Guild Wars 2

I’m wondering if this is in the works.

My main concerns are

1) will xp be split between all groups involved In the kill/capture this rewarding smaller group play or will it work like currently where everyone gets equal rewards and reinforce the large groups being the safest, fastest reward, best/only tactic meta we have currently.

2) objective cape tiring is worth wxp we know but will npcs be worth wxp? I hope not since it would let people farm wxp off of guards.

3) what is tied to these ranks?

4) will the system have a timer to make you worth no wxp to someone who has killed you recently to deter people from kill traiding?

Really 1&4 are the most important to me. I’m hoping that wxp will be split so smaller groups get a better reward for taking a kill, camp or keep with 5-10 compared to 40-50. (Ex. Kill is worth 100 wxp group of 5 split it and get 20 wxp each, group of 40 kill same guy all groups have one person “tag” target everyone gets 3 xp [2.5 rounded up]). Also kill swapping is garbage and should be discouraged.

Yeah i also asked Habib to share some cookies.

I’m really affraid it wont come in March.

C’mon Habib, show me i’m wrong.

Don’t know if you saw this interview, but it should help with a few of the questions,

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/473/feature/7169/Guild-Wars-2-What-Marchs-WvW-Patch-Will-Bring.html

So ranks will get you titles that replace ‘invader’ and ‘defender’ and passive abilities that affect wvw stuff. From the link, the abilities are “mostly passive…like: being able to carry more supply, being more effective against certain types of NPCs, being able to do more siege damage, or being more resistent[sic] to siege damage”

I kinda hope that npcs wont be worth wxp, else people might stop camp capping and just watch the guards respawn forever….

I sent a pm to Habib and this is what he answered me :

“Hi,
Yes, rank progression is still coming. I believe there will even be a blog post about it. We just figured that removing culling was a big enough deal that it deserved its own blog post”.

Matt Witter.6982:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.

:(

Zerg > all

Quix.6475:

Matt Witter.6982:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.

:(

Zerg > all

Yeah pretty much this.

Will there be seperate ranks for different sized guilds? ie, a leaderboard for guilds sized 1-50 and 51-70 and 71-100 and 101-150 etc? Individual leaderboards?

Battletorn.4102:

Will there be seperate ranks for different sized guilds? ie, a leaderboard for guilds sized 1-50 and 51-70 and 71-100 and 101-150 etc? Individual leaderboards?

It’s not a ranking system, it’s just titles (ranks). There won’t be leaderboards like you’re thinking.

Matt Witter.6982:

We will have much more info on World Ranks very soon! In the mean time:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.
2. NPC’s are not worth World Experience
3. I can’t give all the goods away just yet!
4. Yes.

So World Experience is fully awarded to anyone that helped (healing/supporting with boons and fields is considered a “help”?).
So my worse dream become true: big zerg>small roamers becouse you can “tag” more enemy, get more kills and then gain more World Exp.
Did you figured that you are pushing the game only in the direction of zerging?
In my dreams WE would be splitted among the partecipants to discourage zergs.
Sad news for me and my guildies. >_<

kfarb.6732:

Battletorn.4102:

Will there be seperate ranks for different sized guilds? ie, a leaderboard for guilds sized 1-50 and 51-70 and 71-100 and 101-150 etc? Individual leaderboards?

It’s not a ranking system, it’s just titles (ranks). There won’t be leaderboards like you’re thinking.

Not sure about that actually. Watched the spvp sotg vod and J. Sharp (I think) said one of the reasons they’re waiting on releasing the leaderboards is because they’re watching it so closely in spvp, pve, and wvw.

Having is split would definitely be better than all get full shares, that’s not a perfect solution either, because it would make guild groups shun randoms joining in with them.

But like I said, that’s a far less severe problem than zerg tagging your way to victory.

dreztina.4820:

kfarb.6732:

Battletorn.4102:

Will there be seperate ranks for different sized guilds? ie, a leaderboard for guilds sized 1-50 and 51-70 and 71-100 and 101-150 etc? Individual leaderboards?

It’s not a ranking system, it’s just titles (ranks). There won’t be leaderboards like you’re thinking.

