Guild Wars 2

Zaklex.6308:

You’re both wrong, under this definition: Persistent; continuing to exist or endure over a prolonged period.
As long as the servers are on, the world is there…irregardless of if it holds 1 person or 150(max), and a particular zone is open, it’s persistent.

Sigh. Point taken. Call the gw2 maps what you like. Persistant. Giant pseudo instances. Depressing. My point is, they are less fun than GW1 maps. If you take all of the open world GW2 maps, the living story, and the main story of GW2, I’d estimate it is around 80% of the existing GW2 PvE content. It is generally thought of as more casual, and overall easier than the GW2 dungeons and fractals. We’ll call it the GW2 PvE lower 80%.

Compare that to the easiest 80% of the GW1 PvE content. I’d guess that would be everything except maybe the elite dungeons in each campaign (Underworld, FoW, DoA, the Deep, Urgoz, Slaver’s Exile, Sorrow’s Furnace, etc), the Eye of the North dungeons, and the Tomb of the Primeval Kings. We’ll call this the GW1 PvE lower 80%.

The lower 80% of the GW2 content includes a story that can be done solo, regardless of build. This also applies to all season 2 living story instances. If a particular instance is difficult, you can add bodies till it has no challenge whatsoever. It includes an open world containing promising events with interesting mechanics that are reduced into the giant, epileptic seizure inducing, graphical nightmares commonly referred to as zergs. In general, failure is rare and challenge is low (unless there are not enough bodies present, in which case, failure is guaranteed, and the players leave). Then you have Tequatl and Triple Trouble, where the masses have a few simple tasks to accomplish such as: stand by Teq’s feet, jump over shockwaves, do damage. Look at me, I’m killing a dragon! Meanwhile the handful of player’s organizing, get the migraine inducing pleasure of trying to get 50-100 players to simply stand in the right place. What fun!

The lower 80% of the GW1 content is not soloable (without heroe’s/henchies, excluding very specific solo farm builds). You cannot throw more bodies at content to make it easier. Frequently, content will not be cleared on the first try, and failure is a part of learning the game. You will learn your build, try new builds, and/or work with a team to eventually succeed.

When I compare the lower 80% of the GW2 content to the lower 80% of the GW1 content, the GW2 content is unappealing to the point of being unplayable.

Anyways, still like to know what players favorite thing in GW1 was.

Conner.4702:

I’ll let you in on a little secret. The GW2 world is not persistant. Never has been. It creates the illusion of persistance.

That’s no secret. You are technically correct, the best kind of correct (RIP futurama). Yeah, it’s giant hot-joinable instances of 250-300ish (not sure what the cap is, also don’t really care). Yay semantics. I appreciate the pursuit of accuracy tho. All my complaints about persistant world still apply directly to giant pseudo instances tho, so, moving right along…

Another thing I’d like to add here is a request to the WoW community. When comparing GW2 to WoW and making suggestions to devs, please remember what game GW2 is a sequel for. GW2 is the only sequel to GW1 we are likely to get. If you want new GW1 content, GW2 is your only option sadly. WoW on the other hand, is still updating and releasing new content. Believe it or not, lack of mounts and anything involving precursors or the gemstore are the absolute last thing I care about in terms of stuff wrong with GW2. I’m not at all interested in a WoW clone, so please, don’t ask that this game be turned into a copy of WoW. There’s a WoW expansion coming out soon, just play that. There is a reason WoW has a subscription fee, their business model requires it (turns out, open world content is a huge pain for devs, go figure).

Cuddy.6247:

A Lizard Bolting Skin.7426:

In a GW1 style instance, party members must be able to perform their role or the team fails. Team awareness and coordination are far more important.

Yeeeeeeeah but…you didn’t necessarily need to be that competent in your role for GW1? The only time it ever truly mattered was with a human healer or a diversified SC (I’m looking at the MQSC/MTSC and UWSC more than anything else). For anyone who utilized good builds in GW1 they had to have the awareness of perhaps a dead squirrel in order to perform well.

I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it was definitely a very, very easy game if you used the right builds – to maintain enough of a challenge for the people who didn’t want to get MQSC times in under 25 minutes or people who weren’t thrilled about mesmer midline strategies…

Everything becomes easy eventually. To say a game like GW1 is very, very easy once you have the perfect builds and you know exactly how to do all of the content kinda misses the point, because you had to get to that level. PvE got easier and easier over time, especially as PvE only skills were introduced, but you can’t tell me you beat every GW1 instance on the first try or have never had a party wipe. I saw lots of party wipes and party fails over my time in GW1, and I loved every minute of it. The first time through each campaign I bet you failed at least one mission, at least once.

My favorite GW1 content (I’ll stick to PvE, although I was heavy into PvP also) was: the Underworld, Domain of Anguish, missions like Thunderhead Keep and the Ascension Rites, and Glint’s Challenge.

Honestly, the GW2 business model works like this: Release updates that keep players spending money on gems. If you give ANet money for gems, you are telling them to keep the updates as they are. ANet has made a conscious decision to make small updates and fund the game off of gems alone, with no plans for an expansion. This means, at some level, ANet makes enough money off of gems alone, that it is not in their financial interest to work on an expansion. They make more money with the status quo.

Hypothetically, if players stopped paying money for gems, it would cause ANet to consider an expansion to be able to continue making money off the franchise. Which brings me to my point: When you buy gems, you are basically paying ANet to continue not making an expansion (and also to get some virtual cosmetic junk I suppose). So, if you are not satisfied with ANet’s updates, stop paying them for gems. Please and thank you.

Honestly, if GW2 continues to move further away from it’s GW1 roots, I don’t care what it will look like in a year, because I won’t be playing it.

In the interest of keeping this thread alive, GW1 folks, what are your favorite GW1 content?

I’ll take the GW1 halloween quests over the GW2 labyrinth every time.

