Guild Wars 2

FrouFrou.4958:

Azunai.1065:

TDA better be quiet
i just remember 2 nights ago 5tda teaming with 4 judge vs 2 bots +1 mya

TDA is the cause of all the blobbing, they have a really bad influence on us! /shakes fist

You married our king – that’s what caused the blob – its JDGE fault really

multivira.7925:

I love using my candy cane on you.

No comment

soooo much drama… get on the battlefield! I still got 499 siege to use!

Edit: joke… I still got the 500

Acotje.5689:

Xenn.3809:

Just stocked on 500+ (no kidding) siege for gravestones – week is over but surely we’ll meet again. Don’t move away [lion]… all these punks/FSV want is for you to be red to have the same fun we have! If you do, do tell us what server you moved so we can continue our hunt.

And with a smile wish you all a good reset and weekend.

They should transfer to Gandalf
-Ultimate Troll achievement unlocked +1 AP-

:shock:

Just stocked on 500+ (no kidding) siege for gravestones – week is over but surely we’ll meet again. Don’t move away [lion]… all these punks/FSV want is for you to be red to have the same fun we have! If you do, do tell us what server you moved so we can continue our hunt.

And with a smile wish you all a good reset and weekend.

tks tks… is not about making rules, is about respecting other ppl. There’s isn’t a way to GvG is current gw2, so the community (small one, true, but large enough to be recognised and at least respected) have found a way to do so.

The actions from [lion] are premeditated to troll, nothing else. A treb is not going to kill those groups, just annoy them and stop them doing what they where trying to do to have fun – you just condoning trolling rather than protecting WvW values.

Detonator Loki.2856:

Here’s an outside perspective:

…lots of stuff, some patronising.

Get off your high horse and actually learn to listen instead of telling ppl to shut up.

Now let me put some parameters to my post
*I (personally) don’t do any GvG
*I prefer open fights in WvW as intended
*I respect other peoples enjoyment of the game
*I been an spectator to such fight sometimes and enjoyed partying and chatting with the enemy
*I find disrespectful and particularly dishonourable to jump / laugh / gesture at a enemy who is been roflstomped by greater numbers
*I dislike thieves, custard and marshmallows

The argument is not about not letting WvW happen and instead GvG, but letting ppl do so if they choose to do it away from where you can have an impact in WvW. [lion] setting a treb with the unique purpose of denying his server guild and an opponent to play in such area (windmill – no WvW objective to treb) is malicious. Actions have consequences, and with all the respect of the world – trolling / hunting / ramming and dancing on their corpses is all well earned

Some say respect is earned – with me, and plenty of people around me – you don’t need to earn it, its granted as we meet and you just need to keep it… and some really work hard to lose it.

Hope you see some good humour from all this, and why trying to spoil someones fun is far away from what a game with a large community is all about.

DarkRealityNL.1594:

Oh and Liert. Keep the lions under control. Its not gonna take long before all of FSP is fed up with you guys!

Just give us some intel on where they are roaming, I’m sure some gandarans will love to keep them under control.

As for the night-capping, silly argument really, all servers do (or morning capping some of them) and means kitten really – towers hold points, points get you nothing at the end of the week – nice to have, but not sad to lose them.

yadda, yadda, yadda

/buying stacks of rams ballistas (lets go cheap) for [lion]

at least that’s mildly amusing and doesn’t harm the game of a dead fighter.

Daendur.2357:

i just wonder how can anyone count 50 enemies… i think when they are more then 20 they become almost uncountable

I don’t count them – I would just like to ask Twirling for his current FPS – anything over 1 FPS is less than 20, but still run in same issue of not being able to know if they are more than that.

On a serious note 10-20 can look similar (on a quick glance) depending on classes involved in group – the larger the group, the larger is the error margin. 35+ with tons of rangers, minion necro and even mesmers COULD easily look far more (50+)

Next month’s World vs. World ability line addition is AutoAttack Mastery! Invest points in AutoAttack Mastery to increase damage done by AutoAttack to doors, increase other skills lag, and unlock a new, powerful minipet.

I don’t blame the zerg – I blame Anet.

Zergs (blobs – definitions may vary) cause lag. Anet promote zerg play and don’t solve lag. And this is just the start.