Not sure about that actually. Watched the spvp sotg vod and J. Sharp (I think) said one of the reasons they’re waiting on releasing the leaderboards is because they’re watching it so closely in spvp, pve, and wvw.

Ahh, I see. I don’t see how it would make sense for pve or wvw but I guess we’ll find out.

Promoting unskillful play over skillful play is going to come back and bite you in the kitten one day. ;(

Matt Witter.6982:

We will have much more info on World Ranks very soon! In the mean time:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.

< facepalm > Don’t you people ever learn from history? You are going down the same path that killed Warhammer Online. Zerg – freaking – tastic for the you – should – be -smarter – than – this – lose. < / facepalm >

Why does WvW get to be the kindergarden playground? I can’t zerg fractals, sit back and do nothing and get the free credit. Same with sPvP Tournaments … yet ANet continues to dumb down WvW play where everyone gets a trophy.

wxp wouldnt help change zerging. You would need to remove the 5 person damaging aoe limit to allow for zerg busting by small groups or even apply speed debuffs to groups when traveling in large numbers.

Talentless.5708:

wxp wouldnt help change zerging. You would need to remove the 5 person damaging aoe limit to allow for zerg busting by small groups or even apply speed debuffs to groups when traveling in large numbers.

It wouldn’t stop it but it would not encourage it and even incentive it. I mean how does it make sense that if I defeat someone solo he is worth 100xp, with 5 people he is worth 500 xp (but was easier to defeat), 40 people he is worth 4000 xp (but was a bump in the road)

We don’t need to punish the Zerg but we sure as hell do to need to shower them with gifts and make that meta the only way to play in wvw.

Quix.6475:

Matt Witter.6982:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.

:(

Zerg > all

Ya bad news :(
WvW will be a zergfest :(

Matt Witter.6982:

We will have much more info on World Ranks very soon! In the mean time:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.
2. NPC’s are not worth World Experience
3. I can’t give all the goods away just yet!
4. Yes.

The #1 point is a bit disappointing. This was a way for you to create an incentive when it comes to promoting smaller groups simply by giving a smaller amount of world XP if many people were involved. I am not suggesting dividing it completely (ie. you only get 1/10th if 9 others were involved), but anything at all would have helped.

If I put a bounty on someone for 100 dollars and two people collectively fulfill the bounty … why would they both expect 100 dollars? They would realistically collect 100.00 for the bounty and have to split it by some method. Usually bloody.

Point 1. Seriously?

You do know you’re encouraging zerg even more?

Samhayn.2385:

Talentless.5708:

wxp wouldnt help change zerging. You would need to remove the 5 person damaging aoe limit to allow for zerg busting by small groups or even apply speed debuffs to groups when traveling in large numbers.

It wouldn’t stop it but it would not encourage it and even incentive it. I mean how does it make sense that if I defeat someone solo he is worth 100xp, with 5 people he is worth 500 xp (but was easier to defeat), 40 people he is worth 4000 xp (but was a bump in the road)

We don’t need to punish the Zerg but we sure as hell do to need to shower them with gifts and make that meta the only way to play in wvw.

Ten times this. Why you promote unskilled play all the time in WvW? Why not incentive smaller groups to roam around? I mean <10 man groups who can take supply camps and create fights all around the map.

Have you considered that lag will increase due culling removal? And all you do in WvW is to incentive zerg fest, that is the only way to “win” scores in WvW and now to gain personal reward. You’re just falling into the same category of other games who failed miserably at open world pvp.

A kill exp pool should be divided between all players that did damage. 10 people beating down one guy in the field should not be worth as much as winning a 1v1.

My only concern is that this is going to encourage WvW’ers to have a WvW Main – not sure if ANET has considered how they are going to encourage folks to keep playing all their different professions ..

on Point 1, we already get credit if we helped with a kill, if we don’t get enough damage in then we don’t get exp. not sure what the complaining is about here.

Rhongomyniad.5081:

My only concern is that this is going to encourage WvW’ers to have a WvW Main – not sure if ANET has considered how they are going to encourage folks to keep playing all their different professions ..

Depends on if you get to choose the passive ability when you get one, and how quickly it takes to level it up.