The other thing to remember is that ANet knows how to make an excellent instance. Many of the main story/living story instances are great, and might be even better if a party was required and the challenge was ramped up a bit. And I already hear the community responding with: “You can’t require ppl to party up for the story, you’re just creating a barrier for newer players, the friendless, etc, etc.”, and “You can’t make the main story challenging, otherwise ppl won’t find out what happens.” Yes, you can actually. It’s been done well in many games, including this one game called “Guild Wars”. The thing is, you might need to bring recruitable AI characters back. It’s a stretch I know. Baby steps first. I’d be happy just starting with some new instances.

Imagine if you took the Straights of Devastation in GW2 and turned it into an instance for 3 parties of 5 (think of the Deep in GW1). One party for each war front. You wouldn’t even need to change the events, just scale them. The whole map starts out contested and the parties move west, one event at a time. It then culminates in the Balthazar event. Wouldn’t that be better?

I am currently playing GW1 almost exclusively over GW2. Every now and then I’ll check in on GW2, help my guild do missions, try new content, get sorely disappointed, and go back to GW1. GW1 is full of players who tossed GW2 aside. GW1 hasn’t had new content in 2 years, and a sizeable crowd STILL chooses GW1 over GW2. GW2 isn’t beyond saving, but if another developer releases a instanced only high quality MMO, ArenaNet will see a migration.

GW1 was basically a single player game with up to 8 co-op, if you want to look at it that way, although you generally needed a full party (unless using a solo build). I experienced more teamwork between myself and my AI heroes than I do in any GW2 zerg. There were many areas where ppl would choose to party up (Underworld, FoW, DoA, many story missions) even if it was not required. I played with my friends and guildies often. I’ll just gloss over PvP (GW1 PvP is leagues above GW2 PvP). And since GW2 is supposedly the sequel to GW1, I would hope it would build upon GW1. The persistant world was an experiment for GW and I think it isn’t worth it. It requires enormous effort on the devs part, when an instance is just better all around. And what areas of persistant world do people play in GW2? World Bosses and champ/event trains. Why? Loot. If you nerfed the loot, nobody would play them. Case in point: Dry Top. Place is a ghost town.

I wish:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Lessons-from-GW1/first#post4504100

Instances are better than persistant world. Why is persistant world bad? Here is a list:

1) Success at a given task is driven by number of bodies. Content is either mind numbingly easy and thus boring with a zerg or simply impossible by yourself (depending on the event). Zerging is always incentivized for worthwhile content. The closest thing to an exception is dry top, but even that has too much zerging (skritt queen etc).

2) No coordination or teamwork required for all content except Tequatl and Triple Threat. Your build doesn’t matter unless you are by yourself, and even then most persistant world mobs are fodder. No reason to team up unless you want loot faster.

3) The “Challenging” (and not the good kind here) events like Tequatl and Triple Threat require migraine inducing effort on the part of the organizers and minimal effort on the part of the masses (“zerg”). A member of the zerg need only perform a handful of simple tasks: stand near Teq’s feet. Jump over shockwaves. Dodge stuff. Deal damage. How often does a member of the zerg need to pay attention to his teammates? Almost never. Maybe a warbanner. Maybe. If you replaced the zerg with NPCs I wouldn’t even notice. In a GW1 style instance, party members must be able to perform their role or the team fails. Team awareness and coordination are far more important. Tequatl would be much more enjoyable if it were scaled down and instanced for, lets say 10-15.

4) Playing on an arbitrary schedule is unnecessary and bad. Events on timers? No thanks. How about starting content the moment your team is ready? Gee, I wish we could do Guild Missions, but we don’t have 20 people. Would any of the guild puzzles really fundamentally change for a team of 8 if you scaled them down? Then why require 20? Same question for all other content.

I suppose the existing persistant world content could theoretically stay, for when people want something boring and monotonous to do, but for the rest of us, I beg of you, take a page out of the GW1 manual and release more instances. New living story content? Instanced for a party of 5. All of it. New maps? Instances, tower of nightmares style, but for a party of 5. Maybe 10 if you feel spunky. Maybe add hard mode of existing maps where all waypoints start out contested, and all events are scaled for a party of 5, and the map is…you guessed it…instanced. Give me a single reason to play 80% of the existing content why don’t you?

TLDR: GW1 had more content. Better content. No zerging. At any given moment a player had a long list of instances (100% of the content) that were challenging, compelling, and required teamwork (even if your team was AI characters, I coordinated more with Olias than random Zergling #27). I replay exactly none of the persistant world content in GW2, and I am not alone either.

Melee AI doesn’t work

Knighthonor.4061:

Ode.9126:

GW1 with GW2 graphics = Done, best game ever made.

That would be a terrible game for a MMO.

GW1 success came from not being a MMO and being a B2P 3D Diablo with better PvP.
You do know that right?

THat doesnt work in a MMO.

It even used Click to Move model for movement. thats only popular in Asian community of MMO gaming.

Depends on how you define MMO. If MMO means having 6.5 million people partying up and playing a game that was way more fun than GW2 is currently, then I’d say GW1 was the perfect MMO. If MMO means watching a 200 player epileptic seizure on a world boss, then no, GW1 was not an MMO. Either way GW1 was a fantastic game, and another GW1 would be the best game ever.

Honestly, you already have decent skill and trait diversity in this game compared to other games, but not, of course, compared to GW1. The even bigger problem, is that GW2 lacks the freedom to change your build that GW1 had. Ascended gear means you get stuck with one stat spread for your character. In GW1, all you really had to swap was your headpiece, and then you were set for any build for that profession. Then you also had your build templates to save and load while in town, making changing builds take a matter of seconds. Dependence on gear is what really causes players to get locked into a single build.

