Guild Wars 2

Zosk.5609:

There is no “zerg” problem. These “zergs” are what most people come to WvW for in the first place…. if they wanted reliable 5v5 or 8v8 or smaller they could join sPvP.

There is a problem that fights over 5 people start to get uninteresting sometimes, but that’s because the combat and classes are designed for 5v5 and there’s nothing to be done about that in the immediate future.

There’s a problem that stuff falls much faster in siege than people can meaningfully respond to it. That’s because of things ArenaNet could fix if you badgered them enough, I guess. Hookpoints for rams, trebs, and golems to limit the number you can use against a structure. Remove superior siege completely? Nerf WvW abilities that increase damage against walls and doors? Probably other stuff….

Perhaps Zerg “problem” is a poor choice of words, but wouldn’t you say the scenario OP describes could alleviate the problem you describe? The one about “anything greater than 5v5 eventually becomes boring”

Keep in mind Zerging would not be eliminated as long as there are people who want to Zerg. Rather the optimal strategic ratio would shift from one Large Zerg and a few Havoc Groups, to something like two moderate zergs and five havoc groups.

Also regular sPvP would not be a legitimate substitute to OP’s scenario because those matches have too much structure.

WvW can offer spontaneity that sPvP cannot provide. Should OP’s suggestion come to light, a 5 man Havoc group may have a typical encounter similar to something in sPvP…..or they could encounter a 6 man group or a 3 man group. This could happen out in the field on their way to attack a tower, or they could already be attacking the tower, or maybe they are defending the tower.

This type of thing may occasionally happen now. But the current system makes it a rarity rather then the norm (and the norm it should be). And one aspect that is definitely not happening now is that while these two small squads are facing off there are several others like them interacting with each other around the map.

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.

I just want to add my two cents that I actually hate Zergs. When I think WvW I imagine a vast open map with multiple groups carrying out various maneuvers throughout the battle field. Whenever, I find myself enjoying some WvW action I refuse to be just a small cog in the Zerg machine when I can feel like my actions have meaning.

The current necessity for large numbers to effectively take Keeps and Towers limits the number of available pieces in the field and pretty much makes defending obsolete. Rather then the field of battle peppered with skirmishes big and small, we have two opposing balls of ordered chaos dancing around each other with the occasional clash. While the current scenario does have some strategic appeal it is enjoyed solely by the commanders leading the Zergs. And honestly, a majority of the potential strategy has been reduced to, “who can take empty fortresses faster.”

What would you rather play? A game of Rock’em Sock’em Robots, playing the part of a cog that twists an arm? Or an Intricate game of chess where you could play the role of a flexible knight, a relentless bishop, or a defensive rook? Hell, lets throw in a couple smaller Rock’em Sock’em Robots on that chess board because with OP’s suggestion there would certainly be room for them.