Also, with point 1, you guys also fail to remember that being ikittenerg doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to be able to tag people to get the credit (I know this from experience). I’m fine with how they do #1. I hate being off by myself just to be either pretty much insta killed by thief (or other zergs), so I like the zergs.
Also, how else are you gonna take a tower/keep other than with a zerg/largeish group? (I don’t think I’ve ever seen another way into them than breaking down a wall/gate, which I though they were all supposed to have alternate ways in, so a small group could take one)

skullmount.1758:

Rhongomyniad.5081:

My only concern is that this is going to encourage WvW’ers to have a WvW Main – not sure if ANET has considered how they are going to encourage folks to keep playing all their different professions ..

Depends on if you get to choose the passive ability when you get one, and how quickly it takes to level it up.

Also, with point 1, you guys also fail to remember that being ikittenerg doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to be able to tag people to get the credit (I know this from experience). I’m fine with how they do #1. I hate being off by myself just to be either pretty much insta killed by thief (or other zergs), so I like the zergs.
Also, how else are you gonna take a tower/keep other than with a zerg/largeish group? (I don’t think I’ve ever seen another way into them than breaking down a wall/gate, which I though they were all supposed to have alternate ways in, so a small group could take one)

The Zerg will happen organically, human instinct is to group up like that. It is already awarding people xp/karma/silver as long as you participated. All that I and others are asking is for one system in the game to reward a different play style that many people who wvw enjoy. You do need zergs to take some objectives and that will not change at all but now with a progression system the Zerg will actualy look down on small groups because if my group of 5 take out a supply camp we are stealing wxp (progression) from the Zerg. This is not a good thing in anyway.

Maybe it’s a technical limitation due to the system they use for xp and event completion in the game since everything else works this way. If so then maybe there is a way to give “bonus” wxp for accomplishing kills/objectives with a smaller group of people in the area or tagging the kill. The system already knows how many people are standing in the circle and the system already knows how many people you have in your group or damaged a target. Base the bonus off of that. It would not be a perfect solution with people running into the circle or randomly tagging your kill but it would work with in the system and still be better then what is proposed ATM.

Matt Witter.6982:

We will have much more info on World Ranks very soon! In the mean time:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.
2. NPC’s are not worth World Experience
3. I can’t give all the goods away just yet!
4. Yes.

Is it your design philosophy to encourage zerging in WvW then? I’m just trying to gather whether you want zerging to be the de facto method of gameplay or if you’d rather see zergs break up a bit.

Rewarding players equally for zerging or taking the more challenging small approach seems to encourage zerging above small group play.

Adaneshade.2409:

Matt Witter.6982:

We will have much more info on World Ranks very soon! In the mean time:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.
2. NPC’s are not worth World Experience
3. I can’t give all the goods away just yet!
4. Yes.

Is it your design philosophy to encourage zerging in WvW then? I’m just trying to gather whether you want zerging to be the de facto method of gameplay or if you’d rather see zergs break up a bit.

Rewarding players equally for zerging or taking the more challenging small approach seems to encourage zerging above small group play.

It’s their design philosophy to encourage teamwork. Giving players higher rewards for smaller teams would discourage teamwork and lead to solo capping/farming builds.

EnemyCrusher.7324:

Adaneshade.2409:

Matt Witter.6982:

We will have much more info on World Ranks very soon! In the mean time:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.
2. NPC’s are not worth World Experience
3. I can’t give all the goods away just yet!
4. Yes.

Is it your design philosophy to encourage zerging in WvW then? I’m just trying to gather whether you want zerging to be the de facto method of gameplay or if you’d rather see zergs break up a bit.

Rewarding players equally for zerging or taking the more challenging small approach seems to encourage zerging above small group play.

It’s their design philosophy to encourage teamwork. Giving players higher rewards for smaller teams would discourage teamwork and lead to solo capping/farming builds.

Teamwork has it’s place, taking a large keep, can’t be done solo it REQUIRES large numbers. However, I don’t feel that a 50 man zerg rolling over a supply camp should be paid the same as a duo taking it, not even close.

EnemyCrusher.7324:

Adaneshade.2409:

Matt Witter.6982:

We will have much more info on World Ranks very soon! In the mean time:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.
2. NPC’s are not worth World Experience
3. I can’t give all the goods away just yet!
4. Yes.

