Guild Wars 2

I never understood everyone’s desire for this change. The only positive I can see is it promotes scouting.

Those saying “It helps small guilds ninja”.. how? Before some people never checked white swords so small guilds could get away with it. Sometimes they sent 1-2 scouts who could be dispatched. An organised but large force could still capture without swords as well.

Now, you can just turn up with 20 and smash down a gate and no one will notice. The only difference I can see (I really hope I’m wrong!) is that there will be more scouting required. The response when they find out it’s under attack won’t change from what used to be there: “Don’t go there’s too many” or “Zerg them down!”.

Outnumbered servers/forces will now have to stretch their forces even thinner to scout.

I really hope I’m just missing something here and someone can explain it.

TogoChubb.3984:

Haldunius.7864:

TogoChubb.3984:

This will not change a thing in WvW. We run a squad of 15 to 20 and don’t draw orange swords currently b/c we only use just enough at a time to not draw swords; also called strategy. This will just make it a lot easier for a zerg to not draw swords and make it harder for small teams to cap things b/c people will always assume it is a zerg hitting when they see the normal white swords. I currently rely on people ignoring white swords and chasing the orange swords. Zergs aren’t going to get smaller guys….they just now will be provided that much more cover.

Trying to follow your logics…Easier for zergs, harder for small groups, but everyone will assume white swords will be zergs so they’ll defend better. Just learn to defend the area you hold instead of relying on maps, which it seems like this change will do. Sounds right to me.

WOW! I have never thought about defending a structure. How would you go about doing that? Just to remind you that seeing white swords is relying on the map too. Nice argument, but you still haven’t disputed the fact that this change supports cover for larger groups. I simply stated that if you like zergging this is the way to go. I can’t see how this helps smaller groups.

4 ppl – 1 ram.
5 ppl – 1 cata

4-5 ppl – kill guards
put 1 ram – resupply
put 1 ram – break door.

kill lord – own keep/tower/castle.

So, here we go! Start trebbing Bay from Garrison, put up white swords. Sneak your full zerg around to, for example, NW gate. Have 20 or so people melt the gates in a hurry, still no orange swords. Do the same on North inner. Entire zerg in the lords room, done. Do this with any tower, keep, whatever. Have thieves go around and put up swords on every structure on the map. Send the zerg to a target, melt the gate with 20 or so, cap.

This will make things worse. I’ll make sure of that.

TogoChubb.3984:

playandchill.3908:

TogoChubb.3984:

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? T 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 doesn’t matter. Increasing the cap for orange swords does only one thing…that is provide more cover for larger groups. I personally do not care if you zerg or if you prefer a small squad this change will only promote larger groups. So if you dislike zergs this is a bad idea. If you like zergs then this is a good idea. Speaking of T 1/2/3 and looking down your nose at lower tiers is irrelevant of what the change would do. If you use sound communication and strategy with the current orange sword mechanic you will not draw orange swords…as I stated currently we can send a squad of 20 at a tower and they never draw orange swords until we attack the lord.

What i said.

You obvisouly dont play in T1/T2/T3 where you have only 1 commander with 90+pugs behind him.

If it does not change anything for your so pro team on your low tier realm, it ll def have consequences for top tier where most of pug players play.

edit : T7 :/

Your argument is ignorant. T1/T2/T3 is no argument. Explain how this change will not promote cover for a larger group. That is all I stated it would do. So being on T8 or T4 is has no relevence to this conversation.

Because the game is not played the same way in T1 and T7. If you cant understand this, plz stop reading.

In Top Tier we only have 1 big 70+ Zerg the most of the time. This update ll help to split the zerg and small pug group (15-20players) ll be able to cap things without beeing spotted with orange swords. It ll also help small guilds to cap things. There are pugs everywhere in top tier, so if you only send 4 of your mates to kill guards, chances are 5-6 pugs ll pop sword.

In your lower tier (T7) you dont run with such big zergs. So yeah it ll probalby promote bigger group than you usually run with.

So you see , this new update may have different consequences in T1 and T7.

playandchill.3908:

TogoChubb.3984:

playandchill.3908:

TogoChubb.3984:

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? T 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 doesn’t matter. Increasing the cap for orange swords does only one thing…that is provide more cover for larger groups. I personally do not care if you zerg or if you prefer a small squad this change will only promote larger groups. So if you dislike zergs this is a bad idea. If you like zergs then this is a good idea. Speaking of T 1/2/3 and looking down your nose at lower tiers is irrelevant of what the change would do. If you use sound communication and strategy with the current orange sword mechanic you will not draw orange swords…as I stated currently we can send a squad of 20 at a tower and they never draw orange swords until we attack the lord.

What i said.

You obvisouly dont play in T1/T2/T3 where you have only 1 commander with 90+pugs behind him.

