Guild Wars 2

Zerg

Y – One might say zerging is a legitimate tactic, and being most effective, is certainly valid and should be used.

X – But zerging is not effective at all; using 80 people to capture a supply camp is not a sign of efficiency, rather the contrary.

Y – If it’s so inefficient, why do the top tier servers use it? It MUST be effective.

X – Because of several reasons. First off, out there, some players still play for their server; aka run supplies, use trebs, use siege, backcap supply camps, scout, roam the map. Second, simply because it’s the easiest thing to do, and if the other servers are zerging, there is no reason our own shouldn’t.

Y – Well you just answered your own problem… if it’s easy to do, and allows a certain degree of efficiency, and everybody’s doing it, then what’s wrong?

X – Because of a simple reason people lose track of when they are given small incentives such as WXP ranks; fun. Many WvW players argue that these past few weeks have not been fun at all. Logging in to run in a big zerg-train capturing undefended objectives is definitely boring. On the other side, why attempt to fight in a defended zone when you can just shift to the next zone, and capture, undefended, other keeps?

Y – Again, you’re citing legitimate tactics to win.

X – Yes, but ask yourself what do you play this game for? Is it to win, or is it to have fun? I believe that if the game is done right, winning IS fun. In the current state of the game, winning is.. not necessarily fun at all. Shouldn’t the game mechanics be adapted to encourage skirmishes, dividing troops to various sectors of the map, thus bringing so much more depths and complexity to WvW?

Y – But zerging has always been present in other WvW/RvR/Open world PVP games. Nothing can stop this tactic, because it allows the masses to play. So you’re telling me all past games were not fun?

X – In this debate, it is important to be able to utilize abstraction. Nothing is absolute. Yes, zerging has been present in other MMOs, but never has a zerg been as overwhelming as it is presently in GW2. This is due to several things.

Y – Which are..?

X – The design of the maps, which favor chokepoints and the proximity of objectives. This ultimately leads to the fact that a single large force can cover much of the whole map. Then, the AoE cap limit and the downed system, which makes the zerg nearly unkillable. In other games, yes, a zerg is big, but it is possible to pick people off and kill people. With the downed system, it is extremely easy for a zerg to stay cohesive and strong.

Y – You are just repeating what has been said already.

X – That is untrue. My argument resides in the fact that WvW would be more fun if the zerginess became still present, but less overwhelming, with more incentive to detach from the zerg, or forming several large groups of 30, rather than a single force of 80 people. It is a philosophical point of view; I want people to realize what this game COULD become with a little help from the developers

Y – Just quit the game then, if you’re unhappy.

X – GW2 is, according to me, the greatest MMORPG released in the past few years, and nothing will outmatch it in the foreseeable future. The combat mechanics are great, the flow is great, fighting is fun. Abstraction is once again important. I’m simply stating that zerging takes away from the combat mechanic, the manifesto, the flow, the fighting, the smoothness and the epic, immersive feel of the game and turns it into button smashing, lagging and un-epic feel. I believe this game could be great, given several small changes.

Y – What are you talking about? Zergs are exactly what creates an epic, massive feel to WvW.

X – Again, I’m calling for abstraction. I did not say zergs should not exist, or do not provide what I stated above. I’m stating that past a certain point, it stops being so. When a 30 person zerg and another 30 person zerg collide, there is most definitely an epic feel to it, much more so than a 80 man zerg taking down, undefended, a keep, or that 80 man zerg occasionally (very rarely) runs into another 80 man zerg, creating massive, huge, unplayable, frustrating lag that reminds us of the imperfections and technical issues of the game.

Y – So you meakittenerg is still fun and fulfills its role, but has a certain threshold that makes it not so fun? And do you mean all those people complaining about ANet’s servers are being crybabies?

X – Yes. ArenaNet’s servers are fine to handle any reasonable amount of fighting. It’s simply the sheer size of these zergs that are causing these problems. If the zone were to thin out, skirmishes would be more present, with less lag.

Y – Okay. All this talk is great, but please give some concrete solutions.