Is it your design philosophy to encourage zerging in WvW then? I’m just trying to gather whether you want zerging to be the de facto method of gameplay or if you’d rather see zergs break up a bit.

Rewarding players equally for zerging or taking the more challenging small approach seems to encourage zerging above small group play.

It’s their design philosophy to encourage teamwork. Giving players higher rewards for smaller teams would discourage teamwork and lead to solo capping/farming builds.

Not if done correctly, you can designate a number that get full credit (so there is always a minimum amount people get) then add a bonus for doing it with less (also a fixed amount).

Example of this would be supply cam kitten et for 10 people, those 10 or less would get 200 wxp + 200 wxp bonus. Anything greater then that would only get 200.

Yes you would have a problem with people running in at the tail end and pushing you past the limit but that is something we would just need to deal with since I don’t see them changing it to a split system.

Right, but they JUST said they weren’t doing that.
Instead they’re paying the same whether you take an objective with 1 or 100 players.

Adaneshade.2409:

Right, but they JUST said they weren’t doing that.
Instead they’re paying the same whether you take an objective with 1 or 100 players.

I understand this and I also think its a bad idea that’s why I’m giving suggestions. I would rather see this game be something we all (wvw community) can enjoy and not the rest stop on people’s way to TESO or CU.

Allowing zergs to tag people for full XP is a terrible design decision that will make this entire system meaningless.

The world experiences for a kill should be split evenly with anyone in the party(s) that contributed to the kill. Pretty simple.

Say a single player kill is 100xp

Group of 5 kills 1, each gets 20xp

2 separate groups of 5 kill 1, each person gets 10xp

Zerg of 100 kills 1, each gets 1xp.

If you solo someone yourself you get 100xp.

Pretty simple!

edit: Seriously Anet, reconsider this. It’s going to be a big make or break it point vs this game and TES.

Any chance we will know how many badges ascended gear will cost before the patch release? Or even a rough estimate?

Can you make it so we can see enemy player names yet? There is no spirit and personal rivalry in WvW. No knowing who your worthy foes are. It would also make the zerg seem less like a bunch of faceless drones and give them more personality.

Matt Witter.6982:

We will have much more info on World Ranks very soon! In the mean time:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.
2. NPC’s are not worth World Experience
3. I can’t give all the goods away just yet!
4. Yes.

Thus the zerging continues… full credit is just a incentive to clump and aoe… sounds like a work around a coding issue.

Let’s hope there is other something postive for small maning in this patch.

Samhayn.2385:

I understand this and I also think its a bad idea that’s why I’m giving suggestions.

Stiv.1820:

Allowing zergs to tag people for full XP is a terrible design decision that will make this entire system meaningless.

And yet, no one bothers to address “what is a zerg”.

Are 30 well trained, fluid guild members all working in tandem a zerg? Or are they an army? How bout 50 of them? Is that a zerg yet? Is 30 vs. 30 GvG a ZvZ?

Might as well just go with the sandpile paradox in reverse:

• Are X guild members a zerg or are they a well coordinated?
  +1 to infinity where X is <1 than your definition of how many #s it takes to make a zerg a zerg.

Who would and how does one draw the line on “X is too many teammates, you’re a zerg”. I don’t consider the likes of my servers big, organized guilds running in groups (20, 30, even some 40+) zergs, I consider them a guild and a team. Yet, because we’re to assign some arbitrary distinction of “the zerg”… they suddenly aren’t going to be rewarded as if they were a team. How is such a thing fair? Why do two X0 vs X0 guilds going at it head to head suddenly being rewarded less for their efforts? Did the fight somehow become a lot easier when it was X*10 vs. X*10 people rather than just X vs X?

If you want to break up the zerg, add more incentives for scouting (or, as the sword change did, more punishment for not scouting). However this is a difficult balance because its often times impossible to discern a scout at a keep from an afk at said keep.

I would rather see this game be something we all (wvw community) can enjoy and not the rest stop on people’s way to TESO or CU.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
edit: Seriously Anet, reconsider this. It’s going to be a big make or break it point vs this game and TES.

Stop this already, you cannot compare a game that exists as bullet points and in a mystical ether called your imagination to a game that actually exists in purchasable media.