If it does not change anything for your so pro team on your low tier realm, it ll def have consequences for top tier where most of pug players play.

edit : T7 :/

Your argument is ignorant. T1/T2/T3 is no argument. Explain how this change will not promote cover for a larger group. That is all I stated it would do. So being on T8 or T4 is has no relevence to this conversation.

Because the game is not played the same way in T1 and T7. If you cant understand this, plz stop reading.

In Top Tier we only have 1 big 70+ Zergs the most of the time. This update ll help to split the zergs and small pug group (15-20players) ll be able to cap things without beeing spotted with orange swords. It ll also help small guilds to cap things. There are pugs everywhere, so if you only send 4 of your mates killing guards, chance are 5-6 pugs ll pop sword.

In your lower tier ( T7) you dont run with such big zergs. So yeah it ll probalby promote bigger group that you usually run with.

So you see , this new update may have different consesquences in T1 and T7.

Another point to consider is hiding isn’t really necessary if you’re running wit 70 people. o.o

TogoChubb.3984:

Haldunius.7864:

TogoChubb.3984:

This will not change a thing in WvW. We run a squad of 15 to 20 and don’t draw orange swords currently b/c we only use just enough at a time to not draw swords; also called strategy. This will just make it a lot easier for a zerg to not draw swords and make it harder for small teams to cap things b/c people will always assume it is a zerg hitting when they see the normal white swords. I currently rely on people ignoring white swords and chasing the orange swords. Zergs aren’t going to get smaller guys….they just now will be provided that much more cover.

Trying to follow your logics…Easier for zergs, harder for small groups, but everyone will assume white swords will be zergs so they’ll defend better. Just learn to defend the area you hold instead of relying on maps, which it seems like this change will do. Sounds right to me.

WOW! I have never thought about defending a structure. How would you go about doing that? Just to remind you that seeing white swords is relying on the map too. Nice argument, but you still haven’t disputed the fact that this change supports cover for larger groups. I simply stated that if you like zergging this is the way to go. I can’t see how this helps smaller groups.

Sadly, it appears defense will be a new tool in your kit of options. You have been relying on the map to tell you what structures are being attacked and the size of the enemy. I’d like all crossed swords to be gone. However, eliminating the classification tier and providing one warning at least forces squads to play a little more tactically. My apologies that you won’t be able to just cap a tower and move your zerg to the next location without leaving behind a few defenders in case the enemy’s zerg shows up to reclaim.

You are missing my point. I don’t care if it helps large zergs retain cover. I want more cover. I want more defense, tactics, and scouting.

Haldunius.7864:

TogoChubb.3984:

Haldunius.7864:

TogoChubb.3984:

This will not change a thing in WvW. We run a squad of 15 to 20 and don’t draw orange swords currently b/c we only use just enough at a time to not draw swords; also called strategy. This will just make it a lot easier for a zerg to not draw swords and make it harder for small teams to cap things b/c people will always assume it is a zerg hitting when they see the normal white swords. I currently rely on people ignoring white swords and chasing the orange swords. Zergs aren’t going to get smaller guys….they just now will be provided that much more cover.

Trying to follow your logics…Easier for zergs, harder for small groups, but everyone will assume white swords will be zergs so they’ll defend better. Just learn to defend the area you hold instead of relying on maps, which it seems like this change will do. Sounds right to me.

WOW! I have never thought about defending a structure. How would you go about doing that? Just to remind you that seeing white swords is relying on the map too. Nice argument, but you still haven’t disputed the fact that this change supports cover for larger groups. I simply stated that if you like zergging this is the way to go. I can’t see how this helps smaller groups.

Sadly, it appears defense will be a new tool in your kit of options. You have been relying on the map to tell you what structures are being attacked and the size of the enemy. I’d like all crossed swords to be gone. However, eliminating the classification tier and providing one warning at least forces squads to play a little more tactically. My apologies that you won’t be able to just cap a tower and move your zerg to the next location without leaving behind a few defenders in case the enemy’s zerg shows up to reclaim.

You are missing my point. I don’t care if it helps large zergs retain cover. I want more cover. I want more defense, tactics, and scouting.

I can respect your wants, but can you respect other people’s wants? That is where the disagreement will lie, differences in opinion. Which is why there are real wars in this world. haha

:3

I’d be glad if they changed swords a bit more.

Make a new upgrade called “Alarm”. When the upgrade is complete, you get your orange swords back, but only at that location. Upgrade tier 2, you get your white swords back at that location.

Until the upgrade is done, you stay and defend what you take or you accept the risk that right after you run off, someone else may snag it right back without you ever knowing.

This will be a change instituted by our overlords and is not driven by either of our “wants”. Togo says this is crap because it promotes zergs because the map won’t automatically relay detailed info to him but then on the other hand is trying to say his guild already defends their structures (I’m assuming that he didn’t really just discover what defense is and that his prior statement was sarcasm). If that’s the case, there is no change here for him. If what he says is true, then his guild would probably be ahead of the learning curve.

