. You say there’s not much to be done in such a scenario to better reward the soloer. I say you’re wrong, and especially when it comes to WXP.

I don’t disagree that the reward formula is borked but its hard to objectively define effectiveness because nothing is clear cut. A scout could be an afk-er, how do you discern? I kill a yak that was going to a tower with maxed supply… why would I be rewarded for that? I was running around in the open field looking to gank… stumbled upokittenerg. Why is this meriting a reward?

I dont like roamers. I prefer large zergs. If you want to solo roam play spvp.

Vena.8436:

Otokomae.9356:

As it is now, it is still a hidden mechanic, since it wasn’t even acknowledged to exist at all until yesterday.

We’ve known about this for more than a month if not far longer, the only new information is the clarity on how points are calculated.

We on the forums, and many hardcore WvWers knew that Yaks were adding points. As recently as this weekend, there were people arguing vehemently for at least a dozen different theories as to how this mechanic worked, and most of them were absolutely certain that they were right (almost no one seemed to believe that Yaks awarded points based on the number of people tagging it, which has now been confirmed by a Dev.)

This is still a very small minority of the people playing GW2. It’s a “hidden mechanic” until the exact points added are listed the way PPT is listed, or the points pop up above a Yaks head every time they die, or Anet puts up some official page explaining how all the points in WvW works, or something like that. If we have to go through this much trouble for 8 months to figure out even 1/2 of this mechanic, then it’s a hidden mechanic. Many, many players still don’t even know that Yaks or anything else aside from basic structures can award any points for the server at all.

Vena.8436:

Otokomae.9356:

But if a server that was really bent on winning knew that they could trade all the Supply you have listed in your example for an above +1,000 PPT, they would probably consider that a good trade.

No they wouldn’t. They would never win if they let every single yak be killed, do you realize how silly and absurd that sounds? Ten soloers shutting down every supply route to your keeps and towers would make you literally have an order of magnitude more people escorting those yaks and murdering every single thing that moves on the map, rabbits included.

I never said “let every single yak be killed”, or anything like that. Owning NO structures or camps at all, and simply maximizing the points available from Yaks alone, a server could maintain a +1,440 PPT, if the 10-point cap is correct. The other 2 servers COMBINED would be splitting a +695 PPT from Structures and Camps between them. I know it SOUNDS absurd, but the server in this example who maximizes points from Yaks while holding NO towers/keeps/camps still wins.

1,440 > 695, right? If you believe that 695 is a larger number than 1,440, you’ll need to explain that a little more.

Vena.8436:

Otokomae.9356:

TLDR: 10 points (same as a Tower) > 1 Yak worth of supply

You are still failing at basic logistics here: 10 points requires 10 people you cannot compare this to 1 point requiring 1 person. Its 10 vs. 10 or 1 vs. 1 but not 10 vs. 1 thats not how scientific arguments or logic work.

In this game it can be and often IS 10 points vs 1 point. That’s what this whole conversation is about. There is no rule that says that 1 server with a much greater population can’t put 10-man teams on each Yak route.

I roam everyday with 1 to 3 others as a professional gank roaming grp. With a fix in culling, I see no issues. IF you can kill 5 enemies with your group of 3 , i feel sorry for that person. Learn how to ASSIST!

I’ve already said dozen of times that if you don’t like zergs, go play protoss…

No one listens…

Malediktus.9250:

I dont like roamers. I prefer large zergs. If you want to solo roam play spvp.

Why? Are you crap at 1v1’s?

Straegen.2938:

IMO enemy groups of 25+ should show on the maps. Large moving groups should have some disadvantages but nothing terribly game breaking.

I think that could be game breaking though. Zergs would either constantly run into each other. Or continuously avoid each other.

Besides roamers currently have a role in scouting zergs. That system works fine.

Doyen.7063:

I agree with Oto, zerging a yak, shouldn’t provide more points than a solo player slapping it. I also think that a small % increase should be given for the roamers when they cap sentries and camps. For instance Supply Camps PPT are 5, then why not provide an instant +5 points to the servers score if its capped by 5 or fewer players +3 for 5-10 players and none for any more than 10.
A similar thing could be worked for defending an area. Today we had 10 invaders attacking Klovan, Im generally by myself so I shout on map chat that I need 5 or so players to come to Klovan to help me wipe the group attacking it…. no one comes and the group destroy’s the cannons/oil. I continue to shout that I need a few ppl come to help wipe, 30 seconds later our entire EB zerg comes and wipes them 70-80 ppl to wipe 10 players. Pathetic really.
Why not lower the reward for a successful defence of a tower by a zerg, but double it for say less than 10 players, likewise with camps and such.
I’m not saying these are great ideas, but the community needs to help the developers come up with creative solutions to stop the 70 – 80 zergs and promote the 15-20 man groups relieving seiges.

I think these are great ideas!

Split wxp between the people who are hitting a target. 60 people attacking a lone roamer (with full wxp) would get 1 point, while the roaming would get 60 for killing one of them.
If they are more people than points that the target will give as a reward, only the first or the higest dmg dealer would get their share.

I like the idea of this, to be honest.. I myself roam alot, and indeed: Capping a camp takes me 2 minutes, but yields the same Wxp should I have done it with a massive zerg behind me (capping it in seconds). And isn’t the point in experience points normally that you gain more when the challenge is bigger?

