Guild Wars 2

Tortun.5946:

There should be rewards for upgrading positions, there should be rewards for laying down siege when a keep is contested etc… there needs to be a reward system in place that rewards those who actually play the game tactically and think about upgrading, protecting what’s theirs.

I agree with this point. Upgraders should be rewarded somehow, like every few minutes that the keep is up they get something, or any enemies killed near the keep should reward upgraders. Just something to encourage less team-oriented (read: selfish) players to actually contribute more than spamming their 1 key.

ZERGS ruin this game. The more people you have, the harder it is to kill anyone EXPONENTIALLY, due to this games absolutely abominable rez mechanic. 2 people can rez someone through SEIGE level DPS. It is ridiculous.

Zerging isn’t the issue whats keeping GW2 WvWvW from becoming a skill based competitive game. It’s the result of a set of limitations.

GW2 its own limitations created by ANet are at fault for making zerging so powerful. This game has created a setting where having bigger numbers almost always means being victorious. A combination of things set this off, 5 man AoE cap (combined with RNG of AoE damage selection) and Downed state are the 2 biggest limitations.
Right now it is always smarter to simply get a bigger group of people to run around with than it is to create a focus group of highly skilled players. Because the moment the ratio gets over 2 to 1 the smaller group their chances of winning go down exponentially due to the aforementioned limitations. Simple math will tell you that.

Skill does play a small role in this game, namely in small scale battles. 1 vs 3 shouldn’t be possible due to simple game mechanics (2 people ressing 1 downed person is faster than a haste/frenzy/time warped stom) but it is possible due to skill and human error and so on. However if you scale the battles the variables skill and human error become less of an issue. Skill, because a single person is limited to damaging 5 other people. And human error because the game becomes much more forgiving because of the randomness of the 5 man AoE cap.
As an example, 2 people put down the same AoE skill on a group of 50 players. The RNG of ANet will come to live and make the first AoE skill hit 5 random people in that group of 50, while the second AoE will hit another random 5 people. Sure there is a chance (albeit a tiny one, do the math yourself if you really want to know how tiny) both AoE’s will hit the same group of 5.

In theory the bright minds at ANet should have realized that they were creating a setting where eventually every server would go for getting as close to map cap amount of players in their zerg and going up against the other servers doing the same. Sadly this highly discourages competitive play and any form of theorycrafting or skill training.

Wow people…. Stop crying. so basically you want a game where 8 people can defeat 50? this is such a pointless argument. I’ve gone up against very large groups with small #s. sometimes pushed them back, sometimes super ganked.

This is such a silly argument.

I vote we stop calling them zergs and start calling them space marines.

CrassBippy.4619:

Wow people…. Stop crying. so basically you want a game where 8 people can defeat 50? this is such a pointless argument. I’ve gone up against very large groups with small #s. sometimes pushed them back, sometimes super ganked.

This is such a silly argument.

This game is called DAOC, and it’s vastly superior to GW2 in terms of PvP..

In fact GW2 even being mentioned in the same sentence as DAOC is an insult to DAOC as a game.

A zerg still requires a modicum amount of strategy to succeed. To be successful, as zerg must:

1) Be able to gather and use supplies appropriately. A zerg full of players who cannot use supply is doomed to fail at life.
2) Be able to set up siege appropriately. A zerg that places only rams or catas in reachable locations is destined to be stymied by enemy catapults or arrow carts.
3) Be able to run back for more supplies if the first siege attempt is destroyed. This is very important; how many times have you seen a zerg just mill about attacking the gate and defenders after the rams/cata were destroyed? How many more went for more supply to rebuild the catas in a better location?
4) Not be distracted by the tiny group of guerrillas. Zergs are often split or broken up by small strike teams of survivors who attack from a flank and draw a large portion of players away as they chase after them.
5) Be able to hold their gains. Zergs that cannot keep what they have taken are simple karma trains, and while they pass like a storm thier effects are minimal. “Scorched Earth” planning doesn’t work exceptionally well in Wv3.
6) Be able to watch their rear. It’s a sad zerg that can’t see behind itself while focused on a gate/wall.
7) Be able to break off and take out that kitten treb/mortar/siege. A zerg that continually slams against an objective without at least five freaking AoE’s circling around to at least TRY to take out the treb in the back of the tower is pretty stupid.

A zerg that can do all this is actually the best force on the Wv3 map. While everyone wants to win a Napoleonic battle of Austerlitz with amazing strategy and inferior forces, the game mechanics and of course player base make this very difficult, so more often than not while “greater numbers” seems like the simplest solution, it is also largely the best one, assuming it’s a greater number of people who can think rather than more bodies on the pile.

Valik Shin.9027:

I don’t get y everyone complains about zergs.