Porky.5021:

I’d be glad if they changed swords a bit more.

Make a new upgrade called “Alarm”. When the upgrade is complete, you get your orange swords back, but only at that location. Upgrade tier 2, you get your white swords back at that location.

Until the upgrade is done, you stay and defend what you take or you accept the risk that right after you run off, someone else may snag it right back without you ever knowing.

I actually like this…in fact…change the hire guards etc…to hire sentries that are posted on top of the walls in keeps and towers and if you end up in their LoS, they show an alert on the map….

Gamadorn.2659:

Porky.5021:

I’d be glad if they changed swords a bit more.

Make a new upgrade called “Alarm”. When the upgrade is complete, you get your orange swords back, but only at that location. Upgrade tier 2, you get your white swords back at that location.

Until the upgrade is done, you stay and defend what you take or you accept the risk that right after you run off, someone else may snag it right back without you ever knowing.

I actually like this…in fact…change the hire guards etc…to hire sentries that are posted on top of the walls in keeps and towers and if you end up in their LoS, they show an alert on the map….

I affirm. Makes the game realistic too, like the guards sending smoke signals that the keep/tower/castle is being sieged. >3<

Sovereign.1093:

I affirm. Makes the game realistic too, like the guards sending smoke signals that the keep/tower/castle is being sieged. >3<

D W.5179:

Would love to see the sword not be automated at all.

How about having a huge pile of wood logs at each location and only when it is being attacked, a player can light the logs on fire (smoke signals) which would then place the swords on the map?

This way, if only 2 people are attacking a keep/tower, you would just go dispatch them instead of lighting the smoke signals and wasting your teammates time, but if say 20 were attacking, it would be pretty important to get to the fire pit and light it up to allow all to see the swords on the map.

Yeah that’s what I was suggesting on page 1, but I like the idea of purchasing a more automated system using the NPC’s in addition!

VOLKON.1290:

So, here we go! Start trebbing Bay from Garrison, put up white swords. Sneak your full zerg around to, for example, NW gate. Have 20 or so people melt the gates in a hurry, still no orange swords. Do the same on North inner. Entire zerg in the lords room, done. Do this with any tower, keep, whatever. Have thieves go around and put up swords on every structure on the map. Send the zerg to a target, melt the gate with 20 or so, cap.

This will make things worse. I’ll make sure of that.

So you mean servers will actually have to scout and leave defenders at towers and keeps? Clearly, that’s far worse than what’s going on now. :P

Haldunius.7864:

This will be a change instituted by our overlords and is not driven by either of our “wants”. Togo says this is crap because it promotes zergs because the map won’t automatically relay detailed info to him but then on the other hand is trying to say his guild already defends their structures (I’m assuming that he didn’t really just discover what defense is and that his prior statement was sarcasm). If that’s the case, there is no change here for him. If what he says is true, then his guild would probably be ahead of the learning curve.

My comments were definately sarcastic. This update to the orange sword mechanic brings up another issue for another thread which is siege despawn time. If larger groups are going to get better cover then I want all the siege I place down in each keep and tower to stay there for at least an hour instead of the current 30 mins.

I did not say this was a crap idea. I stated that I disagreed that this will promote smaller groups and less zergging.

Okay let me explain how a group of twenty can cap a tower in under 10 mins without ever being seen attacking the tower with a group of twenty until you are inside. Well you might be spotted harrassing the tower but there will be no siege down so no worries for the enemy. This is a non zerg guide and does not work everytime. In addition your team has to account for any pugs running by that try to join in. You then explain to them what’s going on and you are back in business.

4 guys run up to a tower and clear the oil and cannon and then run away from the tower if you happen to draw white swords. If you draw the swords running away for 5 mins typically bores the enemy and they go back to what they were doing (This could possibly work different on other tiers, however i learned this trick from T1). If you do not draw swords then kill the vets with only four people. Once the vets are down bring the rest of the 20 guys up to the gate and build two superior rams and a golem with the quickness. Gate smashed in under a minute. Lord dies against twenty people in 30 seconds. It’s possible to even just rush the gate if there are no defenders and cap a tower in 2 minutes. All this is done without ever drawing orange x’s until you hit the lord room. This is only one basic way to currently capture a structure without popping Ox’s.

Okay now how does raising the orange sword cap not help a larger group? This does nothing to help the game but put a futher burdon on the defensive squads. I like the current mechanic the way it is. You are right that it will help me take more structures quicker with increased cover but this would be rediculous if i could have all twenty guys hitting the oil, cannon, and ramming the gate and using golems without alerting the enemy. At least now I have to clear the cannon and oil first.

I can’t imagine that my guild is the best on this game at coordinating an attack without using a zerg.

