Suggestion: Lower wvw squad size to 25 ppl. — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

Suggestion: Lower wvw squad size to 25 ppl.

Vova.2640Vova.2640 Member ✭✭✭
edited March 27, 2020 in WvW

I know this wont fix the main problem, blob guilds will just run 2-3 squads, but at least it will make coordination harder for blobs while not punishing groups that run smaller.
Step by step try to lower whole number meta.
The game becomes so much more fun when fights are on a smaller scale, rather then a lagfest of 50v50v50 squads.....

EDIT:
Just to clarify.
Im not saying this is a all-in-all solution that will solve blobbing once and for all.
Im just suggesting something minor that could help discourage blobbing (by making it harder to coordinate + share boons/heals between squads) and empower smaller groups.
Thats all.

<1

Comments

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    this is a good suggestion that has been said a few times. there have been numerous good suggestions over the years, unfortunately anet thinks everything is fine and put wvw into maintenance mode. I would look elsewhere for big battle content.

    Te lazla otstara.

  • Hannelore.8153Hannelore.8153 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 26, 2020

    That's still way too many, no single coordinated group should exceed ten people. Guilds will still use Discord, Mumble or Teamspeak to coordinate but managing all the buff distribution etc. will become harder and give the smaller side an advantage. Forcing multiple tags up also helps to confuse PUGs and reduce the number of players flocking to follow a single Commander tag.

    We also need a basic Mentor-style tag in WvW for roaming, havoc and other small-scale groups, where there is no squad just a tag that you can follow which will help to break numbers down even more by encouraging multiple conflicting agendas.

    It'll lead to some infighting but that's better than the opposite side just being decimated all the time.

    Hannah | Daisuki[SUKI] Founder, Ehmry Bay | Mains Mariyuuna/Tempest(PvE), Terakura/Spellbreaker & Kitty Koume/Reaper(WvW) | ♀♥♀

  • Sviel.7493Sviel.7493 Member ✭✭✭

    I was going to say things but Dawdler said them already.

    He's right. Squads have been a great improvement thus far, but they need to be pushed even further to facilitate the level of coordination that this game mode requires...especially if you're running multiple small-scale groups. The reason people run in zergs is because it's easy and all of the rewards are tailored to zerging. This would be true with or without squads, but they can help make non-zerg activities less daunting with a little work.

  • Lan Deathrider.5910Lan Deathrider.5910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Answer 95% of WvW issues are summed up by three things:

    Nerf boon spam
    Nerf stealth
    Remove downstate.

  • Hannelore.8153Hannelore.8153 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 26, 2020

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Answer 95% of WvW issues are summed up by three things:

    Nerf boon spam
    Nerf stealth
    Remove downstate.

    All I see happening with all of these is the effective removal of support from this game, which is already only barely viable. You need a new game plan, friend, that doesn't involve trouncing on the way that others want or need to play.

    Hannah | Daisuki[SUKI] Founder, Ehmry Bay | Mains Mariyuuna/Tempest(PvE), Terakura/Spellbreaker & Kitty Koume/Reaper(WvW) | ♀♥♀

  • Lan Deathrider.5910Lan Deathrider.5910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hannelore.8153 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Answer 95% of WvW issues are summed up by three things:

    Nerf boon spam
    Nerf stealth
    Remove downstate.

    All I see happening with all of these is the effective removal of support from this game, which is already only barely viable. You need a new game plan, friend, that doesn't involve trouncing on the way that others want or need to play.

    So, in your opinion boon spam is not a problem, stealth is a balanced and fair mechanic, and downstate is a healthy?
    K.

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 27, 2020

    This does nothing to stop blobbing since pugs contribute little to the group comp in most cases. This is doubly true for pugmanders who don't have a comp at all. For those of you that understand how party structure works, you would know no matter how you arrange the thieves and rangers, it doesn't mater.

    Also WvW is a game mode that features large scale combat and most organization is carried out in comms anyways.

    Well I suppose it'll cause even more whining about not being invited because of class I guess. I would imagine most guild groups would not want to run open at all.

    The other thing is that most blobs consist of multiple bandwagon guilds holding each other's jewels. Hint: They're not in the same squads anyways.

