Guild Wars 2

Both sides stand at 1,300 range from one another, while auto firing and spamming aoes. The only real strategy in these zerg v zergs is for both groups to just auto target the closest enemy player while spamming control moves to try and mess the targeted or dog piled person up. This is basically how everyone dies in WvW and no one actually enjoys being killed like this.

Your only means of defense is to stay inside the zerg, if you step out front you will be auto targeted and dog piled in a matter of seconds.

Its true siege does exist but it actually doesn’t change the way the game’s mechanics effect a battle strategy even one bit. People are still just auto targeting the nearest enemy player, and spamming away they are just using siege to do it instead.

This is why GW2 feels so zergy, because the game mechanics force all of us to adopt and adhere to do this: very basic, very boring, and very Diablo one type of auto targeting and dog piling for the highest chance of success.

The only solution I can come up with is to turn friendly fire on. It would create so much depth to the combat system you wouldn’t even believe. People would actually have to try not to fire bullets and arrows right through their teammates head, kind of like a real battle. Physics in games is what makes them feel realistic. Since the very first video game was made developers have striven for realism.

It would add a whole new element if you’re outnumbered and not a thief. You would actually have a chance if you kept very aware of your opponents position. That way enemy arrows and bullets would go into an enemy player’s back rather than passing through him like he is a ghost right into your face.

Do you think games like the Halo series would have such a huge following and success if the game’s combat system simply had friendly fire turned off? Do you think Halo’s combat system might loose some depth if you could simply fire rounds through your teammate in order to shoot an enemy player? Do you think Halo would loose some of it’s reply value without the depth that friendly fire adds to it’s combat system?

The most basic example of friendly fire and how it adds a whole new element and way of actually playing a game is River city ransom. River city ransom is an NES game that was made in the 80s. If that game had friendly fire turned off it would of had: no depth, no strategy, and the strong team work element would have been gone. With Friendly fire turned off you could have basically walked right on top of your teammate the whole game. The one and only strategy you would need to complete the entire game is for both of you to stand back to back and spam the B button which did dragon feet a fast kick that enemy players couldn’t get through and it also stopped projectiles. All of the enemies would of just ran right into both of you since that is how the AI was designed. You could of beaten the whole game without taking one point of damage by doing this one and only strategy.

River city ransom wasn’t like that though. If you punched and your buddy was right in front of you. You punched your buddy in the back of the head actually doing damage to your teammate. Every room you came into you two had to work together. You had to watch out for your teammate, and you had to watch out for throwing things in his direction. Friendly fire added so much to this 8 bit game without it the game wouldn’t of made it to the shelves.

If you ask me a question directly I’m not likely to respond, to many bad experiences on forums.

It’s like you’ve never seen people using veils, sanctuaries, fire fields, water fields, walls of reflection or anything else that adds depth to group fights.

or use a flanking strategy?

i think you need to do at least 1 or more of the following

1) get on your server’s VoIP
2) find a guild to join, or leave and find a new one
3) if none of the above 2, find a different commander to follow
4) youtube search any guild wars 2 gvgs

theres actually alot more going on than you think, and if all you are seeing is 2 sides of millions of pugs derping, and standing around you are doing something wrong and have not seen enough of the game.

and here’s my shameless plug to help you find a decent gvg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsdlBjm79dQ

Florgknight

I’ve used and seen all of the moves you mentioned thousands of times in a zerg. They add a very temporary flare to the match up, but they have absolutely no effect on the actual battle strategy. It doesn’t matter if your whole team is coming out of stealth from veil to catch the enemy team off guard. It doesn’t matter if your team is behind a wall of reflection, and shooting through fire fields. It doesn’t matter if you’re all stacked up in a water field or sanctuary. The actual battle strategy is unaffected, everyone is still just auto targeting the closest enemy person while trying to lock up their keyboard and burn them down as fast as possible.

To Lance

Thank you for what you said. I will look into the 4 things you mentioned to see if I’m lacking.

Every single battle in human history that was fought with melee weapons had this in common. Every single foot soldier was spread out at least far enough away so he wouldn’t hit the friendly soldier standing to his right. Unless of course one side was using a tight formation with shields, and people with spears to counter the spread out style described above, think of the Spartans.

When the games Wolfenstein and Doom came out they were heralded as massive breakthroughs. Would those games have been as successful if they had auto aim? Most of the biggest first person shooters do not have auto aim when you’re online, and if they do many advanced players disable the feature.