This will make waypoints useless. Now it would be a waste for any selfrespecting server to leave any server to ever be without white swords. Maybe change the criterion for anything being contested be that at least a single segment (1 gate or wall or lord/guard for camps) receives at least 2% damage within 2 minutes. That would hardly allow for people to take anything without there ever being any swords.

Togo, I’m not trying to be rude, but what you just described has been going on since the game was released. It comes down to what Lettucemode said and you allude to – this change will require more defense. I like that because in my mind it generates a more tactical experience. You don’t like (get ready for me to put words in your mouth) because you think it helps zergs. Both of us essentially agree on the design goal because easier work for zergs means more defense from tower holder, but you like vanilla and I like chocolate.

VOLKON.1290:

So, here we go! Start trebbing Bay from Garrison, put up white swords. Sneak your full zerg around to, for example, NW gate. Have 20 or so people melt the gates in a hurry, still no orange swords. Do the same on North inner. Entire zerg in the lords room, done. Do this with any tower, keep, whatever. Have thieves go around and put up swords on every structure on the map. Send the zerg to a target, melt the gate with 20 or so, cap.

This will make things worse. I’ll make sure of that.

Basically. This doesn’t feel thought out, especially for folks in lower tiers. Most of the servers in the top tiers have people to spare at most times, and can drop 5 people into a keep/tower to cover every gate. That’s definitely not true in every tier. Making the number scale down the further you get down the ladder could solve this, maybe.

Haldunius.7864:

Togo, I’m not trying to be rude, but what you just described has been going on since the game was released. It comes down to what Lettucemode said and you allude to – this change will require more defense. I like that because in my mind it generates a more tactical experience. You don’t like (get ready for me to put words in your mouth) because you think it helps zergs. Both of us essentially agree on the design goal because easier work for zergs means more defense from tower holder, but you like vanilla and I like chocolate.

Defense should be promoted through rewards. This change would make defending a map almost impossible and would lead to noone wanting to spend their money on upgrades b/c structures will start flipping like camps. Without waypoints WvW will get real boring having to keep a group of 20 inside of each structure b/c you aren’t going to get help in time. i.e. breakout event was such a great addition to the game (/sarcastic comment). Let’s give offensive teams another buff? We have to be careful just looking at one perspective (Offensive or Defensive) such as from the zerg’s standpoint or the small group’s perspective. If we are to put the defensive team in a harder position then the reward system better follow suit or people will flea this game to another quickly.

I am against this change as well. I agree with all the people arguing about it giving too much cover to zergs. Organized guild groups are already effective at not popping orange swords. This means it completely throws that form of ‘organized offensive strategy’ out the window. It provides too much cover for big groups.

To the people claiming that this will cut down the zerg numbers…you are being delusional, read into the logic. This will help zerg numbers.

1. Person arguing about T1, there are more guild groups in T1 than anywhere else. If you are arguing for help with the PUG zerg? You are in the wrong tier. The organized guild groups dont pop orange swords as it is.

2. Unorganized zergs can do a lot of damage now without popping swords.

3. It would be difficult to keep track of enemy movements and read it as easily as before.

4. During off-peak hours lower populations are going to suffer a LOT more. You realize we will need a sentry at every gate in Garrison now.

5. By removing the capability of popping orange swords its taken away more from that party of 5 that could go to another objective and cause a distraction by popping orange swords

6. You can completely forget about your small 5 man party making a difference now in taking towers and keeps. Flip supply camps all day or go run with the zerg because you will be unable to ninja jack without immediate zerg response.

7. It negates the usefulness of things such as Quaggan weather nodes (previously used as masks for offense), now they would be useful for only contesting WP’s. (People won’t get to WP keeps in T1/T2 because of this feature).

If Arenanet really wanted to help out the pug commanders etc by not popping swords, increase the cap to 10 not 25. 25 gives too much cover to organized guild groups.

However, hands down the best idea in this thread is the idea to buy additional upgrades to towers/keeps called ‘cover’ which can help us purchase the orange swords option. Now that would be awesome. It would encourage stern defence up to the point of T2 walls/gates and cover upgrades being done. After which it would allow the defensive server to go on the offence. It would limit zergs from going objective to objective capping.

Arenanet: Add SCOUTING UPGRADES to keeps please. TY.

Sounds like a bad idea, really need to see the detail though.

The only real “zerging” is usually on t1 – t3 servers, the rest of us just have big guild groups and that won’t change. We may be running 25 people, but if we can all now attack the gate and guards with superior siege we will have taken that tower/keep before someone else can say “hey, is that tower contested?”.

Of course we use scouts, but nobody wants to be the guy sitting at Hills or Bay for two hours just in case a 24 man group shows up. I repeat, NOBODY. If you say you do want to be that guy then you don’t actually enjoy WvWvW you just have some weird need to please people and should seek help.

The real issue with WvWvW is we want more fights. People who enjoy ninja-ing towers are also slightly strange in my eyes. I join WvWvW for the battles – not PvDoor – and this is not going to help. Now I’m only going to know where there is a massive cullingfest happening, why am I going to bother heading to those orange swords?