Fxncy.2398:

Not all WvW zergs are bad! I lead my guild (a decent sized zerg) with strategy not just a 2v20 or something. A lot of guild leaders and commanders enjoy zerg v zerg startegy and fighting. But I do agree, don’t make zergs the only way to play!

But what about everyone else?

Only select zerg leaders have all the fun?

That does not sound very inclusive.

Samhayn.2385:

Yes you would have a problem with people running in at the tail end and pushing you past the limit but that is something we would just need to deal with since I don’t see them changing it to a split system.

That’s the thing though, their main design philosophy is that you should never be unhappy to see other players show up to help you.

Anet said from the beginning they didn’t want wvw to be serious pvp. Their goal has always been wvw would be casual, low intensity combat where pve’ers could go and experience a bit of pvp. They don’t want skilled players in wvw because skilled players kitten on casuals. Every single thing they’ve done has encouraged zerging, and everything they continue to do does the same.

Fact of the matter is just that anet doesn’t want skilled players in wvw, and that isn’t going to change. They are going to keep doing changes like this to try to force good players into spvp so the casuals can run around without getting slaughtered.

It’s incredibly dumb, but considering anet has ignored every single plea for skill based pvp in wvw since before the game was released, I wouldn’t count on it changing.

Matt Witter.6982:

1. Everyone that helped with the kill will get full credit for the kill.

So the optimal strategy is to zerg. Got it.
-Goes back to PvE-

I like playing in zerg.

I think we should wait for full details, but best thing they would do to stop zergs etc farming is to not allow kills to be the highest WXP reward like it is now for normal XP..

playandchill.3908:

I like playing in zerg.

I like killing people in a skillful way rather than spamming 1. Some times you feel like a nut sometimes you don’t.

SteepledHat.1345:

I like killing people in a skillful way rather than spamming 1. Some times you feel like a nut sometimes you don’t.

And some people play sPvP…

Vena.8436:

Samhayn.2385:

I understand this and I also think its a bad idea that’s why I’m giving suggestions.

Stiv.1820:

Allowing zergs to tag people for full XP is a terrible design decision that will make this entire system meaningless.

And yet, no one bothers to address “what is a zerg”.

Are 30 well trained, fluid guild members all working in tandem a zerg? Or are they an army? How bout 50 of them? Is that a zerg yet? Is 30 vs. 30 GvG a ZvZ?

Might as well just go with the sandpile paradox in reverse:

• Are X guild members a zerg or are they a well coordinated?
  +1 to infinity where X is <1 than your definition of how many #s it takes to make a zerg a zerg.

Who would and how does one draw the line on “X is too many teammates, you’re a zerg”. I don’t consider the likes of my servers big, organized guilds running in groups (20, 30, even some 40+) zergs, I consider them a guild and a team. Yet, because we’re to assign some arbitrary distinction of “the zerg”… they suddenly aren’t going to be rewarded as if they were a team. How is such a thing fair? Why do two X0 vs X0 guilds going at it head to head suddenly being rewarded less for their efforts? Did the fight somehow become a lot easier when it was X*10 vs. X*10 people rather than just X vs X?

If you want to break up the zerg, add more incentives for scouting (or, as the sword change did, more punishment for not scouting). However this is a difficult balance because its often times impossible to discern a scout at a keep from an afk at said keep.

I would rather see this game be something we all (wvw community) can enjoy and not the rest stop on people’s way to TESO or CU.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
edit: Seriously Anet, reconsider this. It’s going to be a big make or break it point vs this game and TES.

Stop this already, you cannot compare a game that exists as bullet points and in a mystical ether called your imagination to a game that actually exists in purchasable media.

I see your point but here is your mistake, when 30 v 30 happens and your side wins you will split the total amount of xp from 30 kills amoungst 30 people meaning you will get the same amount of xp as if 1 v 1 happened. You would make out even better if your 30 took out 50. What Anet is doing is makeing it so if the same battle happens you will receive xp as if it was 1v30 and if those same 30 run over a guy solo and all tag him (unlikely but still) they all get xp as if it was a 1v1. That’s not right. At best this system encorages nothing but Zerg play and at worst you will get spawn camping and outmanned teams just not showing up to fight since why should they give wxp to the other team when they have no chance? This does nothing to bring more people out to wvw and does nothing to spread the fighting out over the whole map and not focus it in two to three areas.