What do medieval soldiers and FPS auto aim have anything to do with GW2, right?

GW2 is set up to auto aim for you. Your: bullets, arrows, and leap attacks are all auto aimed. Why? Lets face it they are much easier to perform that way. Should they be easy to perform though? Doesn’t that in a way remove some of the depth of the combat system, if even complicated moves are able to be performed easily? If complicated skills can be performed easily then do complicated skills exist?

Would Street fighter 1 & 2 have been successful if there was a button for every single move? Such as Ryu’s Harui-cane would that game have been as successful and fun if people could just pick Ryu, Ken, or Guile and perform a Harui-cane or a sonic boom by just pressing B?

GW2 feels zergy; because when you combine auto aim on, and friendly fire off in your combat system people are able to just stand anywhere and just blasting away. It doesn’t matter if your sword or axe goes through your friends when you’re swinging, it doesn’t matter if a teammate is in your line of fire.

My only curiosity is this. Would guild wars 2 be better as a whole if things like friendly fire and auto aim were looked into, and possibly done differently? I have given you examples of how alternative programming for these two features has proven to add depth in combat systems for games that had only a small fraction of bits to work with.

Join a Guild.

WvW changes a lot when running with guilds.

To Runeblade

I’ll look into joining a more active WvW guild, thank you for the advice.

Ron.4920:

Every single battle in human history that was fought with melee weapons had this in common. Every single foot soldier was spread out at least far enough away so he wouldn’t hit the friendly soldier standing to his right.

When the games Wolfenstein and Doom came out they were heralded as massive breakthroughs. Would those games have been as successful if they had auto aim? Most of the biggest first person shooters do not have auto aim when you’re online, and if they do many advanced players disable the feature.

What do medieval soldiers and FPS auto aim have anything to do with GW2, right?

GW2 is set up to auto aim for you. Your bullets, and arrows, your leap attacks all are auto aimed. Why? Lets face it they are much easier to perform that way. Should they be easy to perform though? Doesn’t that in a way remove much of the depth of the combat system, if even complicated moves are able to be performed easily? If complicated skills can be performed easily then do complicated skills exist?

GW2 feels zergy; because when you combine these two features in your combat system people are able to just stand anywhere and just blasting away. It doesn’t matter if your sword or axe goes through your friends when you’re swinging, it doesn’t matter if a teammate is in your line of fire.

My only curiosity is this. Would guild wars 2 be better as a whole if things like friendly fire and auto aim were looked into, and possibly done differently? I have given you examples of how alternative programming for these two features has proven to add depth in combat systems for games that had only a small fraction of bits to work with.

Okay i can instantly tell you have NO clue how any fights happened up till modern times. First of all 90% of combat from the bronze age – Renaissance was fought by taking a mass of footmen and putting them right next to each other. For reference search Shield wall, Phalanx, and Roman Legionnaire tactics. for Mounted combat you they would move their horses so that their stirrups touched and the charge would frequently fail if they weren’t. Melee combat was bloody, scary, massive group fights because charging a phalanx or a shield wall was balls out insanity the only way they would happen usually was by both sides sitting across from each other and psyching themselves up by usually getting drunk enough.

A usual clash between opposing forces started with them coming to a field and forming a wall. Then about 2 hours of them taunting each other occasionally firing arrows at each other. then a buncha drugged up people would shed their armor and charge the line naked (kinda like the guys that run forward in zergs) and try to break the wall, usually failing and dying. Then the rest would proceeded to get drunk and slam together.

I think it is sad that people are stepping up to say there is so much more to it, what a joke. Stacking and blasting combo fields is not tactical brilliance, stacking and running out of sight and then hitting them in the flank, not tactical brilliance, stacking and then stealthing or using portals, not tactical brilliance. Telling everyone to wear PVT, not tactical brilliance.

I cannot think of a single faction based PvP game that has as low a skill cap to succeed as this game and as a result the zerg game is not forced to be better, to do better. The solution to all is better coverage, to recruit more, bigger zergs, more and more people.

In fairness the game does not actually provide the tools. Squads having no raid frames, no ability to organize and balance your groups, to create inner squad coordination. Every buff, cleanse, heal being just random splash on the closest targets with no group preference. Downed system.