Anet give us:
• A map that is smallish. I’m “OK” with its size since already mentioned they can’t do anything there – but its too easy to navigate around, not enough vantage positions, choke, obstacles, bridges… objectives don’t hold anything, other than points.
• AoE cap
• WPs
• Fauna/NPCs with rally mechanics

All this leads to:
• Zerg is the best (if not only) way to play for the win (which is meaningless with 7 days reset and no real impact)
• If you don’t like zergs (i.e. to feel more part of the fight) – forget the points (WPs/map navigation means zerg will b there in 2min max), just go roaming trying to find decent fights – but this has evolved to GvG (more and more) and away from WvW mechanics.
• Strategy? what strategy? Zerg or GvG in windmill – that seems the future right now.

Overall, with current ruleset / map designs I don’t see WvW as a viable long term game mode – future of it to me looks bleak.

… and then there is the karma trains when opponent is weak – tons of fun warrantied to both sides!

If they start by changing ONE thing, maybe will see a new light on the tunnel… like pouring rocks and sand over those quaggans in the lakes – jeez, what a waste of space!

Kodel.4871:

Daendur.2357:

if we are 4 ppl roaming and find 2 ppl in a camp we kill them… but if i find 2 ppl fighting i just watch. what’s the problem ?

Not at all as it is, but this sort of thing tends to snowball, I have experienced it multiple times in several games. Already we go from what’s red is dead to politely clapping on the sidelines and hopping up and down excitably to show you don’t mean to wipe them just watch, and this game isn’t even a year old. This will come around to bite you trust me.

+1 Fully agree. ‘red is dead’ should always prevail – if you wish to watch, run past, leave a nice 1v1 be – its your choice, but shouldn’t be any rules around it, other than ‘red is dead’.

If the communities agrees on a tiny part of the map for such truce/activities like the current windmill, why not – Anet haven’t given us GvG, so people make their own – but I hope is kept there only, and is not the only way to play WvW, as I enjoy roaming and see what we find around the corner.

I thought windmill (BL/southern point) was such area – respect fights there, the rest ‘red is dead’.

No time to cry

Had a overall good week – some frustrating nights with only massive zergs on map only, but most outings where fun.

Thanks MS guilds for your usual form / style, and thanks to some AM too, we saw some guilds a few times running alone (HAI [DP]), hope you had fun and a different view away from the so mentioned blob.

/peace

Da Nazgul.3172:

ANet is guilty for that, not Abaddon !!!

Not a valid reason on why you can try to run in a way we all can enjoy. We have the same game that abaddon players have, yet we do not blob as much (granted, it’s always going to be some, and I’m fine with that)

Da Nazgul.3172:

And yes, i am not on Abaddon but Kodash.

Get outa here then!! :p

Nauda.3678:

No we used our asura commander. We took him by his arms and legs and rammed the gate open with his head!D:

That goes against the asura protection laws. Will be reporting to A-net about it along with all the other fishy stuff you been pulling lately.

Da Nazgul.3172:

i can hear u.

so, where´s the problem=?

Abaddon is zerging with 50+?
u know what to do then…
If u don´t have the man power to face em, hunt their dollies.

But when u got a queue on your BL, too, u are not that good (organized) as AM is.

NAZ

You do hear, but fail to listen.

We choose to run separate, to avoid lag amongst main reason, so we ‘organise’ that way. X goes north, Y goes south is the kind of map chat you would expect, rather than let’s all met at spawn in 30sec and run as one big mass.

I do understand is your way, it’s the most effective way for points and yada yada it’s all been said before.

The answer is defitnetly not going to be to counter blob all week long, it’s not a fun way to play WvW, that’s why we run small and tease you to give it a try, it’s good fun.

dangerdoom.3862:

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/4134/grmg.jpg

unplayable messedup game

Ah, how I missed those guys…

Anyway, to early to drop the blob axe on AM, experience may tell me otherwise, but lets hope for a good week for all.

Krosan.2890:

I really, really don’t understand why Gandara calls out other servers for blobbing (even on this thread) when all I can ever see on our borderlands are 40-50+ man Gandara zergs…
The same to Miller’s, we just lost our borders (being outmanned) to a 60+ man miller’s zerg with like 4 golems and a 40+ man gandara zerg with 8 golems yet all I see you do is call other guilds out for “blobbing”
This isn’t flaming or anything, I’d just like to know what you consider blobbing if running in 50 man groups isn’t blobbing for you…

Running 50+ I would consider it a blob, however you won’t only find blobs from gandarians or millers, you’ll be more likely to run into smaller 10-15 man groups, specially after the initial reset/weekend. Some servers ONLY run blobs ALL WEEK long (and single scouts) there no chance of smaller groups, and their blobs are of epic lag sizing.