Please don’t tell me what to compare and not to compare I have been around long enough to know that poor decisions made to a live game will and does drive people to become more interested on what’s on the horizon.

Samhayn.2385:

Vena.8436:

Samhayn.2385:

I understand this and I also think its a bad idea that’s why I’m giving suggestions.

Stiv.1820:

Allowing zergs to tag people for full XP is a terrible design decision that will make this entire system meaningless.

And yet, no one bothers to address “what is a zerg”.

Are 30 well trained, fluid guild members all working in tandem a zerg? Or are they an army? How bout 50 of them? Is that a zerg yet? Is 30 vs. 30 GvG a ZvZ?

Might as well just go with the sandpile paradox in reverse:

• Are X guild members a zerg or are they a well coordinated?
  +1 to infinity where X is <1 than your definition of how many #s it takes to make a zerg a zerg.

Who would and how does one draw the line on “X is too many teammates, you’re a zerg”. I don’t consider the likes of my servers big, organized guilds running in groups (20, 30, even some 40+) zergs, I consider them a guild and a team. Yet, because we’re to assign some arbitrary distinction of “the zerg”… they suddenly aren’t going to be rewarded as if they were a team. How is such a thing fair? Why do two X0 vs X0 guilds going at it head to head suddenly being rewarded less for their efforts? Did the fight somehow become a lot easier when it was X*10 vs. X*10 people rather than just X vs X?

If you want to break up the zerg, add more incentives for scouting (or, as the sword change did, more punishment for not scouting). However this is a difficult balance because its often times impossible to discern a scout at a keep from an afk at said keep.

I would rather see this game be something we all (wvw community) can enjoy and not the rest stop on people’s way to TESO or CU.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
edit: Seriously Anet, reconsider this. It’s going to be a big make or break it point vs this game and TES.

Stop this already, you cannot compare a game that exists as bullet points and in a mystical ether called your imagination to a game that actually exists in purchasable media.

I see your point but here is your mistake, when 30 v 30 happens and your side wins you will split the total amount of xp from 30 kills amoungst 30 people meaning you will get the same amount of xp as if 1 v 1 happened. You would make out even better if your 30 took out 50. What Anet is doing is makeing it so if the same battle happens you will receive xp as if it was 1v30 and if those same 30 run over a guy solo and all tag him (unlikely but still) they all get xp as if it was a 1v1. That’s not right. At best this system encorages nothing but Zerg play and at worst you will get spawn camping and outmanned teams just not showing up to fight since why should they give wxp to the other team when they have no chance? This does nothing to bring more people out to wvw and does nothing to spread the fighting out over the whole map and not focus it in two to three areas.

Please don’t tell me what to compare and not to compare I have been around long enough to know that poor decisions made to a live game will and does drive people to become more interested on what’s on the horizon.

Well spoken, guess we wait for the live patch..

Vena.8436:

SteepledHat.1345:

I like killing people in a skillful way rather than spamming 1. Some times you feel like a nut sometimes you don’t.

And some people play sPvP…

Spvp where I can’t build my spec they way I want to becuase they don’t have the stat combo I use, when I do pick up games my team gets split up and I can never have the thrill of fighting a larger force then what I’m feilding. Gotcha.

( if you didn’t get it spvp is nothing like wvw and there is a reason we don’t play it)

Samhayn.2385:

I see your point but here is your mistake, when 30 v 30 happens and your side wins you will split the total amount of xp from 30 kills amoungst 30 people meaning you will get the same amount of xp as if 1 v 1 happened.

But a 1v1 did not happen. Surviving and winning a 1v1 is not somehow a direct corollary to surviving and winning a 30v30. For one, there are 29 elements on your team that lie beyond your ability to control (and who’s skill level varies wildly) and there are equally 29 other things on your opponents side all trying to murder you.