X – In the forseeable future, I propose 3 solutions that will not require drastic action, such as changing the maps. First, allow the formation of smaller “warband” parties of 20 people. That’s step 1, and will allow the masses to participate in spreading out tactically the zone. Next, increase the AoE cap to 10. This will greatly solve the “stacking up” into a blob issue that is currently a norm in the higher tier servers. This tactic is nor fun, nor realistic. Third, give incentive for smaller groups to skirmish, such as a reward system that splits WXP rather than giving it equally.

Y – That last point.. it’s contrary to ANet’s philosophy.

X – Yes, and I’m a big fan of that philosophy. However, let’s face it. Ultimately, this game would be more fun that way. It would allow the combat mechanics to fully be used in depths, and allow several ranges of players to enjoy the game, which is also in their philosophy. Not all of us want to be in the main zerg.

Y – Well thanks for this discussion. Even if there may be some flaws, I believe that the general idea makes perfect sense. Promoting a less zergy game would 1) appeal more to the masses, since zergs would be ranging from 20-40 people instead of 70+. 2) This means less lag in general. 3) this would also allow a new layer of depths and need of coordination. 4) this would greatly please the players that are more oriented towards fighting other players, rather than playing siege. 5) siege-fighting would be still present, and equally rewarding.

Bottom line, let’s face it. 40 + 20 + 20 is more fun than 75 + 5. Against 40, we feel overwhelmed, epic and part of something awesome. Against 75, we just feel laggy, powerless, slow.

Thanks for reading!

Fighting in or against zergs of 70+ is not fun for me.

So yes, I agree with this.

That having been said, if you have anything near equal numbers and the enemy is running in one zerg of 70, it’s really really easy to beat them. You might not ever beat them in direct combat until you consolidate your own forces, but you will be capping much more than they are even if you split your forces just into two parts.

Anet want zergs. I don’t like it but I see the reason behind it. People who zerg are the 90% of the wvw players they pay the bills. Keep the little fish(zerglings) happy the sharks (roamers) will take care of themselves.

Mogar.9216:

Anet want zergs. I don’t like it but I see the reason behind it. People who zerg are the 90% of the wvw players they pay the bills. Keep the little fish(zerglings) happy the sharks (roamers) will take care of themselves.

That’s exactly what I detail in my post. Even that 90% does not want 80 man zergs. They want 30 or 40 man zergs.

Teamkiller.4315:

Fighting in or against zergs of 70+ is not fun for me.

So yes, I agree with this.

That having been said, if you have anything near equal numbers and the enemy is running in one zerg of 70, it’s really really easy to beat them. You might not ever beat them in direct combat until you consolidate your own forces, but you will be capping much more than they are even if you split your forces just into two parts.

Beating the zerg is not the point, though. Beating them in a fun, un-laggy manner is.

From past experiences in open world pvp/wvw games, zergs are inevitable. Just in this game they seem harder to avoid due to the smaller maps. I applaud your attempts at trying to get ppl to see things your way, but they are going to do what they want and the majority seem to prefer running in zergs atm. Maybe it is fun for them.

The problem is:

• Zergs can bash down doors faster than defense can show up
• Standing idle on defense is hard to do when you know you could be out there zerging for gold, karma, XP and realm points.
• Supply camps are indefensible versus zergs. 5 people can’t even slow down 40+.

I would start fixing this by removing golems from the game and making rams cost 100 supply, in order to make it harder for a zerg to swiftly bash down doors.

Slamz.5376:

I would start fixing this by removing golems from the game and making rams cost 100 supply, in order to make it harder for a zerg to swiftly bash down doors.

This wouldn’t be a fix because in order to actually get a ram going without having to run supply (and risk your half built siege being destroyed while you are not defending it) you would need at least 10 people. That’s against a paper gate. If you want to destroy a reinforced gate in time you need at least 2-3 regular rams, which means 20-30 man zergs would be needed without running supply. That’s not even considering superior rams, which at its current state cast 166% of the supply of a normal one, which means if you plan to use superiors to bash a gate down you’re going to need at least a rather large number of people.

IMO this change would make people gravitate towards even larger groups.

Yeah. Gotta motivate ppl towards smaller group play. No reason to break from the zerg when there’s nothing really else to offer ppl. PPT just doesn’t matter enough to most. I would agree with a slight up tick for AoE as well.