GW2 needs more instances and less open world, not the other way around. There isn’t enough challenging content, and open world does not do challenging content very well. GW1 had an excellent level of challenge and content that kept you playing. The content was memorable, varied and it kept you coming back. The problem that GW2 is having, is that it is all about grinding for loot now. GW1 didn’t have this problem because all loot affected appearance ONLY and thus was optional. This meant players could play the content that they wanted to play, not the content that gave the best loot. The world boss addiction and CoF p1 and p2 speed clears have nothing to do with gameplay quality, its all about the stupid loot.

Yes, but…my question is, if it happened, would you buy it? See I’m thinking if Anet sees the potential money in it, I mean they are a for profit organization after all…

The thing about Guild Wars beyond, is that it was free. Anet would make big bucks if they put out a 50 dollar expansion for Guild Wars. Think of the marketing that GW2 has given their franchise.

If Anet released an expansion to GW1 called “The Founding of Ebonhawke” would you buy it?

Basically, it would bridge the story between GW 1.5 and GW2, at least as far as the loss of Ascalon and the creation and siege of Ebonhawke. That area of the GW1 map is all unexplored. It could include more War In Kryta content, possibly including founding Divinity’s Reach. Point is, money in the bank for Anet. It would generate sales for the previous GW1 games with all of those who are playing GW2 but never played GW1.

Or even better idea for Anet. Release GW1 expansion: “The Founding of Ebonhawke”. Bridge the story from GW1.5 to GW2.

And if we think GW2 cannot be fixed, that’s fine. Any entrepreneurs out there? Make another instance only MMORPG, with active combat, challenging content, easy to reach level cap, easily obtainable max level gear, appearance only loot, high build diversity, freedom to swap builds easily, and several PvP modes. Make an original story and set it in an original world. There is currently no game out there right now fitting this description. I guarantee you would sell at least 6.5 million copies (what GW1 sold). I’d do it myself except I don’t feel like founding my own gaming company right now.

CureForLiving.5360:

A Lizard Bolting Skin.7426:

GW2 isn’t quite holding up to its predecessor.

A bit subjective since it seems to imply GW1 was a better game…

Palador.2170:

A better question is: How can we apply the lessons learned from GW1 and GW2 to make GW2 better?

I guess that makes for a slightly more interesting conversation, which I can’t partake in since I played GW1 for a few days and I haven’t actually felt like investing anymore time or effort into it…

Let me clear this up. Yes, I think GW1 is inherently more fun. Someone who played it for a few days to attempt to get HoM points, only to realize that would require years of playing, obviously is going to abandon that goal. Or maybe you truly don’t like instances. To each his own.

GW2 is different than GW1. However, since it is the sequel and likely the only sequel for a good while, it, of course, can be compared to its predecessor. GW1 had a system where players reached maximum level quickly, obtained maximum level gear quickly, and then spent the rest of the game unlocking new skills in an ever expanding toolbox. Players would have templates for many builds (I had at least 80 builds saved) and would change between them freely between instances. The meta at any given time would include at least 20 builds per profession. Appearance was the only difference between loot, thus keeping everyone on equal footing, and making grinding completely optional. GW1 also had reasonably challenging content dispersed through the majority of the game including the main story. There were hundreds of instances that I happily played more than once.

When GW2 came out, it seemed like it was going to preserve some of this, at least in part. Classes were extremely versatile, you could reach lvl 80 RELATIVELY quickly, and exotic gear could be obtained RELATIVELY quickly also. Any given class had at least two viable stat spreads that could be used. Dynamic events seemed to try to preserve the impact one could have on the world that used to be delivered through instances.
Fast forward to now, ascended gear turns the game into a giant grind fest. The fun content is spread thin over an ocean of mind numbingly easy, and thus boring, content. The community sticks to the content that gets them loot the fastest, no matter how boring. It’s painful to watch. If the new content is completed successfully the first time, regardless of build, by yourself, then I guarantee you, I will play it exactly one time. To see what happens next, and that’s it. Maybe a second time for achievements…maybe. If you want content that people will WANT to play again, it should be challenging.

I will give Anet credit though, Dry Top is very well done. Having a map wide score that drives everyone’s loot, with lots of simultaneous events promotes smaller teams using a divide and conquer strategy. If we must have persistent world, I suppose Dry Top is acceptable.

Right now the only challenging content is Aether path, fractals, and a handful of explorable dungeons. Seriously, all it would take to refresh this game, would be one challenging instance per living story update. That and returning the build swappability of GW1, but that’s much harder. So start with the challenging instances.

Palador.2170:

A Lizard Bolting Skin.7426:

More instances like Aetherpath with loot that makes World Bosses that aren’t Tequatl/Wurm worthless. Living world instances that require a party of 5 and are challenging. Challenging instances should give more progress towards ascended gear than can be gotten otherwise.

Sounds like what you want here is really just a way to get rewards/loot faster than most of the players.

I think this would be a Very Bad Idea. Not only does it create a growing imbalance between the skilled and not-so skilled as the more skilled also get better gear faster, it also makes other content easier faster. There’s also the fact that with bigger rewards on the line, people will feel more pressure to win no matter the cost. The instance/event/whatever itself needs to be the real reward, done for fun and not for prizes.

Otherwise, you’ll just have people work out the new “best way” to do it, and then that will become the required way, 24/7.

See, the GW1 way, was for gear to be completely equivalent. Appearance was the only difference. Ascended should be easier to get, appearance should be earned. This makes loot not impact gameplay, and releases people to play what is fun. I will tell you, that there are a number of players who feel compelled to do world bosses for loot, despite the fact that they are mind numbingly easy and boring.

I’ll start. Return the build template saving/loading system. Make an extra tab for a full second or even third equipment set. So that you can switch builds easily.

More instances like Aetherpath with loot that makes World Bosses that aren’t Tequatl/Wurm worthless. Living world instances that require a party of 5 and are challenging. Challenging instances should give more progress towards ascended gear than can be gotten otherwise.

More PvP maps without capture point. A mode with no down state, to promote survivability.