I’ve never logged off Vent saying “wow what a great night, we ninjad all those keeps and didn’t see a single enemy player!”. On the other hand, I’ve logged off many times where we scored zilch and took nothing but everyone loved the massive open running battles, the small skirmishes and actually doing some, you know, player versus player stuff.

Thor.1756:

The poor scouts who have to sit in every kitten tower for hours on end now. I call not it.

They should be increasing the rewards for defending.

morrolan.9608:

Thor.1756:

The poor scouts who have to sit in every kitten tower for hours on end now. I call not it.

They should be increasing the rewards for defending.

Yeah but thats really hard to make.

Give every towers/keep a barrel full of scanning guns (could be an upgrade) that allow scouts to scan 10+ ennemy or 2+ sieges and trigger an alarm displayed on every ally screen.

Scouts who helped to trigger the alarm are given 2 badges of honnor (Cd : 5min)

TogoChubb.3984:

Haldunius.7864:

Togo, I’m not trying to be rude, but what you just described has been going on since the game was released. It comes down to what Lettucemode said and you allude to – this change will require more defense. I like that because in my mind it generates a more tactical experience. You don’t like (get ready for me to put words in your mouth) because you think it helps zergs. Both of us essentially agree on the design goal because easier work for zergs means more defense from tower holder, but you like vanilla and I like chocolate.

Defense should be promoted through rewards. This change would make defending a map almost impossible and would lead to noone wanting to spend their money on upgrades b/c structures will start flipping like camps. Without waypoints WvW will get real boring having to keep a group of 20 inside of each structure b/c you aren’t going to get help in time. i.e. breakout event was such a great addition to the game (/sarcastic comment). Let’s give offensive teams another buff? We have to be careful just looking at one perspective (Offensive or Defensive) such as from the zerg’s standpoint or the small group’s perspective. If we are to put the defensive team in a harder position then the reward system better follow suit or people will flea this game to another quickly.

I completely agree. This is not an issue of zerg vs small group. It is an issue of offense vs defense.

bring back the dolyak exp (1/10 – and only get exp upon tenth envoy) Hehe. >3<

It’s my opinion that the main objective with this change is to encourage larger zergs to split up into numerous smaller zergs.

Why? Because it’s a good strategy. It often leads to better coverage and better defense. PUGs often tend to gravitate towards one, or perhaps maybe two large zergs in a single borderlands. Splitting up into smaller zergs is and has always been, at the very least in many scenarios, a better strategy. Splitting up into smaller zergs is how you beat a single larger enemy zerg.

There are a couple problems with this change, though. The most blatant one is that 25 is too high. By setting this number to 25, they are essentially telling us that 24 or lower is a small zerg. For many servers, often even the higher tiers, this is not the case. I would feel much more comfortable if the number was 10-15, and I imagine that others would feel more comfortable with a smaller number as well.

The other problem is that the number of players that makes up a small zerg is often, on average, smaller on a lower tier server than on a higher tier server. While 5 will often give little to no advantage (to what is deemed as sizable zergs) no matter the tier, 25 might wherein that, while 25 is a small zerg in T1, it may be a large zerg in T8. They can lessen the impact of this difference between tiers by simply lowering the number of people it takes to make orange swords, as I’ve already said – ideally from 25 to 10-15.

TimeBomb.3427:

1)It’s my opinion that the main objective with this change is to encourage larger zergs to split up into numerous smaller zergs.

2)Why? Because it’s a good strategy. It often leads to better coverage and better defense. PUGs often tend to gravitate towards one, or perhaps maybe two large zergs in a single borderlands. Splitting up into smaller zergs is and has always been, at the very least in many scenarios, a better strategy. Splitting up into smaller zergs is how you beat a single larger enemy zerg.

3)There are a couple problems with this change, though. The most blatant one is that 25 is too high. By setting this number to 25, they are essentially telling us that 24 or lower is a small zerg. For many servers, often even the higher tiers, this is not the case. I would feel much more comfortable if the number was 10-15, and I imagine that others would feel more comfortable with a smaller number as well.

4)The other problem is that the number of players that makes up a small zerg is often, on average, smaller on a lower tier server than on a higher tier server. While 5 will often give little to no advantage (to what is deemed as sizable zergs) no matter the tier, 25 might wherein that, while 25 is a small zerg in T1, it may be a large zerg in T8. They can lessen the impact of this difference between tiers by simply lowering the number of people it takes to make orange swords, as I’ve already said – ideally from 25 to 10-15.

First, I’ll number your paragraphs; so you will know which I am replying to, and will make things easier.