Slamz.5376:

The problem is:

• Zergs can bash down doors faster than defense can show up
• Standing idle on defense is hard to do when you know you could be out there zerging for gold, karma, XP and realm points.
• Supply camps are indefensible versus zergs. 5 people can’t even slow down 40+.

I would start fixing this by removing golems from the game and making rams cost 100 supply, in order to make it harder for a zerg to swiftly bash down doors.

Gates should absolutely go down quick to a zerg if you are not there to defend.

No one to not enought to use siege on the rams is your sides fault.

Increasing the cost of rams hurts small man operations on towers and doesn’t change the fact that a large zerg is still going to run over a tower, or they just use catapults on a wall.

The reason zergs are effective, is because of RI. I zerg a camp, and you cant take it back for 5 minutes. If RI was gone small groups can run from larger groups and retake field objectives quickly if the larger group leaves. Obviously the devs will need to adjust the DE rewards for quickly reflipped camps to prevent exploiting this for fast exp/karma/wxp gains but it would allow small man operations to become more than a minor inconvenience.

Rofl +1 Con that has to be one of the best OP’s I have seen on a forums lol. Your points with included and ready counter points.

But, but but…. i like Zergs!
Since last patch removed the culling it got even better. Right now we’re having a realy epic hourlong fight at an enemys BL. Zergsize on both sides is 60-90 with some smaller zerg defending important structures and calling for help when a big zerg arrives. We more or less played this kind of game for a long time in EU-Mid-Tier and it’s a lot of fun and we all get a realy big amount of wxp and lootbags. And everyone likes it on our server. Midweek slows down a bit in size and battle frequency but it’s still a lot of fun with a lot of defendingand taking points.
We like it:D

Please read the whole post. It’s worth it.

Very good post, worth the read.
Tho i must say that all of this blob hating relies on something you have stated plenty of times, which is LAG. I personally see no problem in blobbing, it is a legitimate tactic, specially for pug-servers, but i think if there was absolutely no LAG, wiping a 70 men blob with 30-40 good guys would be possible and epic aswell.
So for me the real problem is LAG, nothing else.

Very well written post. I agree with all of your points and I love how you utilized an argument/counter-argument strategy to convey your ideas.

I’m personally not a fan of BLOB strategy either…it HEAVILY rewards incorrect positioning when in reality (and most other games), BLOBs would get instantly gibbed from AoE. While I’m not asking for the removal of BLOBs completely, an AoE increase cap would force people to position themselves strategically. Isn’t this what the game is all about? Players SHOULD be worried about their position and they SHOULD be weary AoE fields…not blobbing up together to completely mitigate its effects.

The solutions are simple, elegant, and would go a long way in fixing the current boring and stale mentality of zergs. A long term solution would also be the redesigning of the WvW maps to include smaller/medium sized objectives while still having room for larger zerg vs zerg combat.

Of course its a legitimate tactic, however its based on broken AoE mechanics that Anet hasnt bothered fixing. The fact that there is both a 5 target limit and no limit to the amount that can hit you means zergs always always always have the advantage. The bigger the better. 50 vs 10? No problem, the 10 will struggle to hit everyone due to target limit while each of them in turn can get hit by 25 people.

Anet clearly want this or they wouldnt have gone through such efforts to make it like this.

A lot of you guys are overlooking a huge problem with AOE cap. It won’t stop 50 people from killing 10, in fact it’ll make it a lot easier. How?

“Guardians pop Stand your Ground. Mesmers, signet of inspiration. Everyone else blast this light field”

Everyone who was AOE’ing? Instagibbed, especially since along with the AOE target cap removal you guys are also suggesting that the damage be toned downed when it hits more targets, the zerg won’t die, and retaliation damage to classes with high AOE would be absolutely absurd.

I suggest increasing the cap to maybe 10, no more than that. Currently Whenever my Guardian pops a reflect wall I typically take several thousand damage from people shooting into the wall and retaliating their OWN reflected projectiles onto me. Imagine the new meta “everyone stack retaliation, these noobs will own themselves”.

Godot – Yo guys I’m here for the wexp where da zerg @

zastari.1730:

Godot – Yo guys I’m here for the wexp where da zerg @

I think if Anet just fixed the skill lag and fps drop, increase population cap and increase the map x4 times what it is now, with a lot more waypoints, zergs would be fun to play in.