Also, all servers with high population will always have at least one Big group of pugs somewhere, it’s normal for ppl who may play less WvW and join sporadically for some action.

Hope your views will change as the week progresses. Don’t judge by reset night.

Krato.4729:

Nemesys.7251:

with the tupaliation tactics yes u can kill x 4 enemy pug.

Also known to be effective against [XxX/TDA] combined war bands. Just saying.

Hey, not 100% effective!

:) war band created to match your numbers (we where 24-25, and alone we could have never enjoy fighting against you) and while we lost plenty, but we also got to win some! Was all fun and fair imo. Nem leads us well, and [TUP] isn’t easy cookie!

Space.8053:

Xenn.3809:

http://recipes.sparkpeople.com/recipe-detail.asp?recipe=328092

a ‘muddy banana’ sounds like something you should be flushing away tbh…

Says a lot about my skills…

lol, indeed, but if I can’t troll myself now I’m in trouble!

http://recipes.sparkpeople.com/recipe-detail.asp?recipe=328092

KrisHQ.4719:

What this match-up is actually like:

Isn’t this case with any match-up against any server?

All small parties have tons of Benny Hill style pursuits around the map – we actually learned to love them, and its been quite funny when after half a lap the map some drop or stretch themselves so we can turn around to repay the exercise. That or end up tanking the floor, which my excuse of scouting.

/peace & love.

@forumWarrior (Guardian he says)

I don’t really care what you implied the solution is, but do learn some sarcasm.

But you accusing of handholding – oh dear, we never communicated with those other guilds before or after the fight (other than a friendly HAI as we cross), we never really knew where they are exactly or their plans, and the fact we attacked from different angles at seeing a fight and a blob its the nature of WvW. Even in the guildie screenie you complained about ‘more where at the other side’ you had the upper hand then – more than us and we where divided, you just don’t care to see it that way.

You saying a fair fight would have been fair if you where 80, why that? You still had more people, we had our own small organisation (again, no intentional lets match numbers with the zerg – we did that on Saturday as a ‘we can have a open-mic event too’ for ONE zerg fight.)

So, you have more numbers, but complain that we are organised. You suggest we just wait on the sides to see if one organised group of 10-15 can take 60 (btw, you don’t seem to think very highly of your 59 comrades), and then move in if the are in trouble (tell me how long a 10 man vs 60 needs to wait to type in chat) – just becomes catch 22. If we can match similar numbers (but less), not fair, should be even less! the zerg should always double the enemy!!

When you running with 60 in map, you can’t complain at the size/skill/organisation of the enemy – you run with numbers for ‘safety’ – deal with the consequences, specially not about the size when they are less! :o And I’m not saying we attacked you in-sync, but IF we did, and with 20% less man-power I think you should just take it the chin. (wtb ‘do 20% more damage’ than opposition, but may be OP).

If you wanted to define a ‘fair’ fight you can only do it numerically, skill and organisation can’t be quantified.

As for similar groups to us they are plenty – you may don’t see them with 60 nameplates around, but they are there – and when we lost, fair do – haven’t complained and we raised our hats. In fact if we lose to anything between our numbers and 5x times more, we just move on – our fault to charge to larger force, should known better. We do make a point to lol and ask why at 10x times chasing us all around the map though – not complaining or going jump BLs, nothing about that, just some light trolling.

Will stop there, all pointed out to you is been done before me, hence no point hitting my head against a brick wall any further – AG is a great opponent, and so is MS – this matchup is truly awesome compared to what seen other weeks (rolling over Arbor, or getting zerged by AM) – they’re are fights of all sizes at every corner – not empty maps or a unique lag blob doing the hamster wheel around the map.

Not much to add @Dark Lord Killer – never seen such blinded opinions. Go on kitty cat, bite the bait and keep the lolz.

The fact you can point out the different tags is because the all run separate, and yes we do get to meet other allies around the ‘enormous’ BL map, and if we see a blob we all attack – but is laughable to think we bright enough to coordinate such attack and go in together – as you said 50 (doubt at that) vs 60 is never fair for the larger group, an interview should we set up 1st to evaluate the skill of either group and agree on numbers a priory. Jeez, we get flattened by 50-70 plenty of times, but never complained about being killed by less that ours.