So why does the team that wins, given superior cohesion and skill, get rewarded as if they were one person… completely undermining the effort to reward ratio of gaining the ability to function as a capable team (which is far and away from the same thing as learning how to play solo). The scenario basically makes teams inferior to soloers in effort to reward because a soloer requires only one thing: you. You don’t have communication issue or hurdles to overcome with yourself or coordination to time (you don’t need set up/organize or be in TS giving orders to yourself hoping you will properly follow and understand the orders you gave to yourself), you have only you; and one would hope you are on good terms with yourself and the only thing that defines whether you win or lose is how much better are you than your singular foe. Team fights are not just the sum of their parts, a team is not 30 soloers bunched up each fighting a singular opponent of 30 in 1v1s, this is simple systems building and basis of the fact that systems get more complicated as you add more components/variables trying to work in tandem and is further complicated when an equally complex counter system is introduced.

Samhayn.2385:

What Anet is doing is makeing it so if the same battle happens you will receive xp as if it was 1v30 and if those same 30 run over a guy solo and all tag him (unlikely but still) they all get xp as if it was a 1v1. That’s not right.

No one said: “it was right”. Hell, I don’t think there is a good answer to this question because how much sand goes into a pile is a definition that varies from person to person.

Its certainly not right that a 30v1 is treated as 30 1v1s, but it certainly isn’t right to go a complete 180 and treat a 30v30 as if it were 30 1v1s. (Not to mention the time variations to be attributed to full teams fighting each other vs. a 1v1.)

Samhayn.2385:

Vena.8436:

Samhayn.2385:

I understand this and I also think its a bad idea that’s why I’m giving suggestions.

Stiv.1820:

Allowing zergs to tag people for full XP is a terrible design decision that will make this entire system meaningless.

And yet, no one bothers to address “what is a zerg”.

Are 30 well trained, fluid guild members all working in tandem a zerg? Or are they an army? How bout 50 of them? Is that a zerg yet? Is 30 vs. 30 GvG a ZvZ?

Might as well just go with the sandpile paradox in reverse:

• Are X guild members a zerg or are they a well coordinated?
  +1 to infinity where X is <1 than your definition of how many #s it takes to make a zerg a zerg.

Who would and how does one draw the line on “X is too many teammates, you’re a zerg”. I don’t consider the likes of my servers big, organized guilds running in groups (20, 30, even some 40+) zergs, I consider them a guild and a team. Yet, because we’re to assign some arbitrary distinction of “the zerg”… they suddenly aren’t going to be rewarded as if they were a team. How is such a thing fair? Why do two X0 vs X0 guilds going at it head to head suddenly being rewarded less for their efforts? Did the fight somehow become a lot easier when it was X*10 vs. X*10 people rather than just X vs X?

If you want to break up the zerg, add more incentives for scouting (or, as the sword change did, more punishment for not scouting). However this is a difficult balance because its often times impossible to discern a scout at a keep from an afk at said keep.

I would rather see this game be something we all (wvw community) can enjoy and not the rest stop on people’s way to TESO or CU.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
edit: Seriously Anet, reconsider this. It’s going to be a big make or break it point vs this game and TES.

Stop this already, you cannot compare a game that exists as bullet points and in a mystical ether called your imagination to a game that actually exists in purchasable media.

I see your point but here is your mistake, when 30 v 30 happens and your side wins you will split the total amount of xp from 30 kills amoungst 30 people meaning you will get the same amount of xp as if 1 v 1 happened. You would make out even better if your 30 took out 50. What Anet is doing is makeing it so if the same battle happens you will receive xp as if it was 1v30 and if those same 30 run over a guy solo and all tag him (unlikely but still) they all get xp as if it was a 1v1. That’s not right. At best this system encorages nothing but Zerg play and at worst you will get spawn camping and outmanned teams just not showing up to fight since why should they give wxp to the other team when they have no chance? This does nothing to bring more people out to wvw and does nothing to spread the fighting out over the whole map and not focus it in two to three areas.

Please don’t tell me what to compare and not to compare I have been around long enough to know that poor decisions made to a live game will and does drive people to become more interested on what’s on the horizon.

Yea, essentially it doesn’t matter how you define a zerg, its a simple matter of math and how the more people you have tagging a player for full XP the more inflated and meaningless that XP bar becomes. 30 people killing one player worth 100 xp = 3000 xp rewarded. 1 player killing the same one solo, 100 xp rewarded. That’s the problem, giving greater rewards to larger numbers. It’s fine in PvE but for a WvW progression system it’s the worst possible scenario.