I suggest increasing the cap to maybe 10, no more than that. Currently Whenever my Guardian pops a reflect wall I typically take several thousand damage from people shooting into the wall and retaliating their OWN reflected projectiles onto me. Imagine the new meta “everyone stack retaliation, these noobs will own themselves”.

and then two zergs are just standing there, keeping the lame retaliation up and waiting for the enemy to do something…

In order to break up zergs you have to give more reasons to the smaller groups to exist. Right now you get the same exp and what not if 1 person takes a camp or if 100 take it (assuming everyone gets hits and gets in the right spot). Instead make the 1 man get a scaled amount of exp in comparison to the zerg. Buff the small groups. Set the base rewards at say 25 (amount needed to pull oranges), scale up rewards for less than that, and scale down for more than that. Second change up the down/rally system. Ikittenerg it’s much easier to keep people rezzed up and rallying when 1 person can tag countless others. Limit that number so that when a 10 man skilled group is fighting that 20 man pug group, that one guy who dies doesn’t rally the 7 from the larger group who tagged him. Small things like this I would think would greatly push towards smaller groups having an edge.

Convenant, I couldn’t agree with you more!

I have two possible crazy fixes that could work (obviously nothings perfect, but its a start)

Anet needs to come up with a debuff on groups larger than 40 or so. The debuff could be a percentage debuff on all stats and attributes. If there are 60 people, that is 50% more people then the max of 40, so all stats on all 60 people are scaled back by 50% including siege damage. (something like that)

The other would be a buff activated by roaming in groups less then 10-20 that gives a bonus of some type. Double WXP, or 10% increase to all stats, 35% increase in supply efficiency.

There are so many ways Anet could add a debuff or aura buff (Siegerazer for example does both – counts players in an area, and also applies an aura buff) to discourage zerging.

Doing something like that would not even change the game much! True guild groups that like to run in groups of 30 get to continue building on what they do and the tactics they use without any huge adjustments, while people can no longer steamroll people because of sheer numbers.

DER|P is in the works of turning this phenomenal script into a hit opera!

I mean.. it started off as an opera but… if you know DER|P than you know the maturity of our players.

I think a good way to limit the zergs would be to make it the larger the group the slower the movement speed.

This would encourage people to only group up to hit targets that they need large numbers for and also help small groups get away from mass zergs.

I like the ideas listed above. But I think small map size, easily mowed down objectives (keeps taken in like 15mins) and the lack of objective points for smaller groups are crux of the issue.

But there is no tradeoffs in running a zerg. Whole zerg can recaptured the same objectives you have taken much quickly that a smaller group did. They can cap objectives and run across the map to defend another. A 10 man defense does little to slow a 40 man zerg down. It becomes a numbers game.

Defenders need enough time to organize their force. When the zerg increases to around >40 people, objective falls ridiculously fast and there needs time to form an large enough force to defend the objective.

There needs to be diminishing returns on running zerg. For example, doors can only be damaged by seige, outmanned stat buff, splitting WExp points, scaling guards to defenders deficeit, guards running siege equipment, increasing the power of AOE siege equipments, removing hard rezzing etc.

Towers and Keeps need to function not only as objective points but tactically superior defensive points. AOEs that keep defenders off walls (defenders need LOS to land their AOEs but not invaders), hitting siege within a keep, trebbing from another tower should not be allowed.

Right now there is little reason to defend objectives, either because you are totally outmanned, or you can wait for your zerg force cap it back quickly. And of course Wexp farming compounds the issue. Zergs have no reason to split.

AOE limit is affects other balance issues (like AOE v single target ) and I think the larger issue is that they do not balance Wvw alone but with PVE…

It is fine if bigger maps cant be created. But there needs to be a philosophy that discourages zerging.

Carebears like both zerging and the item mall, so what do you expect? Zerging is NOT going to be tuned down.

UMBALIEVABLE! Why arnt you working for Anet yet Conv?

Master of Timespace.2548:

Carebears like both zerging and the item mall, so what do you expect? Zerging is NOT going to be tuned down.

Please read the whole post. The idea is; even carebears hate 75v75 fights.

Zerging is boring, slow, and drags me down to 7 fps.