I guess we will have to stop the TDA blob by splitting our 6 man into 6 groups. Though I can understand the pie eating multivira looks like a blob by himself.

After the trololz, just add HAI JDGE! and HAI rest of AG and MS – we had some fun times.

I’m with Robin, Gandara wants to crash join the party! – tired of AM/RS – though with Gandaras population, could happen that the Gandara PvE blob turns up to make us look german – but without the ACs

Illogical.6218:

Berengar.6951:

Felix.2613:

There is no problem.

My guardian with over 2k toughness was taking 1.2k hits from superior arrow carts with protection up…. They essentially make attacking a tower with rams impossible.

They’ve already decreased the AC damage on siege
Making sure your group survives is a matter of teamwork like spammin waterfields and blasting ‘em for groupheals
There is always a possibility to take a tower or AC’s with catapults and ballistas

I do feel however that the current range of AC is too big.

Raf.1078:

…I’ll refrain from commenting on map design as I think it has little to do with Soggy’s main points.

You refrain to comment on the part that is actually suggesting solutions and not talking about experiences – you’re misinterpreting the post, at least the part I’m trying to get you engaged. You don’t agree with initial statement (fine) but you can’t comment on suggestions on how to improve WvW

Raf.1078:

You cherry picked a single item out of his entire post as the focus of what he’s saying. Thats not what I read as the main point of his post. Map design? Really? Thats all you took from that wall of text?
.

I really don’t know what to say…

SoggyFrog.4170:

the section that starts with:

Focus on map design

You NOT meant to stop reading there.

SoggyFrog.4170:

…or if you’re just trying to get my thread shut down.

I really hope that’s not the case, but this threat could do with some cleaning of out of topic.

Would have liked to create a table, nvm:

Scout: Minimal Force/Resouces, Minimal Suvival, High Mobility
GroupS: Medium Force/Resouces, Medium Suvival, Medium Mobility
Zerg: High Force/Resouces, High Suvival, Low Mobility

Ideally I feel this could be fun (and without putting ‘buffs’, ‘debuffs’ or any sort of penalty due to numbers alone) but right now due to map design (layout, WP…), mobility doesn’t take part on the equation, leaving zerg as best option to success (talking about pursuit of game objective). Soggy’s suggestions can help address this balance.

Snowreap.5174:

now that is a very interesting idea, having the Outmanned buff allowing you to use waypoints even if they’re contested…

-ken

That could be a step too far, but interesting way to look at it.

Snowreap.5174:

TyPin.9860:

Xenn.3809:

If Rome sends all his army to the moon, don’t expect Rome to be defended.

exactly my point

while this might help in a more even match, I don’t think it would do any good for Fissure of Woe (or Vabbi). they are always so badly outnumbered that even without waypoints they would still have a hard time taking a keep.

-ken

Outnumbered buff could get rid of such CD, presto, low-level population server have more mobility

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Personally I’d just get rid of all waypoints other than the entrance. That way, defense is more important than offense.

I would like to see that too, but as Ken has pointed out could harm low-pop servers more. I think a CD could be a good compromise.

Raf.1078:

disclaimer: lots – just scroll above

@Raf: For the other part to this particular argument please refer to:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Less-Siege-Not-More/2172193

Raf.1078:

Did you even read Soggy frog’s intro?

Yes. Link above I let you know I did

Raf.1078:

Usually, the first paragraph of a literary piece stakes out the claim of the entire piece
(…)
Basically, what Soggy has said here is that this is what he gets out of WvW…and then he goes on to assume that everyone else shares his views.

Both partly true, and both assumptions

Raf.1078:

If ever there was a time for the silent majority to speak up. Its now. Before these pinheads get ANet to totally mess up WvW.

We can agree there, but your opinion is as good as mine or any other – just trying to debate, not attack or ‘destroy’ as been wrongly assumed.

You may not agree with his experience of the game, which is entirely fine; but you avoiding discussing the idea behind the initial post, I won’t copy/paste what he has written, since you wanted to prove you read the 1st paragraphs, I trust you finish reading the post.