  • pninak.1069pninak.1069 Member ✭✭

    I think reducing squad size leads to having more commanders in the same zerg. Just because this option is in there doesn't mean people gonna use it the way you think they gonna do it.

  • DanAlcedo.3281DanAlcedo.3281 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Anet: lowers squads to 25 people.

    WvW players: open a second squad and still run around with 50 people.

    Vova: Suprised pikachu face.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    The number meta existed before squads existed. Lowering the limit will do exactly nothing.

    Personally I still think they should encourage spreading out over more tags by increasing its functionality, not limit it. I would still like to see things such as:

    • Hover over short descriptions ("Zerging", "Havoc", "I want bay", etc). This is to encourage easily defined parties at a glance.
    • More shapes to customize squad tags and encourage smaller groups to run with "their own" tags.
    • Squad size indicator, such as 1-3 chevrons beneath the tag to indicate 1-10, 11-25, 26-50.
    • Map/team chat should note if the talker is a commander (this is just to boost peoples egos and make them want to tag up for it).
    • Ability to set simple attack/defend objectives for bonus points for the entire squad.

    Etc and so on.

    This.

    Blobbing was present before squads existed, it would be present even if no party or squad options would be available.

    While I agree with the sentiment that it might be productive to offer more incentive or opportunity for smaller groups, as long as blobbing works, it will remain the go-to approach for singular victory.

    It's not even the most efficient way to play currently. If a blob is faced with multiple coordinated groups, they can not respond to enough objectives, essentially losing the objective and ppt war. No one cares though since steamrolling the enemy and getting bags is more important.

  • @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    This does nothing to stop blobbing since pugs contribute little to the group comp in most cases. This is doubly true for pugmanders who don't have a comp at all. For those of you that understand how party structure works, you would know no matter how you arrange the thieves and rangers, it doesn't mater.

    Also WvW is a game mode that features large scale combat and most organization is carried out in comms anyways.

    Well I suppose it'll cause even more whining about not being invited because of class I guess. I would imagine most guild groups would not want to run open at all.

    The other thing is that most blobs consist of multiple bandwagon guilds holding each other's jewels. Hint: They're not in the same squads anyways.

    I agree it prob wont stop blobbing but it defo will decrease the effectiveness of 50 people stacking on eachother, no?

  • Fish.2769Fish.2769 Member ✭✭✭

    @Hannelore.8153 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Answer 95% of WvW issues are summed up by three things:

    Nerf boon spam
    Nerf stealth
    Remove downstate.

    All I see happening with all of these is the effective removal of support from this game, which is already only barely viable.

    I want whatever they're smoking...

  • Len.1879Len.1879 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 27, 2020

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    The number meta existed before squads existed. Lowering the limit will do exactly nothing.

    Personally I still think they should encourage spreading out over more tags by increasing its functionality, not limit it. I would still like to see things such as:

    • Hover over short descriptions ("Zerging", "Havoc", "I want bay", etc). This is to encourage easily defined parties at a glance.
    • More shapes to customize squad tags and encourage smaller groups to run with "their own" tags.
    • Squad size indicator, such as 1-3 chevrons beneath the tag to indicate 1-10, 11-25, 26-50.
    • Map/team chat should note if the talker is a commander (this is just to boost peoples egos and make them want to tag up for it).
    • Ability to set simple attack/defend objectives for bonus points for the entire squad.

    Etc and so on.

    Agreed on most of this, except for the first suggestion, as that already exists. If people would use the LFG tool more extensively, players would be presented with a nice list of groups and tags plus a description in the top left corner of their screen when they enter any WvW map. But that is a player-issue and I have been fighting windmills on it for months now.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 27, 2020

    @Vova.2640 said:
    I know this wont fix the main problem, blob guilds will just run 2-3 squads, but at least it will make coordination harder for blobs while not punishing groups that run smaller.
    Step by step try to lower whole number meta.
    The game becomes so much more fun when fights are on a smaller scale, rather then a lagfest of 50v50v50 squads.....

    What’s the problem? Maps allow for a lot of players for RvR gameplay, so there is nothing to resolve. WvW is supposed to be a mass pvp zone.