Truthfully, I haven’t been playing WvW much lately (or gw in general) because my computer (that I spent nearly $3000 on a year ago) has a mini-stroke anytime a group of 60+ are even nearby. I love the lootbags, don’t get me wrong, but I find myself crashing before I can even pick them up! lol

Evalakitten480:

Zerging is boring, slow, and drags me down to 7 fps.

Truthfully, I haven’t been playing WvW much lately (or gw in general) because my computer (that I spent nearly $3000 on a year ago) has a mini-stroke anytime a group of 60+ are even nearby. I love the lootbags, don’t get me wrong, but I find myself crashing before I can even pick them up! lol

Eva, that is precisely my point. If you were to fight two groups of 30 instead of a single group of 60, it would be equally rewarding, with less lag.

If you want to counter a zerg there are ways to do it.

One of their greatest weaknesses is their visual signature on the map. They are a giant mass of flesh that should be easily scouted. This allows the defenders time to get to towers and keeps for defence. Due to the size of the map however, your time to mobilize a defence is probably under 2 minutes.

So how does a greatly outnumbered group hold off the zerg? Well they should start with sufficient defensive siege at all their keeps and towers. 10 defenders at the helm of that siege stand a good chance of holding them back. This of course doesn’t guarantee success however since you will still need folks flipping camps and taking supply to keep your walls repaired and to replace destroyed siege equipment. It does greatly reduce the immediate impact a horde has on a borderland.

You will also notice that a lot of these massive groups have a portion of low level or weak characters that are new to wvw. They hide in large groups for safety so size does not always equal power.

I think the game is going through another evolution in wvw at the moment and will need some fresh eyes to see what can counter these blob strategies.

See you out there

Increase AoE cap…
How about no?
First, laying down AoE have nothing common with skill. Running around ppl and pressing “5” – same as running in zerg and pressing “1”. Absolutely dumb gameplay, and make it rewarding – just lame.
Second, it will destroy PvP balance even further. Such large buff to elementalist – no, no, no and no. Never.

Interesting read. You make some valid points about zerging in general, as well as at least one sensible suggestion, but I do have some nitpicks:

- Your title is perhaps unnecessarily provocative, in that it paints the debate as “zerg vs. non-zerg”, whereas most players probably appreciate aspects of both zerg and small skirmish styles of play. We’re probably better off if we don’t start thinking of the discussion in terms of those two pigeonholes.

- ‘Efficient’ and ‘Effective’ are not the same thing. Zerging IS effective, in that it gets the job done, quite thoroughly. It is not always efficient, as you describe. Even with that being said, it still has a certain efficiency from the view of the individual player, whose chances of survival are greater with the zerg than alone or in a small group. This makes it an efficient use of that player’s time, in reducing respawns and long runs back to the battle. This doesn’t negate your larger argument, but it should be considered when devising solutions that will motivate players to change their playstyle.

- Your debate format is a time-honored one, having been used by Plato, I believe. However, you make “Y” seem rather naive and uninformed, which I think weakens the effect. It’s no accomplishment to sound convincing against someone who asks leading questions and produces no substantial counterarguments of their own. (Plato did the same thing, IIRC)

- Reducing the effectiveness of the downed system (or removing it altogether) won’t discourage zerg play. It will encourage it, as the penalty for dying becomes more severe (guaranteed run back, possibly over a long distance), and players go for safety in numbers to avoid that penalty. Doing something like adding more respawn points around the maps would make players more comfortable running around in smaller groups.

- Regarding your solutions, I think the only one you proposed that would actually work is the one Anet is least likely to adopt: splitting WXP (and/or other rewards). Changing the AoE cap has already been talked about by others here. Making 20-player warbands—what is preventing people from doing so now? That is indeed a goal, but you don’t state in that sentence how you will get people to not agglomerate into even larger groups.

- In addition, I think zerg play will be discouraged if Anet actually rewarded more behaviors that don’t require it, such as giving WXP for repairing structures, escorting dolyaks, doing upgrades, and so on. All of this has been suggested more than once in other threads recently. This would encourage some players to stay behind and work at an objective that has just been taken while the rest of the force moves on.