I am fine with people running around in 70+ people zergs, if that is fun for you that is fine by me, just stop pretending it is more than it is.

Niim.9260:

I think it is sad that people are stepping up to say there is so much more to it, what a joke. Stacking and blasting combo fields is not tactical brilliance, stacking and running out of sight and then hitting them in the flank, not tactical brilliance, stacking and then stealthing or using portals, not tactical brilliance. Telling everyone to wear PVT, not tactical brilliance.

I cannot think of a single faction based PvP game that has as low a skill cap to succeed as this game and as a result the zerg game is not forced to be better, to do better. The solution to all is better coverage, to recruit more, bigger zergs, more and more people.

In fairness the game does not actually provide the tools. Squads having no raid frames, no ability to organize and balance your groups, to create inner squad coordination. Every buff, cleanse, heal being just random splash on the closest targets with no group preference. Downed system.

I am fine with people running around in 70+ people zergs, if that is fun for you that is fine by me, just stop pretending it is more than it is.

can name 3 DAoC, SB, WHO they are all about harnessing large numbers of people to destroy the enemy force and only way to stop it is with similar numbers.

Server A has a 60 man blob, no voice comms, one commander that some people stay near, people firing whatever skill they can whenever it comes off cooldown.

Serber B has a 30 man blob, all of them on the same teamspeak channel, two commanders, melee players following one commander and ranged following another, stays closely bunched, keeps up stability & vigour, makes proper use of boon removal, whirl finishers through light fields when pushing through, regularly pulls to the side to heal, buffs before pushing again, and so on.

Server B will win every single encounter.

I’ve been in fights where we’ve beaten bigger numbers because everyone on our side knew what they were doing; I’ve been in fights where we’ve been wiped by a smaller group because there was little or no organisation (or simply because the enemy were so good at what they do – RG still give me nightmares). The amount of people involved matters, but it’s only a deciding factor when both groups’ organisation (or lack thereof) is the same.

CorliCorso.6254:

Server A has a 60 man blob, no voice comms, one commander that some people stay near, people firing whatever skill they can whenever it comes off cooldown.

Serber B has a 30 man blob, all of them on the same teamspeak channel, two commanders, melee players following one commander and ranged following another, stays closely bunched, keeps up stability & vigour, makes proper use of boon removal, whirl finishers through light fields when pushing through, regularly pulls to the side to heal, buffs before pushing again, and so on.

Server B will win every single encounter.

I’ve been in fights where we’ve beaten bigger numbers because everyone on our side knew what they were doing; I’ve been in fights where we’ve been wiped by a smaller group because there was little or no organisation (or simply because the enemy were so good at what they do – RG still give me nightmares). The amount of people involved matters, but it’s only a deciding factor when both groups’ organisation (or lack thereof) is the same.

Of course force multipliers applied back then and in this game as well, and nothing is a bigger force multiplier then communication/organization. We could argue all day on the meaning of “zerg” but to me mass numbers and complete lack of organization = zerg. Unfortunately with the state of games its very difficult to force organizations so most large groups end up being zergs.

FearTheAmish.8730:

Niim.9260:

I think it is sad that people are stepping up to say there is so much more to it, what a joke. Stacking and blasting combo fields is not tactical brilliance, stacking and running out of sight and then hitting them in the flank, not tactical brilliance, stacking and then stealthing or using portals, not tactical brilliance. Telling everyone to wear PVT, not tactical brilliance.

I cannot think of a single faction based PvP game that has as low a skill cap to succeed as this game and as a result the zerg game is not forced to be better, to do better. The solution to all is better coverage, to recruit more, bigger zergs, more and more people.

In fairness the game does not actually provide the tools. Squads having no raid frames, no ability to organize and balance your groups, to create inner squad coordination. Every buff, cleanse, heal being just random splash on the closest targets with no group preference. Downed system.

I am fine with people running around in 70+ people zergs, if that is fun for you that is fine by me, just stop pretending it is more than it is.

can name 3 DAoC, SB, WHO they are all about harnessing large numbers of people to destroy the enemy force and only way to stop it is with similar numbers.

Incorrect, zergs got steamrolled by coordinated groups. in SB “Shadowbane”. I’ve seen guilds with four times an enemies number lose sieges to specialized groups.