The part I’m trying to get you engaged, and with this threat has tried to discuss to some degree is the section that starts with:

Focus on map design

I do not wish to continue this conversation with you for as long as I’m trying to talk about dogs and you reply me talking about cats. I will gladly rekindle conversation if we can keep on the topic of discussion.

Cooldowns. 5-10min since last used/entered or till death. No more jumping around the map putting out fires as one unique unit – make movements around map more strategic – if you are defending south of map, you should be north 3 sec after.

If Rome sends all his army to the moon, don’t expect Rome to be defended.

Advent Leader.1083:

Another thing of note: I haven’t seen servers use traps effectively in meta, well, in EU. Are there examples of it being used often?

I used traps on a couple of occasions – but don’t have any impact on large group since doesn’t hit the whole group – will only really damage smaller teams.

Seen activated twice from my drops – both right near front of gates, where sentries are standing. On one occasion gate was melted via normal attacks – second multiple rams still went up due to size of group, supply drain didn’t have any effect (though on a positive note they did use rams to break gate)

Also I think they are too expensive (maybe 5 supply will be more fun – a scout could drop 2 in quick succession)

Raf.1078:

Who are you…

• Best way to start a debate

Raf.1078:

Who are you or even the OP to suggest the relying heavily on siege is any less tactical than mano y’ mano in open field.? Its the equivalent of saying don’t use the machine gun or mortar and lets go at each other with bayonets only?

Small group play sans siege is simply a choice on your part. Its not or required (not yet anyway) and it shouldn’t be forced down the throats of those who shoose to play that way.

Sorry my zergs speed building of ac’s is messin with your small group’s efficiencies…perhaps you should hit another map instead of forcing everyone to play your way?

Again, will repeat, as the post where you quote me, read and focus on ideas than don’t involve siege ONLY. Is not about getting rid of siege.

SoggyFrog.4170:

Focus on map design

Mif.3471:

How about instead of asking for WvW to be destroyed so you can GvG, ask for a seperate GvG mode?
Some of us actually like playing WvW as it was intended….

Raf.1078:

Ditto….except I’d like to see even more siege options.

I don’t get these guys that seem to want ANet to turn WvW into open field pvp for everyone. There is plenty of room in the all the maps for you guys to indulge without making it mandatory for the rest of us.

And I don’t get why people don’t want to read properly and listen to suggestions so we all can agree contribute on some terms.

OP is not trying to ‘destroy’ WvW and turn it into a GvG – please read OP, full post – 1st part may be putting his experience with siege, but second part is nothing to do with siege.

It’s about adding more depth, with different map design amongst other ideas, not changing the ruleset, not changing the concept, not taking existent siege away or only allow one type of person in WvW – it’s meant to suggest improvements to current system that is still inclusive to all players that not ONLY relies on ‘Moar siege’ like latest Anet post seems to suggest.

Or support this suggestion.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Less-Siege-Not-More/2166823

And don’t dragged into “it’s about nerfing siege” or anything similar, cause has more depth than that

huwpewpew.6075:

WvW is more fun if you don’t use siege (according to some random WvW guild in gandara)

Please those who just drop in this thread and start bashing ideas as usual, read OP again, even if just that post – and note the following main idea behind it all:

SoggyFrog.4170:

Focus on map design

/signed

Still baffled something like this wasn’t implemented at release.

A great post, thanks.

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

If people want to encourage small grouping, that is fine. Just don’t encourage by penalizing players for coming together in a small group.

And I fully agree, but any suggestion is branded as leet, stupid or “I just won’t enter a debate where WvW could have more depth”, not just the current state.

All you can read is negative comments, “don’t dare to change”, “why change if it work for ME” but no offers of compromise or ideas. On the other hand I don’t le either the “l2p” comments towards those who like to group.

1st thought of dividing rewards could have issues:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Future-of-WvW-Blog-post/2162718
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Eliminating-Zergs-and-imbalances/2165120
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Eliminating-Zergs-and-imbalances/2164485

They are very good points to consider (though only show flaws in the idea design, not solutions) – and finding solutions I think is what a debate should lead to.

Maybe they are other ways to look at it.

A map that’s more difficult to navigate, with more choke points, no WP in keeps would make just numbers less useful – I find that with current layout a zerg can respond anywhere in less than 2min, thanks to easy travel from WPs. Map size has already been indicated can’t change – but not how intricate is, or at least haven’t seen anything about it.