Ultimately, though, players in all of these games will gravitate to the path of least resistance toward the rewards the developers have put in front of them. If you want more small group play, Anet will have to change the system so that small group play is the MOST efficient way to get point and loot rewards. I’m very skeptical that they will ever do that, but who knows.

Other than the skill lag, I have no problems with zerg fighting.

They can be fun. I like seeing the other zerg split and try to hit from 2 different directions.

Other than skill lag, there is nothing wrong with the zerg. You antizerg people may have issues but that is your personal problem. Quit trying to take away any fun I’m having. If you don’t want to run in such a large group, no one is stopping you from breaking up into smaller group. If you can’t deal with a larger force, that is your problem.

Don’t put any stupid penalties just because a bunch of players decided to group together to deal with something, that is the most moronic thing anyone can suggest.

If you want small fights, you have sPvP. If you want large than that, schedule one of those GvG fights. Don’t want to do that but change the game and take away my fun just because you think it would be better, kitten off.

Convenant.7092:

Please read the whole post. The idea is; even carebears hate 75v75 fights.

As mentioned in my post above: A lot of people DO like zerging for different reasons. Please don’t assume that everyone hates zergfights. Some people just don’t have the skill to fight in a serious small scale battle for example but zergs allow them to experience some epic fights and get them lootbags. I also like to defend a keep with only a few people for a long time and other parts of wvw. But without big zergs WvW would lack a part that i and many others realy like.

Nauda.3678:

Convenant.7092:

Please read the whole post. The idea is; even carebears hate 75v75 fights.

As mentioned in my post above: A lot of people DO like zerging for different reasons. Please don’t assume that everyone hates zergfights. Some people just don’t have the skill to fight in a serious small scale battle for example but zergs allow them to experience some epic fights and get them lootbags. I also like to defend a keep with only a few people for a long time and other parts of wvw. But without big zergs WvW would lack a part that i and many others realy like.

As mentionned above… read.. the.. god*am.. original post.

The only point you mention that is not opinion based is about lag. But that problem is getting less and less serious over time because people get better hardware and the game gets optimised more. I can play WvW with 80 vs. 80 zergfiths with my 3 year old pc with details higher than recommende and have about 25fps in realy big battles(with some rare 20fps spikes). Outside of big fight i have up to 60fps. So lag/bad fps are a problem but it’ll get better over time. Everything else you mentioned is opinion based and so there’s no right or wrong. It still doesn’t change the fact that a lot of people like 80vs80 and zerging in general. Nothing provides a better WvW feeling for me than laying siege to a keep with 80 players that is defenden by 80 players. It sometimes takes hours of attacks and counterattacks, a lot of siege and some good tactic to take a well defendes keep.

Perhaps add scenario’s that wouldn’t attract zerg-minded players. An NPC engineering guild arrives at base camp. Components for a monster siege engine are needed. These are WvW components only and will disappear from inventory when the map is left so they cannot be hoarded or stacked. Metals, woods, and items that are harvested from the countryside. While a zerg could technically perform this task, it would be less attractive than taking keeps or or killing for bags.

My 02 cents.

I like larger groups. It gives that epic feel to it. That legion of people, that feeling of massive Siege Warfare that WvWvW is supposed to be about.

The truth is, If Anet wanted everyone to run in >20 man teams and kill each other wantonly across a field in skirmishes , they would have made that the game objective.

They didn’t, they have a system in place that encourages larger groups of players to work together to capture a point or points.

Ungood.3054:

I like larger groups. It gives that epic feel to it. That legion of people, that feeling of massive Siege Warfare that WvWvW is supposed to be about.

The truth is, If Anet wanted everyone to run in >20 man teams and kill each other wantonly across a field in skirmishes , they would have made that the game objective.

They didn’t, they have a system in place that encourages larger groups of players to work together to capture a point or points.

You’re not seeing the T1 zergs. It’s not epic at all…

Nauda.3678:

The only point you mention that is not opinion based is about lag. But that problem is getting less and less serious over time because people get better hardware and the game gets optimised more. I can play WvW with 80 vs. 80 zergfiths with my 3 year old pc with details higher than recommende and have about 25fps in realy big battles(with some rare 20fps spikes). Outside of big fight i have up to 60fps. So lag/bad fps are a problem but it’ll get better over time. Everything else you mentioned is opinion based and so there’s no right or wrong. It still doesn’t change the fact that a lot of people like 80vs80 and zerging in general. Nothing provides a better WvW feeling for me than laying siege to a keep with 80 players that is defenden by 80 players. It sometimes takes hours of attacks and counterattacks, a lot of siege and some good tactic to take a well defendes keep.