And the remark: if you want to roam solo, play PvP? Dude, there is a lot more in WvW with roaming around on your own then just finding an opponent and killing it.
I prefer the stealthy approach (I’m no thief, btw): Cap a camp, head over to other side of the map and cap a camp there, WP back and cap another camp. Keeps the defending zerg quite busy recapping and speculating where you’ll be hitting next. The only times I kill opponents is when they start interfering while I’m capturing something.. For the rest I like to avoid battle as much as possible (keep them in the dark about that “group” capping their points).

I hate sPvP, but love solo WvW..

Malediktus.9250:

I dont like roamers. I prefer large zergs. If you want to solo roam play spvp.

Run around in a large blob and spam buttons is fun for you? Cool you should go PvE sounds like you would enjoy large scale DEs.

See how easy it is to just tell someone to go do something else?

Vena.8436:

Its not anywhere near a fact.

A soloer (usually a mobile class) is hard to catch. Its also hilariously stupid when 20 people are chasing said 1 person who is, more than likely, specced for mobility. If you see a thief soloing a yak, unless he’s tunneled visioned or improperly specced, you’re never going to catch him unless he suicides for the yak. The only soloer who will ever be finding it harder to survive than in a group setting is either (a.) not very good or (b.) not very aware of his surroundings. You’d have to have your camera pinned against a wall to not see a zerg coming for you from a mile away.

I don’t play the hypothetical combat game. Your examples only hold grounds on specific builds and specific situations that only caters to serve your argument. Not all soloers are a thief and not all soloers are specced for mobility. Not all group roamers are lacking in skill enough to let one roamer get away and not always is the soloer fighting enemies that start and end as a group. I’ve had plenty of examples where I’d be fighting one or two and additional reinforcements gank me while I’m focused in combat so your (a) and (b) are as useless in practicality as the rest of your hypothetical argument.

Vena.8436:

Sure there is:

• Winning
• Holding your property

“There’s absolutely nothing in-game that confirms this form of effectiveness for the player (as a personal reward)”. Hope that clears it up.

Vena.8436:

I don’t disagree that the reward formula is borked but its hard to objectively define effectiveness because nothing is clear cut. A scout could be an afk-er, how do you discern? I kill a yak that was going to a tower with maxed supply… why would I be rewarded for that? I was running around in the open field looking to gank… stumbled upokittenerg. Why is this meriting a reward?

It’s so obvious in your sentences that you haven’t thought much about the topic at all.
1. The game has a great afk-timer that kicks you out of the game. First question is pretty dumb.
2. Not very hard to scale reward based on how much the supply the yak is carrying, and what the current supply of the tower it’s delivering to. Also not hard to keep track of the number of times a player has denied supply to a certain tower, which means increased rewards for returning to/camping specific supply routes, which would then consequently increase yak escorting (which would also have scaled rewarding with data that keeps track of how many consecutive times a player has escorted a yak traveling a specific route) and subconsequently lower the number of zerglings.
3. I’m sure someone could suggest a much more creative idea for this one, but one feature I’ve had in mind for awhile is marking places on the map. I scout a zerg and mark the location for my allies and commanders to see. If an enemy zerg is indeed there the server gives me credibility points so that while anybody can spam places on the map, credible ones would stand out. Vice versa, spamming useless points on the map would make me lose credibility points until I can’t spam any points anymore.

Nothing is “clear cut” because that’s how the current WvW is designed. Which has been basically my point all along. If WvW wanted to increase rewards for roamers, there are literally an infinite number of ways of doing so. Honestly the conclusion for me here is that you haven’t given it much thought at all and simply trying to come up with reasons on the fly.

Mixed feeling on the roaming thing. During the day (EST) I run with a buddy. We sometimes roam, we sometimes follow the zerg. We can, and do easily take camps, kill Yaks, guard points etc. This helps our server of course and is actually the only thing we can do (T3, and can not fight the number imbalance at this time of day)
Having said that, I actually wish they would make it tougher to do. Would like to see guards, camps, etc tougher. For me personally I like the large group (zerg) of WvW. If I want to show my 1v1 skill (truthfully I suck) then that is what Spvp supplies.
What I would like to see is larger maps, more objectives that would break up the giant 100+ zerg that is happening now into smaller 20 man zergs to be effective

We need more than two options to group. Commander zerg or 5 person limit is not enough. If we had a way to create private squads for multiple groups perhaps we’d get more medium size forces running around.

If we had the tools, people would use them.

First, who cares about wxp? You get some lackluster skills as you level up. Furthermore, you get a title that the enemy can see. Again, who cares?

If you enjoy zerging, zerg. If you enjoy roaming, roam. Look at it this way…. if everyone is zerging, that means there will be more opportunities for you to capture things while roaming,

Ahmrill.7512:

We need more than two options to group. Commander zerg or 5 person limit is not enough. If we had a way to create private squads for multiple groups perhaps we’d get more medium size forces running around.

If we had the tools, people would use them.

I can only figure that commander system is there to make anet some cash…. Other games did this (recent example, Warhammer). Warbands of four groups, can make public or private… pretty simple solution.

Instead we have people spending a ton of cash to get a commander title..which evidently makes them ‘world leaders’ that must manage every WvW player in the zone….instead of just leaders of a large group….at least according to all the nerds in map chat.