As a crude example, if citadel had only N exit (or at least force to go to gate, not jump down), and Spawns Vale/Water as the easier faster route maybe (one can hope) the meta will change slightly, thinning out forces to be able to cover map. Not using the magic WPs as main way to travel around map.

That way, zerg if you wish, but you going to be with huge disadvantage strategically (if winning actually meant kitten at all), and more choke points/terrain obstacles could help to ambush them.

Anyway, cya in lakes, great fun to have there, regardless of how you see the numbers game.

snowaugar.1823:

WvW doesn’t promote one way of playing I see endless roamers and havocs look at my match up thread a large portion of it is small man/ roamers talking (t6) atm

You can re-interpret anything I say if you wish, but seems to me just trying to avoid the question posed in my posts.

Of course some of match-ups threads are about small man (the WvW forum visitor doesn’t necesarily represent the whole WvW pop), but its because those players enjoy doing so (we both seem to agree there); not because its necessarily the best way. And my problem is that, the current meta of bigger and bigger groups.

snowaugar.1823:

Want to know how to kill almost 5x ur numbers… coordination and seige I’ve used 8 to wipe 30 using 2 ward guards 2 staff ele 2 ballista an ac (pre buff). A ranger and a grenade engi

This is not how to kill bigger numbers – a co-ordinated small group will always kill a headless chicken mob. It’s about how to diversify play, and don’t only have a rule set that promotes one and only way to do things best.

With small maps (nothing can be done there) waypoints and other mechanics (AoE caps, but don’t want to start to discusse uniquely that point) the only way to defeat a larger organised group is.. to throw more numbers, and as Caid pointed out, where this stops? If every single player was at same skill level and organisation capabilities, just numbers make the difference, since its too easy for a big group to respond anywhere in the map, and isn’t any incentive to do it another way.

Olvendred.3027:

Yours wouldn’t be a particularly desirable system either, though. We know large groups are the most effective playstyle, that’s why they’re used so much. If it were just mindless idiots (as a lot of people seem to think), that would be one thing. But the large, organised guilds in the top tiers consciously choose to run mostly in large numbers rather than splitting up into lots of small groups. I’m reasonably sure they wouldn’t all do this if it were a less effective style of gameplay. So, if you have a reward system for wxp, karma and loot based on the number of people around, you’re basically forcing everyone to make a choice between a) being most useful to their server, and b) getting personal rewards for themselves. I honestly don’t know which way guilds would go with that; but nonetheless, it would merely incentivise playing WvW badly.

Any penalty system, whether to rewards or stats, is going to be untenable, though. There are some things, like taking a T3, WP’d keep (esp hills), with defenders and siege inside, that absolutely require you to use a large group of players. Capping keeps and resetting upgrades has to be one of the most important priorities in the game, yet some people in this thread would have the players who actually do something useful like that be ridiculously penalised for it. Whereas they’d be quite happy for a lone roamer who caps a sentry or camp, and doesn’t even hold it for the tick, get massive rewards/benefits.

Some good points there, but not something that can not be overcome to promote a more diversified manner to play the game. Indeed, taking a T3 keep like Hills requires effort and a fare share of people to take it – but then you could argue that a T3 will have a bigger reward waiting inside, therefore the rewards wil be bigger, even if shared within lots of ppl (doubt a single player will cap a T3 alone, if so, well done to him!).

As for a roamer that takes sentry/camps just for the benefits, well, more needs to be done of defending rewards, but I was mainly thinking of the big parts of the cake – the towers and keeps – where a zerg just melts doors without even siege due to sheer numbers, all get tons of reward and move on. This are the players I would like to entice to try new ways – split up, coordinate and reap more rewards (personal and server wide).

Also, I don’t like WP in T3 – makes zergs move too fast around map. But that’s maybe another topic.

Hai Dius!

Caid.4932:

Personally i’d give a boon duration debuff to groups of 30+. Its not going to hurt pug zergs all that much, it will hurt zerg guilds though. Once the group hits 50+ can basically remove boons, hopefully will put people off running in them size groups or if they continue doing so, they’ll make themselves an easy target

I’m not sure penalising the battle part is right. If you take a analogy I used few post up, a company of 100 (1% of share on profit) will be less risk and will have the expertise of 100 – they not going to cut one arm off just because they competing against B (company ruled by 1 person). That’s a why a share of profit (WXP, Karma, loot) is more fair way of catering to all players and ENTICE some to try something different (take more risks, run in smaller teams) or just go for the safety and small returns of huge numbers.