And a lot of people DON’T like 80 vs 80 zerging. I just fail to see how do you enjoy 5 seconds skill lag, massive frame rate lag, amongs other technical issues. Plus the gameplay is horrendus..

+1 to the OP

I’d also like to point out that running with a large blob requires NO skill – just stay in the middle of the blob and hit a few enemy at ranged for the tag – my 6yr old can do that (even a cat can do it with a little bit of training)

My only other seriously involved pvp was in the moors- and yes zergs did exist but not in the numbers that they do here. Also i remember a LOT of respect and many zergs facing each other and forming a ring to watch 1 vs 1.

Being a solo roamer and getting attacked by 20+ of the same guild proves what? That i’m so tough and deadly that it actually takes 20 of you to kill me? (because i solo killed two of you, it takes 20 to kill me). (getting attacked by 20+ pug group is understandable).

I wonder how much of a difference splitting ALL rewards(w/xp,kama,g) between everyone that contributed would make.
I also believe that if i am tagged and killed by more than 10 people that i should NOT drop a loot bag for them.

. . . . . . .These two things might slow down the lootbag/karma express train that is currently steamrolling through EU T1

Also having the points scored every minute (instead of 15) might make a difference.

EDIT: The trouble is it’s not just 80 vs 80 its more like 80 vs 80 vs 80.
(I think squad size is an indication of how large they intended the group.)

One way to stop large zerg fights would be to have Jormag appear and attack everyone, or the fire elemental (with no rewards or loot for defeat) or how about a Legendary Defender Super Golem called “Skill Lag Terminator”

I do agree the OP arguments.

Anet did a wonderful job making pve champions/events challenging especially when you are with a zerg because it gets harder with more people present, unfortunately this does not hold true for wvw it just gets easier and easier to take objectives.

A simple fix would be scale doors/walls and siege equipment. Doors and walls should have more health based on the number of invaders/attackers present to make it an actual challenge to break into a tower or keep. I find that siege equipment should punish zergs but it barely does that job because there is a hard aoe limit on them and damage is minuscule to deter a zerg. Again my solution would be to scale its damage and its limit based on number of invaders/attackers present. Even the claimer inside a keep/tower/camp is a complete joke to a zerg but the grub in EB that is a fun challenge to take down.

I do like the direction Anet is heading with the recent wvw patches: orange swords, righteous indignation fixes, zero armor bill on the outmanned buff and the wvw character progression. There is several issues that needs to be addressed before you get a polished wvw experience but in its current state it feels like zerg to win not skill to win.

Any response on ANet regarding how they view this issue?

Convenant.7092:

Any response on ANet regarding how they view this issue?

They have stated that they view WvW as a large scale combat so I’d bet they are fine with it. I don’t feel like finding the link but it was on these forums.

zergs just make the game even more boring than it already is

Convenant.7092:

You’re not seeing the T1 zergs. It’s not epic at all…

This suggests that the root of the problem is not the game mechanics, but the server populations, and that the numbers you’ve been throwing out are simply those that would cause or reduce lag on T1. You say at the top that 40 vs 20 vs 20 would be fun, but in a later post that 70 vs 70 is not. Honestly, what’s the difference, tactically? You can’t really think that in 40 vs 20 vs 20 you’re somehow using all sorts of tactics and finesse that don’t come into play in 70 vs 70. They’re both large numbers of people running around tab-targeting whoever’s closest and trying to backpedal in time to avoid dying.

If 40 vs 20 vs 20 is really what you want, take a server transfer to T8. We have exactly that (especially this past week), and it does periodically include coordinated attacks on multiple targets, locking down waypoints before major assaults, and so forth.

I know you mean well, but I can’t help but conclude that you’re assuming T1’s numbers and issues are shared by all other tiers, and that’s making you focus on gameplay mechanics that won’t solve larger population issues.