    It doesn’t matter what squad size limits Anet imposes, coordination is often done on discord for organized groups. You’d still have players following 1 commander over voice even if you limited squad size to 10 each.

    Lag? That’s been an ongoing problem that squad size doesn’t resolve.

    This is wvw...

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 27, 2020

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    this is a good suggestion that has been said a few times. there have been numerous good suggestions over the years, unfortunately anet thinks everything is fine and put wvw into maintenance mode. I would look elsewhere for big battle content.

    Limiting squad size doesn’t do anything. Anet made an RvR mode with like 100 player map caps for each map and for each side.

    RvR is a 3 sided mass combat war mode, so what’s your issue? Strange, Anet made “big battle content” but you are complaining about that same “big battle content” with 50 person squad sizes? Doesn’t make sense... If you like small scale battles then it’s easy to enter SPvP.

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭

    What would this even do? lol people would just run 2-3 squads.

    Aurora Glade Server Leader

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    People managed to blob when group size was 5. Wanna trim the blob for real you gotta drop the AoE cap, that's not happening in this game though.

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Vova.2640Vova.2640 Member ✭✭✭

    @DanAlcedo.3281 said:
    Anet: lowers squads to 25 people.

    WvW players: open a second squad and still run around with 50 people.

    Vova: Suprised pikachu face.

    Did you even read what I wrote?
    I am perfectly well aware that people will make 2nd and 3rd squads to continue blobbing down. The idea is that it will make stuff like heals and boons share more difficult, and worse coordination between squads... thus making it easier for 25 and less man groups to fight blobs.

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 27, 2020

    @Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:

    @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    This does nothing to stop blobbing since pugs contribute little to the group comp in most cases. This is doubly true for pugmanders who don't have a comp at all. For those of you that understand how party structure works, you would know no matter how you arrange the thieves and rangers, it doesn't mater.

    Also WvW is a game mode that features large scale combat and most organization is carried out in comms anyways.

    Well I suppose it'll cause even more whining about not being invited because of class I guess. I would imagine most guild groups would not want to run open at all.

    The other thing is that most blobs consist of multiple bandwagon guilds holding each other's jewels. Hint: They're not in the same squads anyways.

    I agree it prob wont stop blobbing but it defo will decrease the effectiveness of 50 people stacking on eachother, no?

    No, because like I said above, most bandwagon blobs are seperate guilds that run multiple tags anyways (sometimes closed so you won't notice). They usually flank and surround the enemies.

    I won't doubt there are indeed 50 deep running around but even in those cases they pull pugs and whether they are in the squad are not is irrelevant.

    When blobs outnumber the enemy and just 1111 the enemy, being in a squad or not is completely irrelevant. When numbers are even, well, there isn't a problem to begin with. Until there is incentive to win then people will blob (and probably do so anyways)

  • Vova.2640Vova.2640 Member ✭✭✭

    Again, the idea is that this is make blobs less favourable in fights. To try and discourage blobbing up and running everything over.
    It would be harder to coordinate a 2nd/3rd squad on one pin. It will be harder to share boons and heals between squads.

    This is not supposed to be a perfect solution.. there is no perfect solution... probably never will be.
    But this is just one step forwards empowering smaller groups and discouraging blobbing.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vova.2640 said:

    @DanAlcedo.3281 said:
    Anet: lowers squads to 25 people.

    WvW players: open a second squad and still run around with 50 people.

    Vova: Suprised pikachu face.

    Did you even read what I wrote?
    I am perfectly well aware that people will make 2nd and 3rd squads to continue blobbing down. The idea is that it will make stuff like heals and boons share more difficult, and worse coordination between squads... thus making it easier for 25 and less man groups to fight blobs.

    Everyone read what you wrote, and you made no mention of heals and buffs...

    @Vova.2640 said:
    I know this wont fix the main problem, blob guilds will just run 2-3 squads, but at least it will make coordination harder for blobs while not punishing groups that run smaller.
    Step by step try to lower whole number meta.
    The game becomes so much more fun when fights are on a smaller scale, rather then a lagfest of 50v50v50 squads.....