Second, time to address each paragraph, thus:

1. Why? A big zerg will always be the offensive force of a server. And infiltration group of 5 or less will do the supply camp capping. And a group of 2 parties will deal with defenses on towers/keeps/castles. So, whether the big force is seen or not will not really make a big deal because they can kill that which is in their way. And even if the battle signs won’t necessarily show if they person leading knows where to hide, and apply different skills by different professions, like veil of mesmer, thief’s etc. etc. (sorry if I mix and mash the names of skills)

Even if a group will separate, they will still join for protection. Imagine a small group of fish banning together in order to look like a bigger fish against a predator.

2. Well, I’ve talked about this in number 1. The main force doesn’t need to hide, and in tier 1-3, there are infiltration groups doing secret things but has communication with the commander or commanders in charge of a certain battleground.

3. I agree. 5 is okay, for my taste. So, there really is no need to change the current system. Maybe alter it. Or if the lesser evil be considered, something within 10 (and even 10- can kill 20/30 ppl if properly organized)

4. seems similar to your point 2.

While this is a good idea, I think the twitter post still lacks sufficient data for us to make a conclusion. Who knows what the devs are up to. Hopefully they will disclose the new information asap.

I don’t like this. There’s lots of situations where I have 5 people on the map and we’re trying to dodge 15+.

You can’t scout with 5 people and now I can’t tell whether it’s quaggans at the camp or 20 people hitting it. What the hell is the map good for now?

TimeBomb.3427:

It’s my opinion that the main objective with this change is to encourage larger zergs to split up into numerous smaller zergs.

Why? Because it’s a good strategy. It often leads to better coverage and better defense. PUGs often tend to gravitate towards one, or perhaps maybe two large zergs in a single borderlands. Splitting up into smaller zergs is and has always been, at the very least in many scenarios, a better strategy. Splitting up into smaller zergs is how you beat a single larger enemy zerg.

There are a couple problems with this change, though. The most blatant one is that 25 is too high. By setting this number to 25, they are essentially telling us that 24 or lower is a small zerg. For many servers, often even the higher tiers, this is not the case. I would feel much more comfortable if the number was 10-15, and I imagine that others would feel more comfortable with a smaller number as well.

The other problem is that the number of players that makes up a small zerg is often, on average, smaller on a lower tier server than on a higher tier server. While 5 will often give little to no advantage (to what is deemed as sizable zergs) no matter the tier, 25 might wherein that, while 25 is a small zerg in T1, it may be a large zerg in T8. They can lessen the impact of this difference between tiers by simply lowering the number of people it takes to make orange swords, as I’ve already said – ideally from 25 to 10-15.

The real problem is that it allows the stealth zerg to be more effective. Instead of the zerg holdng back and letting a few hit the gates now you’ll have at least 20 or so take down the gate while the rest holds back.

Basically, this rewards servers with the most people to spread around. Smaller servers won’t have the warnings they need to try and respond, while a server like mine, JQ, can afford to keep a few scouts about while the masses do their thing relatively unseen.

ViRuE.3612:

Sounds like a bad idea, really need to see the detail though.

The only real “zerging” is usually on t1 – t3 servers, the rest of us just have big guild groups and that won’t change. We may be running 25 people, but if we can all now attack the gate and guards with superior siege we will have taken that tower/keep before someone else can say “hey, is that tower contested?”.

Of course we use scouts, but nobody wants to be the guy sitting at Hills or Bay for two hours just in case a 24 man group shows up. I repeat, NOBODY. If you say you do want to be that guy then you don’t actually enjoy WvWvW you just have some weird need to please people and should seek help.

The real issue with WvWvW is we want more fights. People who enjoy ninja-ing towers are also slightly strange in my eyes. I join WvWvW for the battles – not PvDoor – and this is not going to help. Now I’m only going to know where there is a massive cullingfest happening, why am I going to bother heading to those orange swords?

I’ve never logged off Vent saying “wow what a great night, we ninjad all those keeps and didn’t see a single enemy player!”. On the other hand, I’ve logged off many times where we scored zilch and took nothing but everyone loved the massive open running battles, the small skirmishes and actually doing some, you know, player versus player stuff.

First of all WvW is about your server accumulating more points by owning structures. Secondly it is about large scale battles over these structures and if those don’t work then alternative strategy applis. If you are not focused on winning the end game then I would be a little disappointed if I were on your server. Finally we do our share of defense and zerg smashing as well. It’s very effective to unexpectedly hit a zerg from their flanks and scatter them enough to stop their siege when you are grossly outnumbered. In addition a zerg against zerg fest is fun if numbers a similar. If they are not similar the outnumbered team usually loses because the AoE cap allows larger numbers to res people without taking damage; and eventually this advantage wins out. There are so many other aspects to WvW that need to be addressed before Ox’s IMO. I know this isn’t the thread for it but culling is number one on my list period. Then the reward system. Ox’s are what they are and changing the cap without a major overhaul on the rest of the system’s mechanics will lead to a boring WvW and eventually people will leave due to lack of reward. Maybe the maps will just turn into a large open world field battle/fight club and noone will pay attention to the structures.