GW2 isn’t quite holding up to its predecessor. Here’s all the things that GW1 had, and that GW2 doesn’t quite have:

1. Build diversity and build experimentation: The equipment system, the build/equip templates and the pure number of awesome build possibilities meant players were encouraged to change up their builds. Adjusting your gear to work with a new build took a matter of minutes. In GW2, only PvP allows a GW1 ease of experimentation.

2. Challenge: Don’t get me wrong, there are challenging bits sprinkled across GW2. Tequatl and the Wurm are as close as you can possibly get to challenge in a persistent world setting. By the way, I speak of gameplay challenge, not the frustration that comes with trying to organize 100 players. Domain of Anguish hard mode, the Underworld, getting a team to the hall of heroes. That’s the good stuff. The Aetherpath is also a good example of challenging content, as is Fractals. If the living story instances were like that, requiring multiple ppl, that’d be great. The harder it is to speed clear, the better.

3. Teamwork: The meta right now is zerker heavy and requires no coordination whatsoever. Because changing up builds is such a pain, people tend to use solo builds that can be effective without team mates. In GW1 teamwork was required, not optional. Sure, you could use heroes, but if you choose to play with people, you worked together. If someone wasn’t pulling their weight, you’d fail. Mindless grinding in GW2 is easier and gets you loot. Challenging teamwork heavy content is fun, but the community won’t play it if there’s a mindless easy way that gives faster loot.

4. PvP: GW2 PvP is ok, and will get better as new modes are added. GW1 PvP blows it away. Even random arenas required more teamwork than the current GW2 PvP. Guild vs Guild and Hall of Heroes were on a level that I don’t think GW2 even has right now.

So community, how can we make GW2 more like the good parts of GW1?

Basharic.1654:

Hayashi.3416:

There’s a very easy way to buff havoc squads without buffing zergs.

1. Raise tolerance for Outmanned, so it procs when your world’s players are half or less of an opposing worlds forces OR your world has 10 players or less, regardless of opposing forces.
2. When a world is Outmanned, allow all players in the world to carry 20 supply instead of 10.
3. When Outmanned fades, current supply carried by players remain held, but any new pick up of supply will be back to 10.

This should encourage people to start attempting to cap Outmanned borderlands, and in doing so draw a few people away from each zerg.

If a zerg moves to a borderland, it will fade Outmanned before anyone from the zerg can possibly pick up supply, so 60×20 is impossible.

Zerg players are unaffected, as 60×10 is still more than enough supply. There’s also little appreciable difference, as even if 10 people decided to move to a BL, 50 people are still in the zerg.

By the way, I run a guild specialising in small-group tower (and occasionally Keep) captures, using golems in conjunction with rams/superior rams. It’s not impossible to take a tower with 2-3 people (and almost guaranteed with 4+), but it involves running a golem from a supply camp to the tower, which is unfairly expensive to use on the Commander.

I highly dislike zerging because in those circumstances, results of battle are generally dictated by the number of people, and each person in the zerg adds very little battle power to the overall power of the zerg (2.5%?)… whereas in havoc squads, a skilled player may represent up to 30-40% of the power of a 5-man squad alone.

I came in to say this. Outmanned should let you carry 20. No need for more changes than that. It’s a very simple way to buff the little guys while not having to directly debuff the Zerg. It should also add in with WvW traits and guild buffs for a maximum of 30.

I’d even be in favor of ditching the extra supply trait line, dropping max possible to 25, in light of this new mechanic. It’s ridiculously expensive for what you get, and would be a way to soften the outmanned buff if you felt you needed it.

This would let a small team take some undefended stuff easily, forcing the larger force to keep a close eye on their territories, but it would also allow for a stronger potential defense for the outmanned team. This could allow servers who don’t have full coverage to at least hold some things.

Wish list changes I would like to see is to lock supply in a fortification when upgrading. Upgrades cannot start until enough supply is available then it takes the prescribed time. This is a buff to defensive play as taking the camps would no longer be able to prolong the process once it’s started, but it is also a buff to offensive play as hitting a tower or keep right after the process starts would leave defenders with no supply.

Additionally, players should be able to access a time stamped log at a fortification’s quartermaster. With a tab noting the players who ordered upgrades, and a tab for who took supply. If possible include the ability to click names for chat/reporting purposes. This should go hand in hand with adding siege placements to the combat log and/or siege showing the owners name.

In T1 you very infrequently have outmanned. Usually there is a queue for all borderlands, and especially EB. A change focused on the outmanned buff, does little to nothing. If you reduce the stored supply in all keeps/towers to 200, you make it very difficult for a zerg to fill up on supply for an all out attack. If you make it so that towers/keeps lose all their supply when they flip, then if the zerg performs an all out attack using a massive amount of supply, the attack ends when they flip their objective. With these two zerg supply limits in place, it then becomes safe to raise player supply capacity to 20. You don’t need the outmanned buff to dictate this at all.

Also in Tier 1, keeps do not fall to one catapult per objective. Unless the borderlands are literally empty.

Phlogus.2371:

I play in tier 8. The fight is different on this end of the spectrum from what you face in T1. In order to maximize the effectiveness of much smaller forces we have to find things we can impact with 2, 3 or five people. Since we very rarely have that larger force to execute a direct assault we have to starve, misdirect, surprise our opponent. As far as player capacity we never move without the +5 guild supply buff running. We always keep the force supplied because when the opportunity presents itself you have to be ready to hit and get it. Also all three keeps in a borderland can be opened with a single catapult per objective. So with a guild buff and a guild catapult you can open a keep with two players and 30 supply. Will this small force succeed every time? Not likely but more then once we have taken a keep with three people.