Raf.1078:

What I see here is a bunch of leets trying to get ANet to change the game in thier favor so they can roll any poor newb or lesser skilled individual that happens to step into WvW. If ANet actually did what some of you are asking…we could just change the name of the game to TERA2.

Don’t jump so quick to conclusions.

Some people (like me) just want more DIVERSITY (wasn’t a selling point to “play it as you like”?), and encourage so – not a system where the meta is only zerging – which is where currently is – any other way its actually penalising.

It’s not about elitism, just I feel I get more of the game if I can contribute more to a fight by running in smaller numbers – I don’t like solo, I don’t like zergs; but respect if people like to do so.

Having a system that rewards according to input (read posts in this thread about high risk bigger rewards) all ways of playing are rewarded the same – doesn’t penalise any play style – if you build a business using 100 associates, the 100 get 1% of the share in profits – just makes sense.

snowaugar.1823:

Players shouldn’t be penalized for large grouping that’s just stupid this thread is full of half baked ideas from pugs and its rediculous I hope anet never listens to this minority. The game type is wvw the name even insinuates large scale fights

You sound pretty angry at it man! Chill pill! Plenty of answers are elaborate, sensible and without insults.

The proposal of high-risk=bigger rewards is not at all half-baked. It’s simple, makes sense and fairer to any group size; plus doesn’t stop you going in a 50+ group if you still desire to do so.

Rewards proportional to what you contribute.

Sunreva.8714:

A) One fix for zerging is to eliminate the 5 person limit AOE cap. The only concern here would be for the bad players who are incapable of avoiding red circles at their feet.

If 3 elementists are able to successfully wipe out a zerg of 30 players at a chokepoint, this would not be an example of unbalance, but rather an example of ineffective mindless playing on behalf of the zerg. But heaven forbid AOE caps are removed, then that means zergs can’t operate in mindless fashion anymore, and players within them can no longer ignore AOE dropping on their heads.

B) Also, another tweak that would help to eliminate bads roaming in huge groups, would be to make it so that capture points (camps, towers, keeps) only issue a fixed value of XP/world XP which get distributed to players in the capture radius. For example, a supply camp could be worth 5000 points (arbitrary number):
1 person captures this camp, they get 5000 points.
5 people capturing this camp get 1000 points each.
20 people capturing this camp get 250 points each.
50 people capturing this camp get 100 points each.

This concept comes down to risk versus reward. 1 player or 5 players are assuming significantly more risk in trying to take a point over the group of 20 or 50. And likewise, the smaller groups should be compensated more for doing so.

I would assume this would be easier to implement over the removal of an AOE cap as well, simply divide the fixed number of issued XP to the number of players in the capture radius. This wouldn’t completely eliminate the zerging, but would certainly diminish the REWARDS of it.

+1

Thought exactly the same, thanks for writing it – great minds think alike ;P

Is not about eliminating zerglings, but offering more reward out of it.

Crular.9762:

I just wanted to draw out others to chime in, with that statement. Of course it was a generalization. The fact remains, WvW is about conquering and holding objectives. Complaining about people who exactly do that is stupid. If you expected something different from WvW it isn’t the fault of those people, but yours alone.

I do not run solo because I like duelling, I just run solo most of the time because there is only one player left in my guild and because I try to stay away from huge fights due to the lags. And no, I am no eazy-mode-thief, in fact no thief at all. I am a bunker BM condition ranger.

The tease was there to bait – you took it. I really don’t mind if you are a thief or not, they thrive solo and troll around, and while not completely happy with their current state they do serve a purpose.

As for the main objective of WvW, you are right, its holding and capturing, but saying its stupid to have expected something different its short-sighted (if we going to start insulting, lest make it fair and keep it on both sides) – Of course I expected something different, not only huge zergs – its Anet fault – WXP, karma trains, maps too small, Waypoints… all caters to that way of playing the game. This wheren’t my expectations, however, I still enjoy the game and will play it, just some weeks are more fun than others, depending on mentality of opponents.

There is a lot of animosity of this threads, but really boils down to: It’s not that AM are worthless opponents, is that they have been boring to play against for people with a different approach to the game (in general)