TogoChubb.3984:

First of all WvW is about your server accumulating more points by owning structures. Secondly it is about large scale battles over these structures and if those don’t work then alternative strategy applis. If you are not focused on winning the end game then I would be a little disappointed if I were on your server.

I’ve no idea what tier you are in but it goes like this in 4 downwards usually – you either choose to chase points by going to some BL and PvDoor or you choose to engage the enemy wherever they are. It isn’t of course as cut and dried as that – you could equally say you either choose to engage the enemy or you choose to just recap what they capped for the points… and so on.

Everyone wants to win, but very few of us want to do something just to win that isn’t any fun. And PvDoor is not fun. Sitting in a tower checking doors is no fun either. Putting a ninja squad together is simply dull but at least it has some xp, karma and points attached. Bottom line though if you want to take on trash mobs followerd by a simple enough champ mob PvE is that way.

FINALLY! Thanks Anet I wish there would be no more orange swords but ok…25 is a good number.
This force finally servers to scout and hopefully improve the team play.

suprNovae.5410:

FINALLY! Thanks Anet I wish there would be no more orange swords but ok…25 is a good number.
This force finally servers to scout and hopefully improve the team play.

At least, someone is happy.

ViRuE.3612:

TogoChubb.3984:

First of all WvW is about your server accumulating more points by owning structures. Secondly it is about large scale battles over these structures and if those don’t work then alternative strategy applis. If you are not focused on winning the end game then I would be a little disappointed if I were on your server.

I’ve no idea what tier you are in but it goes like this in 4 downwards usually – you either choose to chase points by going to some BL and PvDoor or you choose to engage the enemy wherever they are. It isn’t of course as cut and dried as that – you could equally say you either choose to engage the enemy or you choose to just recap what they capped for the points… and so on.

Everyone wants to win, but very few of us want to do something just to win that isn’t any fun. And PvDoor is not fun. Sitting in a tower checking doors is no fun either. Putting a ninja squad together is simply dull but at least it has some xp, karma and points attached. Bottom line though if you want to take on trash mobs followerd by a simple enough champ mob PvE is that way.

Sounds like sPvP is a better fit for you. Doesn’t sound like you understand how we play. I won’t exlpain it in detail again but we play all aspects of the game which sometimes includes PvDoor. Other times it is defending structures, capping camps, quags, zerging, suicide runs to kill siege. You name it we do it. PvE you say? That hurts. PvE’s only use is to pay for WvW IMO.

In my opinion this will do nothing to stop a zerg. Already as previous posters have indicated to send in a group of 4 to take down cannons oil etc is common at all tiers. The difference is the number stood in the wings waiting building golls or ready to drop seige. Now we can hit the door straight up with 24 without swords 4 omega golls and we are in. There would be no time to respond from any part of the map waypoint or not. To have a 50 man zerg at reset might be the only time I see one the rest of the time in t4 it would be 20. I said in the forum yesterday I am a defending commander on YBBL. We have a small but dedicated crew who give their time to defending watching upgrading etc. For this they get no rewards at all. Under the current gameplay you only get rewards for killing taking stuff and defense when you are attacked. I ask are you going to spend 4-6 of your social hours stood in a position just watching for no reward. Some do but very few. This will increase the zerg at lower tiers not decrease it. Where currently we would do things with 5-8 now we can use 24 without detection. This is a backward step indeed. However I will get more rewards zerging around will I not

I guess we all disagree here so time will tell. Thanks for the discussions today guys. Kept me entertained while at work.

If this change goes through they will really need to do something regarding one player tapping the gate to contest and lockdown an entire keep. They should also increase the number of players that need to hit the gate to contest the point. One thief shouldn’t be able to keep a point permanently contested. Should require at least 2-3 people to hit the gate within a few seconds to contest the point. Of course, any siege hitting a point should immediately contest it.

This is a bad change. It means even more PvDoor.

Sending one person to contest a structure is going to be way too good, because every time it happens, you are going to have to rush people there, or keep a permanent scout at every single location, which is very boring for that player.

Currently, when you see a silver sword, you can send one person to the spot, under the assurance that even if it was under attack, it would be 5 or less people and thus you would have plenty of time to respond after the scout checked. This well be no longer the case. Let’s say you have 20 enemy beating on a holding, if you now send just one scout by the time he gets there and reports that it is indeed 20 people, the place is going to be down before enough actual help arrives to save it. Orange swords at 5+ removed this middle step of checking, because people knew it was a large force and just rushed to defend automatically.

Shouldn’t forget also, it was already possible to ninja a structure with a zerg, simply don’t hit the door other than siege. This actually dumbs things down for attackers as they no longer have to be smart to hide their numbers.

The change has come about (probably) due to community request – different section of community to those who are against it ofc, I imagine mainly the ones who run in huge guild groups of 30+ at all times.