Folk.2093:

FearTheAmish.8730:

Niim.9260:

I think it is sad that people are stepping up to say there is so much more to it, what a joke. Stacking and blasting combo fields is not tactical brilliance, stacking and running out of sight and then hitting them in the flank, not tactical brilliance, stacking and then stealthing or using portals, not tactical brilliance. Telling everyone to wear PVT, not tactical brilliance.

I cannot think of a single faction based PvP game that has as low a skill cap to succeed as this game and as a result the zerg game is not forced to be better, to do better. The solution to all is better coverage, to recruit more, bigger zergs, more and more people.

In fairness the game does not actually provide the tools. Squads having no raid frames, no ability to organize and balance your groups, to create inner squad coordination. Every buff, cleanse, heal being just random splash on the closest targets with no group preference. Downed system.

I am fine with people running around in 70+ people zergs, if that is fun for you that is fine by me, just stop pretending it is more than it is.

can name 3 DAoC, SB, WHO they are all about harnessing large numbers of people to destroy the enemy force and only way to stop it is with similar numbers.

Incorrect, zergs got steamrolled by coordinated groups. in SB “Shadowbane”. I’ve seen guilds with four times an enemies number lose sieges to specialized groups.

Yes the small groups won battles but lost wars. As an example from SB look at the war between the Northern Alliance and LOD. LOD had numbers and was beaten in many battles even losing their capital once but eventually won the war through shear attrition going on to dominate the server. Remember even though the “300” won several battles they still eventually lost the war and Athens got sacked.

EDIT: but we can argue this forever because it seems like we are looking for 2 different things in RvR/WvW. Personally i enjoy the clash of large armies and the tactics and skill of a siege. You enjoy the small group fights, both have great aspects and i personally enjoy both. BUT! i find that small group are all about getting the perfect class combo with the perfect skill set etc. and find that very restricting.

I’ll second the recommendation to join a guild!

I HATED WvW for the apparent redundancy of Zerg v Zerg disorganized gameplay until I joined my guild, Os. This is GUILD wars after all, right?

It’s important to note that this isn’t to say Zerg fights don’t tend to unfold in a number of similar ways, though.

CorliCorso.6254:

Server A has a 60 man blob, no voice comms, one commander that some people stay near, people firing whatever skill they can whenever it comes off cooldown.

Serber B has a 30 man blob, all of them on the same teamspeak channel, two commanders, melee players following one commander and ranged following another, stays closely bunched, keeps up stability & vigour, makes proper use of boon removal, whirl finishers through light fields when pushing through, regularly pulls to the side to heal, buffs before pushing again, and so on.

Server B will win every single encounter.

I’ve been in fights where we’ve beaten bigger numbers because everyone on our side knew what they were doing; I’ve been in fights where we’ve been wiped by a smaller group because there was little or no organisation (or simply because the enemy were so good at what they do – RG still give me nightmares). The amount of people involved matters, but it’s only a deciding factor when both groups’ organisation (or lack thereof) is the same.

So true! I’ve encountered this scenario so many times with my guild. Sometimes the odds will be as crazy as 1 of us to 4 enemy players.

No one will pretend that GW2 WvW requires more skill than top 50 gvg in GW1, but to act as if its nothing more than a mindless game of solitaire is also equally ridiculous.

FearTheAmish.8730:

Folk.2093:

FearTheAmish.8730:

Niim.9260:

I think it is sad that people are stepping up to say there is so much more to it, what a joke. Stacking and blasting combo fields is not tactical brilliance, stacking and running out of sight and then hitting them in the flank, not tactical brilliance, stacking and then stealthing or using portals, not tactical brilliance. Telling everyone to wear PVT, not tactical brilliance.

I cannot think of a single faction based PvP game that has as low a skill cap to succeed as this game and as a result the zerg game is not forced to be better, to do better. The solution to all is better coverage, to recruit more, bigger zergs, more and more people.

In fairness the game does not actually provide the tools. Squads having no raid frames, no ability to organize and balance your groups, to create inner squad coordination. Every buff, cleanse, heal being just random splash on the closest targets with no group preference. Downed system.

I am fine with people running around in 70+ people zergs, if that is fun for you that is fine by me, just stop pretending it is more than it is.

can name 3 DAoC, SB, WHO they are all about harnessing large numbers of people to destroy the enemy force and only way to stop it is with similar numbers.

Incorrect, zergs got steamrolled by coordinated groups. in SB “Shadowbane”. I’ve seen guilds with four times an enemies number lose sieges to specialized groups.

