Guild Wars 2

(Reposting my comment from a different thread since it seems more appropriate for this one!)

After reading through the comments in this thread, I’ve come to a few conclusions. Namely, almost everyone outright complaining about “zerging” is someone who has been on the losing end of it more often than not. Obviously everyone is going to encounter a zerg sooner or later, and it’s not particularly fun to be outnumbered, beaten down, and staked in the face with virtually no means of defending yourself. Sure, a single person can put up a decent struggle, but as so many have already said, it’s a game of numbers, and the bigger number wins. It’s not fun. If I wanted the Starcraft Experience™, I’d go play Starcraft.

That being said, the zerg tactic isn’t inherently invalid. The Americans zerg-rushed Normandy Beach to take it from the Axis forces. Early medieval military strategies relied heavily on cavalry zerging infantry lines and forcing breaks within enemy ranks. Vietnamese soldiers applied a blend of zerg rushing and guerilla warfare to (regretfully) great effect.

The two major differences are that a) this is a game, and those are all real life examples, and b) our modern age, the “Age of Information”.

Let’s address point A first. From a strategic standpoint, for example, Americans had to zerg Normandy because of the Axis’ superior position. But they had to sacrifice an obscene number of lives in order to succeed. In reality, a defensible position can help a small number stave off a much larger assault by virtue of strategic placement of troops and weapons, and also because when someone dies in real life they can’t respawn. In GW2, holding a defensible position doesn’t matter jack-all when your opponents have hit points and heals and buffs in huge numbers. I’d propose increasing damage output for defenders significantly in direct proportion to the number of attackers engaging a defensible position (towers and keeps), with a reasonable cap. This would not apply to a castle because the castle is entirely capable of rallying and containing an equally large “zerg” force to defend, and often does by merit of its point value. This would also not apply anywhere outside of a tower and keep because that wouldn’t make any sense.

For point B, I would recommend removing the Commander icon from the minimap, thus forcing players to actively communicate with one another in order to better organize their assaults. In exchange, I’d suggest improving the group buffs granted by Commanders, providing incentive to staying “in formation” and maintaining a functioning “chain of command”, so to speak. In our modern age we have at least four very popular group chat programs at our disposal, as well as the /map and /team chat channels. Make players use that, instead of checking for a blue icon and running over to it like, well, a zergling.

What do you all think?

First time poster here, go easy on me!

After reading through the comments in this thread, I’ve come to a few conclusions. Namely, almost everyone outright complaining about “zerging” is someone who has been on the losing end of it more often than not. Obviously everyone is going to encounter a zerg sooner or later, and it’s not particularly fun to be outnumbered, beaten down, and staked in the face with virtually no means of defending yourself. Sure, a single person can put up a decent struggle, but as so many have already said, it’s a game of numbers, and the bigger number wins. It’s not fun. If I wanted the Starcraft Experience™, I’d go play Starcraft.

That being said, the zerg tactic isn’t inherently invalid. The Americans zerg-rushed Normandy Beach to take it from the Axis forces. Early medieval military strategies relied heavily on cavalry zerging infantry lines and forcing breaks within enemy ranks. Vietnamese soldiers applied a blend of zerg rushing and guerilla warfare to (regretfully) great effect.

The two major differences are that a) this is a game, and those are all real life examples, and b) our modern age, the “Age of Information”.

Let’s address point A first. From a strategic standpoint, for example, Americans had to zerg Normandy because of the Axis’ superior position. But they had to sacrifice an obscene number of lives in order to succeed. In reality, a defensible position can help a small number stave off a much larger assault by virtue of strategic placement of troops and weapons, and also because when someone dies in real life they can’t respawn. In GW2, holding a defensible position doesn’t matter jack-all when your opponents have hit points and heals and buffs in huge numbers. I’d propose increasing damage output for defenders significantly in direct proportion to the number of attackers engaging a defensible position (towers and keeps), with a reasonable cap. This would not apply to a castle because the castle is entirely capable of rallying and containing an equally large “zerg” force to defend, and often does by merit of its point value. This would also not apply anywhere outside of a tower and keep because that wouldn’t make any sense.

For point B, I would recommend removing the Commander icon from the minimap, thus forcing players to actively communicate with one another in order to better organize their assaults. In exchange, I’d suggest improving the group buffs granted by Commanders, providing incentive to staying “in formation” and maintaining a functioning “chain of command”, so to speak. In our modern age we have at least four very popular group chat programs at our disposal, as well as the /map and /team chat channels. Make players use that, instead of checking for a blue icon and running over to it like, well, a zergling.

What do you all think?