If I recall the first place I heard of it was TalesofTyria (I was on a T9 server at the time and remember thinking how bad it would be for gameplay down there), prob not the initial idea but one of the ways it got more widespread.

I’d much rather have ZERO indicators at all and have commanders rely on scouts, than have a setup that encourages zergy play(lets be honest: if you see swords now, you don’t necessarily send a huge force; if we see swords with this patch…obvi we send a large force).

Carebear kitten imo. What we need is LESS handholding and MORE focus on actual “skill”.

playandchill.3908:

Steelo.4597:

now huge zergs can attack stuff and only have it contested except if there are 25 fools instead of the usual 5.. yeah SURE this will help zerging.

25 players is not a zerg imo

24 players is enough to build 4 rams both on outer and inner doors of a structure, which will pretty much melt them as well as if you brought golems.

Really doesn’t matter if we call it a zerg, or what semantics we use, bottom line is teams are going to have camp people in every structure on a map to ensure safety of it. In the lower tiers at many times during the day servers simply don’t have the manpower to waste 5-10 people on sentry duty. That could be half their force on the entire map.

Anet should realize that the majority of WvW players are not in Tier 1. If there are zergs of 50 people running around there, there can’t be many of them, because the map cap would only allow like 2. Maybe even one if they lowered the cap. How the heck hard is it to keep track of where a 50 person zerg is. You shouldn’t need the map to tell you where 25+ people are, that’s where the scouting should come in.

Tier 4 Upgrade: Hire Mist Security to install video cameras above your gates and breakable walls to show you exactly what and how many are attacking.

somsom.5201:

Carebear kitten imo. What we need is LESS handholding and MORE focus on actual “skill”.

Standing on a wall for hours watching the wildlife circle itself on an AI path is not skill. That is just tedium, extreme patience and hoping to have people with hours to kill to who don’t actually have any interest in fighting in WvW. Can’t imagine too many volunteers for this. Especially when many are in WvW primarily to fight and not necessarily even win the match, due to how number inbalances screw up the validity of that anyway.

You say whenever you see silver swords now you will have to rush masses there, yes, unfortunately every structure is going to have silver swords 24/7 with this change due to thieves or other solo’ers constantly keeping things tagged.

So how do you rush a mass of people to 5+ locations at the same time. NPC’s are already useless from a fighting standpoint, now they become useless from an information and map help standpoint as well. Why even have upgrades for structures at all, if none of the upgrades would be guards that actually tell you information on an attack. What the heck is the keep lord and guards there for, certainly not to deter defensively.

Or maybe that should be a new upgrade then if they do this change, sentries, who would serve as a warning system and offer several more sword color icons to display number of attackers, maybe have 3 levels: 5+ (yellow swords) 10+ (orange swords) 25+ (red swords)

1) They need to remove gate tagging to contest a keep/tower. You should have a combination of minimal players (say 5-10 in area) and/or a damage percentage (say 10-15% dmg to wall or gate) before a keep becomes contested. (white swords).

2) NO porting to contested keeps at the DE event timer reset. If you add step 1 above you stop single players from constantly contesting the waypoint. This forces people to actually defend, instead of joining the zerg knowing they can port back at the timer reset. Players also will have to actually run to a keep/tower promoting more open field PvP.

3) I wouldn’t have a problem with orange swords for 25+ players now if they added steps 1 and 2.

This would reduce zergs and create a more dynamic WvW.

This will hopefully mean more roaming and less zerging in the end.

Keep yer fingers x’ed!

This change makes it worse for lower population servers. But who cares about them anyway?!

For Faux Sake.8457:

Orange swords will never show again in lower tiers. Ghost battles and ninja’d keeps for everyone!

/agree with Menorah.
Knowing that a group of 20-25 people is considered a zerg already in those tiers, and many players are roaming in a group of 5 or less, orange swords will be a very rare occasion.

So, yea, ghost battles and ninja-ed keeps and towers for everyone!

Pendragon.8735:

This is a bad change. It means even more PvDoor.

Sending one person to contest a structure is going to be way too good, because every time it happens, you are going to have to rush people there, or keep a permanent scout at every single location, which is very boring for that player.

Which is why they have to increase the rewards for those players. ANd IMHO 24 is too much, it should have been around 15.

Ahmrill.7512:

1) They need to remove gate tagging to contest a keep/tower. You should have a combination of minimal players (say 5-10 in area) and/or a damage percentage (say 10-15% dmg to wall or gate) before a keep becomes contested. (white swords).

Good point they should have combined the 2.

This is a great change. One of the worst changes Mythic did with NF was adding fight indicators. Knowledge should come from players, not the map. Also looking forward to this for small scale roaming. Pretty kitten tired of running solo/duo and throwing up swords on the map and getting zerged soon after.

A good change to go along with this is to make it so only siege can contest objectives (except supply camps).