    Squad size isn’t changing, nor will it have the impact you assume. It will be negligible... Also, wvw is an RvR mode made for mass player combat. The rules aren’t changing to favor small group squads.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vova.2640 said:
    Again, the idea is that this is make blobs less favourable in fights. To try and discourage blobbing up and running everything over.
    It would be harder to coordinate a 2nd/3rd squad on one pin. It will be harder to share boons and heals between squads.

    This is not supposed to be a perfect solution.. there is no perfect solution... probably never will be.
    But this is just one step forwards empowering smaller groups and discouraging blobbing.

    Learn what wvw was primarily made for... And hint, it’s not modeled after WoW battlegrounds...

  • Vova.2640Vova.2640 Member ✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Vova.2640 said:

    @DanAlcedo.3281 said:
    Anet: lowers squads to 25 people.

    WvW players: open a second squad and still run around with 50 people.

    Vova: Suprised pikachu face.

    Did you even read what I wrote?
    I am perfectly well aware that people will make 2nd and 3rd squads to continue blobbing down. The idea is that it will make stuff like heals and boons share more difficult, and worse coordination between squads... thus making it easier for 25 and less man groups to fight blobs.

    Everyone read what you wrote, and you made no mention of heals and buffs...

    Again, clearly not. I mentioned in my original post that I am aware that people will make 2nd/3rd squads that is what I was referring to. Learn to read please.

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Vova.2640 said:
    Again, the idea is that this is make blobs less favourable in fights. To try and discourage blobbing up and running everything over.
    It would be harder to coordinate a 2nd/3rd squad on one pin. It will be harder to share boons and heals between squads.

    This is not supposed to be a perfect solution.. there is no perfect solution... probably never will be.
    But this is just one step forwards empowering smaller groups and discouraging blobbing.

    Learn what wvw was primarily made for... And hint, it’s not modeled after WoW battlegrounds...

    Oh? What was it "primarily made" for then?
    Because from I have seen, when there "100 of players fighting over an objective" the servers just die and skill lag becomes unbearable.
    I wonder if that was "primarily made" to be like that......

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vova.2640 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Vova.2640 said:

    @DanAlcedo.3281 said:
    Anet: lowers squads to 25 people.

    WvW players: open a second squad and still run around with 50 people.

    Vova: Suprised pikachu face.

    Did you even read what I wrote?
    I am perfectly well aware that people will make 2nd and 3rd squads to continue blobbing down. The idea is that it will make stuff like heals and boons share more difficult, and worse coordination between squads... thus making it easier for 25 and less man groups to fight blobs.

    Everyone read what you wrote, and you made no mention of heals and buffs...


    Again, clearly not. I mentioned in my original post that I am aware that people will make 2nd/3rd squads that is what I was referring to. Learn to read please.

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Vova.2640 said:
    Again, the idea is that this is make blobs less favourable in fights. To try and discourage blobbing up and running everything over.
    It would be harder to coordinate a 2nd/3rd squad on one pin. It will be harder to share boons and heals between squads.

    This is not supposed to be a perfect solution.. there is no perfect solution... probably never will be.
    But this is just one step forwards empowering smaller groups and discouraging blobbing.

    Learn what wvw was primarily made for... And hint, it’s not modeled after WoW battlegrounds...

    Oh? What was it "primarily made" for then?
    Because from I have seen, when there "100 of players fighting over an objective" the servers just die and skill lag becomes unbearable.
    I wonder if that was "primarily made" to be like that......

    Be more specific next time if you want to accuse posters of not reading what you wrote. We’re not here to assume. Your fault for not providing more details and explanations, not any readers.

    Yeah, wvw is a zone made primarily for blob battles, so get use to it. If you can’t handle blobs around then the devs created spvp for you.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vova.2640 said:
    I know this wont fix the main problem, blob guilds will just run 2-3 squads, but at least it will make coordination harder for blobs while not punishing groups that run smaller.
    Step by step try to lower whole number meta.
    The game becomes so much more fun when fights are on a smaller scale, rather then a lagfest of 50v50v50 squads.....

    Absolutely bang on. Couldn't agree more.

    Thief OP? Better nerf Scourge ... again.
    Hashtag BlameMcLain

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 27, 2020

    And, you’re trying to solve “blobbing” in a mode specifically created by Anet to allow for blobbing... It’s called a mist war where potentially hundreds of players can log into the maps and fight, but you are conveniently ignoring that fact.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It may encourage multi-commander zergs. I like it. There's scope for doing flexible commanding and such.