So doubling player supply capacity would help you guys out significantly. Less running supply, and more effectiveness

Phlogus.2371:

Limiting supply capacity to the enemy is part of the available strategy currently through traps, use, siege builds, upgrades. If your leadership isn’t managing available resources it isn’t A nets fault. Logistics is part of the fight. Knowing to pop an upgrade and having someone there to do it before a camp flip is a reflection of forethought and situational awareness. Eliminating supply capacity kills momentum on both sides. Just like market limitations reduce economic activity.

Yeah. I play in a T1 server. What you’re suggesting doesn’t actually happen. If the enemy has a fully upgraded keep that you can’t flip with your current zerg, you don’t spend hours sieging it while ensuring the enemy supply lines are cut. You simply give up on that keep until you can get a large enough zerg with the siege and supply needed to overwhelm it. Why? Because it is WAY easier. Eliminating KEEP and TOWER supply capacity simply means you can’t show up in a borderlands with no activity drain all the supply and capture entire maps utilizing a zerg with overwhelming siege and supply. Increasing PLAYER supply capacity means that flipping any fortification requires half as many ppl. This makes flipping and defense twice as likely. I suppose if you like the way things are now, with a 60 man zerg draining a borderland and then capturing an entire map with no resistance, then you’d be against this idea.

While the downed player system does promote zerging in terms of straight combat, the way supply and siege is now, zerging is an absolute necessity. Taking a keep requires 200 supply minimum (excluding times when you have literally zero opposition) which is 20 ppl. Zergs can flip a keep quickly drain the supply there and keep on trucking. If you want to provide a viable alternative you need to do several things. Increase player supply capacity, reduce supply stored in keeps/towers to 200 max, and eliminate stored supply when keeps and towers flip. Please look at my thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Fixing-the-zerg-problem-Supply-Capacity/first#post3273123

While the downed player system does promote zerging in terms of straight combat, the way supply and siege is now, zerging is an absolute necessity. Taking a keep requires 200 supply minimum (excluding times when you have literally zero opposition) which is 20 ppl. Zergs can flip a keep quickly drain the supply there and keep on trucking. If you want to provide a viable alternative you need to do several things. Increase player supply capacity, reduce supply stored in keeps/towers to 200 max, and eliminate stored supply when keeps and towers flip. Please look at my thread:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Fixing-the-zerg-problem-Supply-Capacity/first#post3273123

Deli.1302:

Zergs are a part of wvw. There is nothing wrong with it. WvW is supposed to include large scale combat.

The problem is that the maps are too small, making zergs more effective than they should be. Make the maps bigger and the size of zergs will be forced to reduce so that they can cover more ground on the map.

Personally, I have no problem with they way they are at the moment. My loot bags per hour has never been greater.

Map size has less than nothing to do with it. You could double the map size and the zerg would remain identical. Until small groups have a viable way to contribute to flipping points, you will see endlessly zerging. If it has less than 10 people, it’s not even a threat to anything but a camp or a yak.

Brow.9425:

I have to admit there might be some merit to this. I know that I consistently feel dismay when I’ve broken off from the zerg to solo camps, and find myself taking a camp with 2-4 other people. There’s an undefended tower nearby, but taking it means 5 minutes of running supply, a long time with 0 rams up, and a long time with only 1 ram up, and odds are we get overrun right about the time we finish the 2nd ram. If small groups were more capable, people would run them more. And map volatility is a good thing.

However, more supply probably isn’t a good answer. In most cases, a blob vs blob keep assault succeeds or fails when they cap the circle, or run out of supply. Doubling the supply will just prolong the fight. In all honesty, if they fend you off and destroy your seige, they deserve to see you pack it up and go home.

My new added idea, in addition to the supply capacity increase, is to decrease the storage capacity of keeps and towers to lets say, 200, and make it so flipping keeps and towers eliminates any stored supply in that keep/tower. If you do this, you have a maximum of lets say, 2000 supply total on a given map at a time (only 1400 of that is capturable), excluding golems, and supply held by players. Then you would make it so that upgrades have their own separate “storage” so that players cannot take from supply for upgrades, and have yaks automatically deposit supply into upgrades in progress. Also upgrades would be able to be started regardless of stored supply. If you made these changes, you limit the available supply to a would be zerg, and make it so that if they use a massive amount of supply on an offensive, they cannot resupply at the newly occupied keep or tower. Supply lines and camps become more important.

Increase base supply capacity for players to 20. Decrease supply stored in keeps/towers to 200 max. Eliminate stored supply when towers/keeps flip. Allow upgrades to be started regardless of stored supply, and have yaks automatically deposit supply into upgrades in progress. Add supply counts for locations near their icon on the world map along with Righteous Indignation timer for supervisors. See thread below.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Fixing-the-zerg-problem-Supply-Capacity/first#post3259574

It’s less about eliminating zergs, and more about lowering the required number of players to perform a specific task. IMO WvW should be more about combat and tactics, offense and defense, than about collecting a massive number of bodies, blueprints and supply.

Here are 3 more potential changes they can make to improve this:
1) reduce the amount of stored supply in towers and keeps to 200 max (have upgrades store their own supply and yaks automatically feed upgrades in progress).
2) allow players to deposit supply into fortification upgrades in progress
3) eliminate stored supply when a tower or keep (but not camp) is flipped

Doing these changes combined with increasing the player supply capacity to 20 gives smaller groups of players more viable ways to contribute, promotes defense, and eliminates the ability of a rampaging zerg to resupply at a flipped fortification. This vastly decreases the amount of ambient supply stored on a map.

Dawdler.8521:

The “solution” to the issue of small groups is already in the game. Its called guild catapults.

A group of 5 people thats claimed a stocked camp will walk away with 75 supplies (minimum). That’s enough for them to build 3 guild catapults, which equal superiors. Meaning those 5 people can wreck any keep they want, even T3 reinforced. Hills, Bay, Garrison, it doesnt matter. You can breach outer and inner walls with the same catapults.