Yes the small groups won battles but lost wars. As an example from SB look at the war between the Northern Alliance and LOD. LOD had numbers and was beaten in many battles even losing their capital once but eventually won the war through shear attrition going on to dominate the server. Remember even though the “300” won several battles they still eventually lost the war and Athens got sacked.

EDIT: but we can argue this forever because it seems like we are looking for 2 different things in RvR/WvW. Personally i enjoy the clash of large armies and the tactics and skill of a siege. You enjoy the small group fights, both have great aspects and i personally enjoy both. BUT! i find that small group are all about getting the perfect class combo with the perfect skill set etc. and find that very restricting.

Umm, The Greeks won that War….Athen’s got sacked yes, but the Persian Empire lost the actual War.

Xsorus.2507:

FearTheAmish.8730:

Folk.2093:

FearTheAmish.8730:

Niim.9260:

I think it is sad that people are stepping up to say there is so much more to it, what a joke. Stacking and blasting combo fields is not tactical brilliance, stacking and running out of sight and then hitting them in the flank, not tactical brilliance, stacking and then stealthing or using portals, not tactical brilliance. Telling everyone to wear PVT, not tactical brilliance.

I cannot think of a single faction based PvP game that has as low a skill cap to succeed as this game and as a result the zerg game is not forced to be better, to do better. The solution to all is better coverage, to recruit more, bigger zergs, more and more people.

In fairness the game does not actually provide the tools. Squads having no raid frames, no ability to organize and balance your groups, to create inner squad coordination. Every buff, cleanse, heal being just random splash on the closest targets with no group preference. Downed system.

I am fine with people running around in 70+ people zergs, if that is fun for you that is fine by me, just stop pretending it is more than it is.

can name 3 DAoC, SB, WHO they are all about harnessing large numbers of people to destroy the enemy force and only way to stop it is with similar numbers.

Incorrect, zergs got steamrolled by coordinated groups. in SB “Shadowbane”. I’ve seen guilds with four times an enemies number lose sieges to specialized groups.

Yes the small groups won battles but lost wars. As an example from SB look at the war between the Northern Alliance and LOD. LOD had numbers and was beaten in many battles even losing their capital once but eventually won the war through shear attrition going on to dominate the server. Remember even though the “300” won several battles they still eventually lost the war and Athens got sacked.

EDIT: but we can argue this forever because it seems like we are looking for 2 different things in RvR/WvW. Personally i enjoy the clash of large armies and the tactics and skill of a siege. You enjoy the small group fights, both have great aspects and i personally enjoy both. BUT! i find that small group are all about getting the perfect class combo with the perfect skill set etc. and find that very restricting.

Umm, The Greeks won that War….Athen’s got sacked yes, but the Persian Empire lost the actual War.

you are correct they were eventually forced to retreat because of a naval loss so bad example. I will use the Serbians during WW1 as a better example they defeated the austro hungarians multiple times but still got chased out to a small island in the Mediterranean and the allies winning the war (because of massive influx of troops/material from America) is only reason they got their nation back.

Or for an example farther back look at the Saxon invasion of Briton. Yes they were pushed back by a victory at Mount Baden there is a reason its now called England and not Briton.

The problem is… there is simply NO other way to group more than 5 people in GW2 unless you join a Commander which most often becomes a zerg. If they actually had another way for multiple groups to coordinate under 25 people we’d have better WvW.

We need more medium sized forces moving around the map, but we don’t have the tools to coordinate and form them. Having some kind of private squad or guild squad system would help. Basically allow a commander to hide his pin AND still retain all the functions of a squad. We’d have public zerg commanders, private specialty squads and 5 man groups on the battlefield.

Running together in separate 5 person groups, marking one person who’s leading and using a 3rd party voice program is not an adequate substitution for a private squad.

We are all just trying to post an ideas that we think could maybe make the game we love better. Why do so many people have to call us idiots in so many ways? No one is perfect least of all someone who mocks and taunts others for attention.

Man give us Guild only Commander Tag’s and WvW would change forever… They already have it programmed so that if you join someone’s squad all the other tags on the map are no longer visible to you….

So that means they already have the code to make it so people can’t see your tag unless they join your squad. If you can make other’s disappear why can’t something be put in to make it only show up when you are in the squad?