    Thief OP? Better nerf Scourge ... again.
    Hashtag BlameMcLain

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vova.2640 said:
    I know this wont fix the main problem, blob guilds will just run 2-3 squads, but at least it will make coordination harder for blobs while not punishing groups that run smaller.
    Step by step try to lower whole number meta.
    The game becomes so much more fun when fights are on a smaller scale, rather then a lagfest of 50v50v50 squads.....

    EDIT:
    Just to clarify.
    Im not saying this is a all-in-all solution that will solve blobbing once and for all.
    Im just suggesting something minor that could help discourage blobbing (by making it harder to coordinate + share boons/heals between squads) and empower smaller groups.
    Thats all.

    Again, there is nothing to "solve" or "discourage" inside of a mode that was primarily designed for “pvp on an epic scale” and “it’s about gigantic battles on massive maps” and “wvw is large scale pvp warfare the way it’s meant to be”... If you can't play around blobs then why are you even in wvw when you can play the small scale spvp the devs made?

  • DanAlcedo.3281DanAlcedo.3281 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vova.2640 said:

    @DanAlcedo.3281 said:
    Anet: lowers squads to 25 people.

    WvW players: open a second squad and still run around with 50 people.

    Vova: Suprised pikachu face.

    Did you even read what I wrote?
    I am perfectly well aware that people will make 2nd and 3rd squads to continue blobbing down. The idea is that it will make stuff like heals and boons share more difficult, and worse coordination between squads... thus making it easier for 25 and less man groups to fight blobs.

    Yes i did and no, it would change nothing.

    We could remove squads and we would just form groups normaly again.

    All you do is make it more annoying for the biggest group of the WvW community while changing nothing else.

    As long as it is effectiv to run around with 50+ ( and easier for most players), it WILL be done.

    Literally all you do here ist make the Gamemode worse for the majority of the Players and dont help the 15-20 man guilds at all.

  • suggestion: no pointless changes, and this here is the peak of pointlessnes, while wvw has so many things that really need a fix - or rather, needed it yet yesterday.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    imagine team a is attacking an objective and they are split into 2 squads. team b attacks one of their structures. team a can respond and still take the objective.

    wouldn't happen all that often probably, but at least the tools would be there.

    Te lazla otstara.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    imagine team a is attacking an objective and they are split into 2 squads. team b attacks one of their structures. team a can respond and still take the objective.

    wouldn't happen all that often probably, but at least the tools would be there.

    The tools are there today.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    imagine team a is attacking an objective and they are split into 2 squads. team b attacks one of their structures. team a can respond and still take the objective.

    wouldn't happen all that often probably, but at least the tools would be there.

    Teams have done that for years already... Imagine that...

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 28, 2020

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    imagine team a is attacking an objective and they are split into 2 squads. team b attacks one of their structures. team a can respond and still take the objective.

    wouldn't happen all that often probably, but at least the tools would be there.

    The tools are there today.

    Indeed, let's think about that a sec. If your squad caps out, the people not in it do struggle somewhat because they aren't sharing boons and such. Those guys generally die first because of that.

    If you have smaller squads, you encourage players to disperse a bit more, but they CAN group all tags together. It gives more flexibility to the commander - "can the other squad grab camp while we man the catapults" is more likely to happen than "can groups 3, 4, and 5 grab the camp". The fact that a TAG is moving is more likely, I think, to get that squad to obey.

    Thief OP? Better nerf Scourge ... again.
    Hashtag BlameMcLain

  • Len.1879Len.1879 Member ✭✭✭

    @Svarty.8019 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    imagine team a is attacking an objective and they are split into 2 squads. team b attacks one of their structures. team a can respond and still take the objective.

    wouldn't happen all that often probably, but at least the tools would be there.

    The tools are there today.

    Indeed, let's think about that a sec. If your squad caps out, the people not in it do struggle somewhat because they aren't sharing boons and such. Those guys generally die first because of that.

    If you have smaller squads, you encourage players to disperse a bit more, but they CAN group all tags together. It gives more flexibility to the commander - "can the other squad grab camp while we man the catapults" is more likely to happen than "can groups 3, 4, and 5 grab the camp". The fact that a TAG is moving is more likely, I think, to get that squad to obey.