Well, assuming a 60 man zerg doesnt roll over them 30 seconds after they built them, but that’s beside the point. Because its going to happen regardless of the fact they built 1 catapult or 3 catapults.

It’s difficult to claim that guild catapults are the answer. A guild can make one of those like what once a day?

CyRuS.6915:

Why would anyone play in a server vs server vs server environment and then complain about zergs? You should play tpvp if you want small group vs small group. Wvw is big, fights are big, that’s the point dude. There is plenty of strategy and skill involved in zerg vs zerg fighting. lol @ “fixing the zerg problem”…. it isn’t a problem. You’re just playing the wrong game

The point of this isn’t to debate whether or not ppl like zerging. More and more ppl stop contributing to the zerg and run in havoc groups because being a mindless zergling is boring. They do this even though the rewards aren’t as good. So the fact that many people would rather watch paint dry than follow the zerg is simply a fact. The point of this thread is to find a way to allow people to contribute without being in the zerg, which they can’t really do at the moment.

Zikory.6871:

I think its a bad idea. This is coming from my perspective in T1. I’ll use this one situation as a example. We are on a enemy BL wanting to hit Garrison. Were full on supply (with your 2x idea) We swing by NW tower and drop 2 rams and leave 2-5 people there to take the tower and the rest of the zerg proceeds to garrison. So say we take down outer gate, we move to inner and build siege. Say you take out that siege and the gate is still at 80%. Now normally we would be very low on supply and it may be hard to get siege up but since we have double the normal supply, we don’t need to leave.

Ok here’s a different example. Say we have a 60 man zerg, (can be common in T1) thats between 600-900 supply if were full on supply depending on the +5. That’s 6-9 golems that can be flash built at your door step. While that is more then enough to take the keep, doubling the supply will reduce the amount of people needed to do that. Now you have a 30 man zerg able to golem rush with 6-9 golems they built at your door step. Now bakc to the 60 man zerg, if you double the supply the now have 1200-1800 supply….the can build 8-12 Omega golems at your door or 12 to 18 alpha golems. Or they can build 5 AC’s and 10-16 golems.

My point is while yes you would allow for smaller groups to do more, you are buffing zergs to a possible extreme amount. I know you can say not all servers are like T1 and I understand that but the change would be global. In T1 scouts are very very common and for the most part ninjaing a keep or tower is not probable.

The main concern I am hearing, and it is a valid one, is that doubling supply capacity will make it harder to prevent things from getting flipped. Here is my counter argument: I am on Jade Quarry (a T1 server), I have been on teamspeak, following our commander, fighting with the zerg when we stop 40 man zergs full on supply with a couple of golems in tow. Personally, I can’t remember a time when we stopped a 60 man zerg full on supply with golems in tow. Less and less people actually scout or build defensive siege at all anymore. The way it is now, we only stop a zerg like this when our entire server is working together in teamspeak and playing defense, and it only works if our zerg is strong enough to fight the enemy zerg. But what about all the times when your server isn’t building defensive siege or scouting? What about the times when our 40 man zerg can’t stop your 60 man zerg?

The main problem is, not everyone who gets on WvW nowadays is gonna contribute to defending or to zerging. The reason is because both are boring. Only the top tier WvW only guilds will ever help build defensive siege. The way it is now, more and more people simply won’t join the zerg, or help defend. They just run around the ruins and camps, picking up supply they don’t even use. If you double supply capacity, a true split, multi pronged offensive because viable. Maybe you increase the health of all gates by 1.5 to compensate. Honestly, you might not even need to. This way if I know your server is using a now twice as strong unstoppable 60 man zerg, my server will tell two 20 man zergs to go attack two of your upgraded keeps. So if you take our upgraded keep, we’ll take two of yours. Anyway this is the idea. It will also mean more defensive siege, everywhere.

Fungalfoot.7213:

A Lizard Bolting Skin.7426:

Fixing the rewards aside though, Fungalfoot and Reverance, what do you think of doubling supply capacity?

Since I run with a small group myself I’m rather biased and would obviously love having the capacity to take on bigger targets. It’s a bit of a pain to have a member run supplies while the rest of us guards the siege and pray that the zerg won’t spot us before the deed is done.

That said, from a rational perspective it might just be a bit too much to allow havoc groups to take out towers that fast. Maybe if they ramped up the other defenses a little and made the taking a slightly more involved and fun process? I think taking on a tower as a small group should be somewhat of a heroic feat.

Remember though, it also takes half as many people to build defensive siege, so all it would take to stop you is 2 enemies with supply to build an arrow cart to kill your rams. Three with supply would get 2 arrow carts. Now a single party with supply can put down a defensive treb.

Fixing the rewards aside though, Fungalfoot and Reverance, what do you think of doubling supply capacity?

Mochann.5298:

This post assumes a few things, none of which IMO are true:

1. Zergs are bad. They’re not. Zergs are awesome.
2. Zergs exist based on supply constraints. They don’t. Zergs exist to faceroll the opposition — be it towers, keeps or opposing zergs.

Zergs don’t always use all the supply available. I’ve been in 50 man zergs that only use two rams to take a tower or keep’s gate. The rest of the people just twiddle fingers until the gates go down, and don’t even use their supply.

As for Havoc Groups… I’ve flipped towers with just two people. Three is better, so at least default supply capacity can build a ram. But there were times when I had two people with 15 supply take a tower and it works. I gaurantee you, we already do it.

First things first. There wouldn’t be any havoc groups at all if everyone liked zerging.
Second, rams require 40 supply not 30, therefore to build one you either had 2 people with guild upgrade and capacity upgrade, or you had 4 people. And third, you will only take a tower with 4 people and a ram, if the tower is paper and nobody shows up to defend it. Two enemies show up and your plan is over. One enemy could probably stop you alone if they were decent.

Also, what your 50 man zerg did, when they took a tower only using 2 rams, could be accomplished by a team of 5 ppl if you doubled the supply capacity. The idea of that makes me happy.