Ego. They want be an army of 1 but large groups are a constant reminder that they aren’t and will never be. They think they’re too skilled and intelligent to run with a bunch of other people, especially when some one else is calling the shots. The people who cry about zergs are usually full of themselves and can’t be reasoned with. They’re not reasonable people so don’t even try.

Just let them QQ on the forums. The more time they spend here, the less time they spend ganking people that aren’t built for 1v1s.

(Edit: Not knocking players who solo, just the ones who cry about zergs. There is a definite roll to be filled by solo players/small groups.)

Ok commander on Aurora Glade here, massive RTS and TBS player also.

First: Zerg refers to Starcraft. Zerg being a race which relies on numbers of units over quality of units to win. NOT numbers over tactics

Even if I were to take what people seem to think a Zerg is on this game, a large group lacking skill, it is often misused. What is wrong with the 25 people who band together, and build siege in smart locations, defend it with defensive siege and take a tower/keep? What is wrong with the large group that readies supply and goes some place where the enemy is not, whilst the enemy is busy dealing with an assault from the 3rd server elsewhere, and lays down some fast rams and breaks in?

This is called smart play. Because of the mechanics of siege and supply, numbers are required to effectively build siege on the offensive. I see so much moaning that a ‘Zerg’ gets a place before you can react. Perhaps that was rather the point? They assembled what was required to take that point on the map quicker than you can react to it. That’s not a mindless tactic.

Second: Why should 5 be able to hold off 30 reliably in any way whatsoever? The opponent has committed far more to something than you have, and because of that they have the resources to build what is required to take what you have away from you. No bloody way should 5 be able to hold off 5-6 or more than their own number, else all you do is make massive stalemates. 5-6 > 30, therefore to take X point you need 50. How often can you muster a full 50 man group? Rarely.

Something can be done to reduce the effectiveness of large group play, fair enough. Increase res time from fully downed (spiked, dead, whatever you want to call it). Perhaps nerf downed state itself in terms of res speed from that state also. Or even HP on down. However it should not stand that a group coordinating to suppress enemies on the wall whilst their siege batters down the wall/gate should regularly be on the losing side.

A lot of people don’t seem to consider that by reducing the effectiveness of the so called ‘Zerg’ all you really do is enforce stalemate situations. Player vs door would become the only reliable way of taking anything, and places like SM or Garrison? Forget about it.

You CAN do things to increase the time you hold out for support, you can sometimes even repel the enemy large group with inferior numbers with appropriately placed siege also.

Things you do not see often enough:
1) Enough defensive siege until the enemy has already setup their own. Of course you’ll be disadvantaged without access to a nearby supply camp as they’ll have taken it, and without siege to deal with what the larger enemy force has now setup. Build defensive siege first and run SWIC’s.
2) Open field siege. Rarely do I see a server hold out for example, the ogre camp choke point on eternal battlegrounds. Yes it can be circumvented, however that’s a good couple of minutes delay plus time to coordinate that round about route. If the enemy doesn’t think of it, then you can hold them there indefinitely.

Rarely do I see a smaller team assemble long range siege open field (trebs, or hell even catapults) and support it with arrow carts of the required number. I once commanded a group about 2/3 the size of the enemy group to setup a couple of catapults to the north of Durious, in the treeline so that enemy counter siege would have to be setup in a position that can be target-able from the ground, and setup 5 arrow carts and 2 ballista’s with them. We held there and nearly took down the wall, only failing because the 3rd server took us from behind and stole the siege

3) Protection of supply camps. How often have you defended a tower/keep that was still wood after hours of owning it, because the supply camps were never yours to deliver the supply. Or you have no supply upgrades on your camps leaving the tower/keep empty when it falls under siege. All so you can rush a supply camp that’ll never make a Dolyak delivery to your bases.

The tools are there for a reasonable numerical difference to be quite likely to win for the smaller side. However it should not be allowed that a tiny group holds reliably vs a massive one else you just get stalemates, and people leave WvW. We’d all be more sorry for that.

ShinjoNaomi.1896:

No… have to agree with Mumu on this.
I constantly hear complaints about how things in MMOs need a team of people to overcome. That’s what that second ‘M’ is there for.
/MULTIPLAYER/.
WvW exemplifies that second ‘M’ when it comes to teamwork, whether its a 5 man raid team, or a 25+ man zerg.
If all you want is 1 vs 1 ‘Street Fighter’ then go play that game or head over to sPvP

I don’t want a 1vs1 “Street Fighter”.
Multyplayer does not mean everyone has to stay together as a flock. A good commander should be able to coordinate teams to cap or at least attack every objective at the same time. That will require strategy and coordination.
Having 50 ppl following a blu symbol on a map just requires 50 ppl.
That’s a mindless zerg.