    As long as players go "ooga booga WvW is fighting, PPT bad" that will not happen, because the most effective strategy is then to have massive amounts of players clash into each other and see who still stands.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 28, 2020

    @Len.1879 said:

    @Svarty.8019 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    imagine team a is attacking an objective and they are split into 2 squads. team b attacks one of their structures. team a can respond and still take the objective.

    wouldn't happen all that often probably, but at least the tools would be there.

    The tools are there today.

    Indeed, let's think about that a sec. If your squad caps out, the people not in it do struggle somewhat because they aren't sharing boons and such. Those guys generally die first because of that.

    If you have smaller squads, you encourage players to disperse a bit more, but they CAN group all tags together. It gives more flexibility to the commander - "can the other squad grab camp while we man the catapults" is more likely to happen than "can groups 3, 4, and 5 grab the camp". The fact that a TAG is moving is more likely, I think, to get that squad to obey.

    As long as players go "ooga booga WvW is fighting, PPT bad" that will not happen, because the most effective strategy is then to have massive amounts of players clash into each other and see who still stands.

    There's a bit to unpack there.
    So firstly I agree that the "ooga booga WvW is fighting, PPT bad" is not the best of attitudes and that it's prevalence is a shame. Secondly, we can't just wish that attitude away and it's a situation we're in and must assume we can't change it. That being the case...

    When you DO have those big clashes, a lot depends on the squads being able to avoid/survive the enemy's bomb (everybody coordinating their big damage in the same-ish place). Reducing the size of the squads would probably not change this, as the second commander would try to remain on the main commander, and they're all going to be in the same voice comms channel anyway.

    I just get the impression that you'd get a lot more 25 vs 25 battles, with a LOT of pugs hanging around, instead of 50 vs 50s. So .. probably very cloudy with a tiny core group.
    I don't know... it seems that guild vs blob would result in more victories for guild if this change went through. I don't know how comfortable I am with THAT.

    Thief OP? Better nerf Scourge ... again.
    Hashtag BlameMcLain

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 28, 2020

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    imagine team a is attacking an objective and they are split into 2 squads. team b attacks one of their structures. team a can respond and still take the objective.

    wouldn't happen all that often probably, but at least the tools would be there.

    The tools are there today.

    how often does it happen? "yeah party 5-7 go defend tower". lol it never does, commander might tell them to go cap camp or something but that's it. whats the big deal anyway? it if doesn't change anything there isn't much to worry about. do it and see what happens, or do nothing and nothing will change.

    Te lazla otstara.

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Lower map caps, change server population accordingly. Make more people switch to smaller servers, open up another tier for the additional people.

    Everybody wins.

    I rather choose death.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    imagine team a is attacking an objective and they are split into 2 squads. team b attacks one of their structures. team a can respond and still take the objective.

    wouldn't happen all that often probably, but at least the tools would be there.

    The tools are there today.

    how often does it happen? "yeah party 5-7 go defend tower". lol it never does, commander might tell them to go cap camp or something but that's it. whats the big deal anyway? it if doesn't change anything there isn't much to worry about. do it and see what happens, or do nothing and nothing will change.

    Which is the flaw of commanders, not Anets squad design.

    There is absolutely nothing stopping a zoneblob of 70+ to form a 50 man full primary squad and a 20 man secondary squad that the primary commander use for flanking, baiting, the anvil to the hammer, whatever you want to call it.

    But you see that's not happening. At best, we get a "ranged" trash squad where all the "bad" people are thrown in. Why?

    Because multiple commanders is taboo.

    The rule of the commander is absolute, everyone stack on the commander, he is the path to glory, all worship the commander.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 28, 2020

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    imagine team a is attacking an objective and they are split into 2 squads. team b attacks one of their structures. team a can respond and still take the objective.

    wouldn't happen all that often probably, but at least the tools would be there.

    The tools are there today.

    how often does it happen? "yeah party 5-7 go defend tower". lol it never does, commander might tell them to go cap camp or something but that's it. whats the big deal anyway? it if doesn't change anything there isn't much to worry about. do it and see what happens, or do nothing and nothing will change.