To simplify, lets assume a zerg of 40 ppl can capture an entire map in 10 minutes the way things are now.

If we double the supply:
Assuming no resistance and assume the same zerg of 40 ppl can capture an entire map in 8 minutes (each gate falls twice as fast). Meanwhile, 2 zergs of 20 ppl would capture the same map in 5 minutes. The only difference is, that it would be harder to stop the zerg of 40 ppl from taking the 1 point at a time. Same way its harder to stop a team of 5 from capturing a single point in tPvP, so instead you just split up and capture 2.

The way it is now, havoc groups don’t attack towers, because they can’t flip them. Instead they run around flipping camps, and usually, they don’t even use the supply that they collect. It’s quite simple. You are simply lowering the required number of players to perform a task. Since players already run havoc groups, you are just giving them the ability to flip a tower, and I guarantee you, they will start doing it.

Drastic.8920:

IMO, increasing the supplies will increase the zerg size. Think of it this way:

Zerg size: 20 man zerg (relatively small group compared to the 50-60 that exist on the higher Tiers).
Max supplies: 400 (without WxP traits). Note: Assumption is that it would normally be base 15 with +5 from guild buff to put it at 20. I know that you said base should be 20, but with the buff you’re at 600 supplies (that’s ~35% of a fully upgraded keep supply).

Strategy:
1. The 20 man group grabs supplies from their BL camps/keeps at max value.
2. Port to enemy BL and head to nearest keep (skip tower/camps).
3. 4 Superior rams for outer, 4 Superior rams for inner.
4. If you were able to ninja cap, you have 500 supplies more which is sufficient for the group to be at max again.

As you can see, this added increase would promote grouping up more since you can build more siege to take down the objective quicker without any additional camp runs. Add just 5 people more and suddenly you have enough for 5 sup rams for inner and outer. With the added ram mastery, this will make defending much harder rather than easier. Lastly, how would you handle Supply Capacity mastery? Would this allow the user to hold 25 supplies? That would be ridiculously OP, especially if you combine Supply Mastery RNG. Just to note, if we all play long enough we will eventually reach 20 supplies as per Supply Capacity + Guild buff.

Personally, I think that the cannon mastery should be modified slightly. Instead of a boon strip, have it strip enemy supplies similarly to treb mastery. This will help postpone attacks if used properly and hopefully some kind of cavalry can get there on time to help properly defend.

=====

TLDR: Increase base supply capacity would promote zerging due to having the ability to build more siege quicker without the need of a camp run. Cannon mastery for skill 1 should remove enemy supplies instead of boons and swapped higher in the tree similarly to treb mastery.

Ok, lets compare. The way it is now, we’ll assume a zerg of 40 people doing exactly what you’re describing above (flipping everything one by one, hopping maps) which happens all the time. They are using 400 supply per keep, draining it, and moving right along to the next one.

Double the supply capacity, and you only need 20 ppl to do the same exact thing. So now you have cut the zerg size required to capture a whole entire map at the same speed by half. So lets say, a server decides to run the 40 man zerg anyway. Now they have 800 supply instead. Are they going to use 800 supply to take that keep? How much faster do you capture a map with 8 superior rams per keep as opposed to 4? Is the majority of your time spent breaking down gates or running from point to point? Meanwhile I’m on the opposing server. All of the points you just captured have no defense whatsoever (because 40 players are running in the zerg), and the keeps can be captured with as few as 10 people, and the towers as few as 2, quickly with 5. My server with a group of 10 being the largest “zerg” will capture the map back faster than it took you to capture it in the first place, simply because they can capture two points in the time it took you to capture one.

But the most important thing, is it doesn’t matter how many points you flip, or how fast you flip them as a zerg. You know why zergs don’t run through capping the ruins? Because you only need small teams to cap them, and capping them all at once is more effective. Assuming not one single person defends anything, which is more efficient? Having a zerg of 20 ppl capturing a single keep at a time, using 400 supply? Or having 2 “zergs” of 10 ppl capture 2 separate keeps, using 200 supply each. Think of 5v5 tPvP. Does a team win if they simply run from point to point with all 5 of their teammates together? No, the opposing team would simply split up and capture 2 points in the same time it takes the “zerging” team to capture one.

Also you can put a 15 minute cooldown for deconstructing the siege weapons to try to limit potential trolling/sabotage. Remember you’d only be able to deconstruct siege if you are within, say, 15 siege weapons of the cap. Maybe you’d have a reusable item like a “deconstruction wrench” that you would double click to pull out first then allowing you to deconstruct a siege weapon (this way you could still use siege easily and wouldn’t deconstruct accidentally).

I think one of the main gripes of the player base when it comes to WvW is the viability and necessity of zerging. At least it definitely is for me personally. I’m sure I’m not the first to bring it up, but I’ve been searching for a reasonable alternative that doesn’t cause performance problems, and then it dawned on me.

Why must we zerg? Well if you break it down, taking a tower or a keep requires a minimum amount of siege weapons. Lets say, for simplicity, 2 superior rams for outer and 2 superior rams for inner for a quick keep steal. At 50 supply each, thats 200 supply total, or 20 players worth (without upgraded capacity). That assumes the keep is lightly defended.

Well, what if you increased the player supply capacity to 20 (with no upgrades/buffs)? All of a sudden, a group of 10 people could have enough supply to take a lightly defended keep. But the benefits don’t end there. Now all of a sudden, your havoc group of 5 has the ability to drain the camp they just flipped. Now they can stop at an enemy tower, and deploy 2 rams, or 2 catapults, or a treb. Suddenly, your 5 man team is an actual THREAT. But what about defense?

Right now, very few ppl actually play defense. Why? Because it’s boring, it usually requires running supply to set up siege weapons, and because your average zerg is going to bust in unless you have a decently large amount of ppl and siege. And then, the rewards for defending also are pretty bad. Well, what if ppl could carry twice as much supply? Now, all those havoc squads running around, full of supply, now they’re gonna start attacking towers. Why? Because if nobody defends it, they will take it! Now, defense isn’t as boring, because as few as 3 players (2 with upgrade/buff) could wander over, throw up a catapult, and take down your wall. Building an arrow cart to defend with, only requires 2 people. This way, ppl might actually start playing defense!

Well, what about over-abundance of siege weapons? There are 2 factors that prevent this. Factor 1, supply is still generated at the same rate by camps so the amount of supply being added to the map over time is the same. Factor 2, the amount of siege allowed on a map is hard capped. It is still a valid concern, and I have some ideas that might lessen this as a potential problem. But one benefit that is added here, is that now, camps become more important, because players are more likely to use the supply they pick up (more supply is used in general).

Alright, so to summarize, here are all of the potential benefits of doubling player supply capacity to 20:
1. Less zerging, keeps no longer require 20 ppl to flip
2. More havoc squads (3-5 players) that can now flip a tower by themselves
3. Fortifications will be attacked more frequently, making playing defense more important and less boring
4. Less ppl required to defend a tower/keep. An arrow cart can be built by 2 ppl with supply.
5. Less running supply (Who loves running back and forth?)
6. Camps and supply become more important

Here are some potential negatives (I have suggestions for these):
1. Overabundance of siege weapons
2. More fortification flipping makes upgrading them more risky (but also promotes defense!)
3. Poor use of supply is a bigger waste (trolling/sabotage or noob behavior has bigger impact)
=
TLDR: proposed changes:
1. Increase player base supply capacity to 20
2. Add supply count for each location to world map so you can easily see what locations have supply (along with righteous indignation buff timers for supervisors)
3. Add ability to deconstruct siege if your server has within 15 siege weapons of the map capacity (with a 15 min cooldown to limit trolling/sabotage)
4. Make fortification upgrades have their own “storage” and not utilize the stored supply which players can pick up
5. Make supply automatically feed upgrades in progress.
6. Reduce supply storage in keeps and towers to 200 max
7. Eliminate supply in storage when a keep or tower (not camp) is flipped
8. Allow players to deposit supply into upgrades in progress (optional, I think it would help low pop servers)

Tell me what you guys think!

Hexin.5603:

Search function. You will find all the pros and cons of the same topic, in about 50 posts. Rinse and repeated.

If you have no AoE.

In short, you will not have AoE cap lifted of player damage, because … then a zerg would become a zerg of eles and necros, and the zerg ball, would then put out … whats your multiplier up there OP? 4 times the limit?

…well 4 times the amount of damage.

Ask yourself this, why would I ever want to play a melee class in a world designed around ranged AoE under your conditions? Its purposely selecting a handicapped architype.

I know there is more, and yes … there are times where I would absolutely love the above selection/rule in place (primarily when I’m on my ele or necro, looking down in a siege defence where i’m sorely outnumbered trying to hold a tower, agaisnt say … JQ or SoR or a BG zerg)

This logic is completely flawed. Here is the scenario, 5 AoE characters spread out in an arc vs 10 enemies stacked on top of each other. the 5 characters use a combination of AoE cc and AoE damage to simultaneously wipe the squad of 10 because they all get hit by all of the attacks, whereas the squad of 10 can only hit 1 out of the 5 at a time.

Once you have people SPREAD OUT, the exact opposite of what you are claiming becomes true. Suddenly melee becomes useful, because ppl AVOID STANDING ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. It’s ever so simple, AoE is only “OP”, if you STAND ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. Once you SPREAD OUT, AoE isn’t as powerful. This is the way it was in GW1, and this is the way it should be.

This is why back in GW1 GvG teams and HA teams would SPREAD OUT, kite, have a frontline and a backline. The only exception was ele ball, and that was extremely gimmicky.

I think the reason ppl think raising an offensive AoE cap would break the game (balance wise, not server performance), is because they are used to WvW the way it is and they simply don’t know any better. All it would do is eliminate having 20-40 ppl stack up, within the radius of a necro mark, as a viable strategy. All of a sudden, ppl would pay attention to how close they are to their allies, and WvW would start looking like a real battlefield.

I still feel like regular AoE attacks need to be able to hit more ppl (lets say 10). AoE cap for beneficial abilities (boons/heals) would obviously stay the same (at 5). If you could streamline the way AoE attacks are processed, I bet you’d improve performance overall. If you targeted a group of 20 with an AoE, eliminate the processing that randomly selects 5. The first 10 enemies the engine finds in the AoE get hit, then the server moves on. Now dmg won’t get spread out among a stack, instead damage will favor proximity to a certain point. Which would be weird…but at the end of the day, it means AoE damage gets concentrated on certain players, who would then die, exposing the other players in the AoE. Now all of a sudden, AoE death drops ppl one by one instead of treating 20 players as a communal health pool.

I truly think eliminating that processing to distribute the damage randomly would offset the additional 5 attacks per AoE pulse. And as an added bonus, once stacking isn’t viable anymore, you increase performance even more. And think of all the other benefits. Now you have WvW, but with kiting, frontlines, backlines, all that PvP goodness that you had in GW1 GvG and HA.

Caine.8204:

Honestly, I doubt you can fix zerging. It’s just what players do, in any game, whenever they can.

The best way to fix it, in my opinion, is to have siege damage scale up based on how many targets are hit.

For example; 5 or less targets hit, 100% damage.

6 targets hit: 120% damage to each target

7 targets hit: 140% damage to each target…

and so on. It would discourage zerging, while making it easier for defenders. Win-win, because no one defends anything at this stage of WvW. it’s just a circle-get-as-much-karma-as-possible.

I like this idea! Now splitting forces up between multiple gates becomes attractive, and there is a limit on amount of siege so performance shouldn’t be impacted too much.