    You’re kidding right? Servers have been successfully running and coordinating between multiple groups since the beginning... Even pug groups with randoms on the maps...

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Which is the flaw of commanders, not Anets squad design.

    There is absolutely nothing stopping a zoneblob of 70+ to form a 50 man full primary squad and a 20 man secondary squad that the primary commander use for flanking, baiting, the anvil to the hammer, whatever you want to call it.

    But you see that's not happening. At best, we get a "ranged" trash squad where all the "bad" people are thrown in. Why?

    Because multiple commanders is taboo.

    The rule of the commander is absolute, everyone stack on the commander, he is the path to glory, all worship the commander.

    it would make it easier to split forces, that's all. it would enable more people to command. what I hear from you is pessimism, not foresight. in all probability you're right tho, nothing much would change in terms of all stack on the mander when it comes to big fights. every once and a while tho it would make more sense to split up. a 50 person squad size doesn't encourage this. do you deny that?

    Te lazla otstara.

  • Samug.6512Samug.6512 Member ✭✭✭

    What kind of solutions is that? Blobs were a thing before squads existed, when all you could do is get in a party of 5.

    [NUKE]

  • @ArchonWing.9480 said:

    @Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:

    @ArchonWing.9480 said:
    This does nothing to stop blobbing since pugs contribute little to the group comp in most cases. This is doubly true for pugmanders who don't have a comp at all. For those of you that understand how party structure works, you would know no matter how you arrange the thieves and rangers, it doesn't mater.

    Also WvW is a game mode that features large scale combat and most organization is carried out in comms anyways.

    Well I suppose it'll cause even more whining about not being invited because of class I guess. I would imagine most guild groups would not want to run open at all.

    The other thing is that most blobs consist of multiple bandwagon guilds holding each other's jewels. Hint: They're not in the same squads anyways.

    I agree it prob wont stop blobbing but it defo will decrease the effectiveness of 50 people stacking on eachother, no?

    No, because like I said above, most bandwagon blobs are seperate guilds that run multiple tags anyways (sometimes closed so you won't notice). They usually flank and surround the enemies.

    I won't doubt there are indeed 50 deep running around but even in those cases they pull pugs and whether they are in the squad are not is irrelevant.

    When blobs outnumber the enemy and just 1111 the enemy, being in a squad or not is completely irrelevant. When numbers are even, well, there isn't a problem to begin with. Until there is incentive to win then people will blob (and probably do so anyways)

    Most definitely not the case on EU. I still believe it will decrease the strength of blobs if nothing alteast by messing up the boon spread.

  • phreeak.1023phreeak.1023 Member ✭✭
    edited March 29, 2020

    @Vova.2640 said:

    @DanAlcedo.3281 said:
    Anet: lowers squads to 25 people.

    WvW players: open a second squad and still run around with 50 people.

    Vova: Suprised pikachu face.

    Did you even read what I wrote?
    I am perfectly well aware that people will make 2nd and 3rd squads to continue blobbing down. The idea is that it will make stuff like heals and boons share more difficult, and worse coordination between squads... thus making it easier for 25 and less man groups to fight blobs.

    Why should it make it harder?
    There are still in the best case 50 people on discord/Teamspeak and both squads are full of meta builds, who following the tag. No problems at all, only for random Tags. They have to fight with 25ppl against 30ppl sitting in their T3 tower with 15 arrow carts. But at least some roamers/small scale guys get their wishes and destroy this game a little bit more.

  • and here we go; what phreeak wrote is basically it - efficient squads need to be on voice, that improves reaction time by 1000%. a good voiced zerg can take out groups with 30 ppl more than it has. (which got more difficult lately, since more ppl now means also more cc, more stab, and more random sniper classes that can fire their stuff within seconds onto the smaller groups' sustain)
    and because of this, it totally matters not if tags can now only carry smaller numbers of people. often 1/3 of the satellite players orbit around a tag and don't even join it. happens also to closed tags, unless hidden tag.

    @Dawdler.8521 you're acutally pretty incorrect here. this does rather rarely to not work, since the people don't think tactically at all. baiting happens, but in a sense this big, it rarely does. people don't take the format that seriously, also the format heavily discourages to be taken seriously. you literally get not much for playing highly tactical.

    it can work, if the people you have in the squad are competent, and on smaller scales. i had a random tag, and told "some take camp XX, rest comes with me taking camp XY"... it worked barely, you'd have to call the persons names letter by letter to make them go anywhere specifically, unless they're veterans. and if you're not voice commanding, this is super uncomfy, even with just 15 ppl.

    if there's a zerg running around , you as singleperson outside of zerg can call ten times "i need 2~ ppl here to flip the tower safely"... nobody will come, and that's not the comms fault. most comms don't kick you out of squads just bc u stay on tag. that was the early commanders, and during that time zerg fighting skills were like twenty times better than they are now.

    people barely follow the tags, and that's only people's fault - if anything, they run after the tag, in a tailsize which can fill the length of two keeps. so they spread incredibly thing, and those people you think are capable of making coordinated group movements without a voiced tag screaming at them?

    most end up getting ganked by some trashy roamerclasses sooner or later - the tag cannot do anything about it, bc u cannot chase some thieves/warriors/rangers across the map just bc some ppl let get themselves baited.

  • Mizhas.8536Mizhas.8536 Member ✭✭
    edited March 30, 2020

    Reduce squad to 25 and add a debuff that reduces DPS output by 10% and increases DPS input by 10% per every 5 extra players around the tag (starting at 25 ofc). With this and by removing downstate you might achieve something.

    Especially removing downstate is one of the most effective solutions since downstate only favors the bigger team since they can keep DPS while 1-2 rez their downed.

    I know that these changes might result in a lot of hate at the beginning but in the long run, people would understand that stacking is not the solution.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 30, 2020

    @kamikharzeeh.8016 said:
    @Dawdler.8521 you're acutally pretty incorrect here. this does rather rarely to not work, since the people don't think tactically at all. baiting happens, but in a sense this big, it rarely does. people don't take the format that seriously, also the format heavily discourages to be taken seriously. you literally get not much for playing highly tactical.

    it can work, if the people you have in the squad are competent, and on smaller scales. i had a random tag, and told "some take camp XX, rest comes with me taking camp XY"... it worked barely, you'd have to call the persons names letter by letter to make them go anywhere specifically, unless they're veterans. and if you're not voice commanding, this is super uncomfy, even with just 15 ppl.

    if there's a zerg running around , you as singleperson outside of zerg can call ten times "i need 2~ ppl here to flip the tower safely"... nobody will come, and that's not the comms fault. most comms don't kick you out of squads just bc u stay on tag. that was the early commanders, and during that time zerg fighting skills were like twenty times better than they are now.

    people barely follow the tags, and that's only people's fault - if anything, they run after the tag, in a tailsize which can fill the length of two keeps. so they spread incredibly thing, and those people you think are capable of making coordinated group movements without a voiced tag screaming at them?

    most end up getting ganked by some trashy roamerclasses sooner or later - the tag cannot do anything about it, bc u cannot chase some thieves/warriors/rangers across the map just bc some ppl let get themselves baited.

    Doesnt work cause everyone is an idiot, got it.

    @Mizhas.8536 said:
    Reduce squad to 25 and add a debuff that reduces DPS output by 10% and increases DPS input by 10% per every 5 extra players around the tag (starting at 25 ofc). With this and by removing downstate you might achieve something.

    So I can spite commanders by gathering more likeminded trollers and hang around for laughs while we suffer no negative effects due to not being in the squad? I like the way you think!

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Mizhas.8536Mizhas.8536 Member ✭✭

    @Mizhas.8536 said:
    Reduce squad to 25 and add a debuff that reduces DPS output by 10% and increases DPS input by 10% per every 5 extra players around the tag (starting at 25 ofc). With this and by removing downstate you might achieve something.

    So I can spite commanders by gathering more likeminded trollers and hang around for laughs while we suffer no negative effects due to not being in the squad? I like the way you think!

    The debuff would affect everybody, not just squad members.

    Like I said, this mechanic would be first used to troll the comanders for sure but after some time, people would get used to it and hopefully would go and roam on their own or tag up and create another group.

    I specially like this idea since it would also help to mitigate outnumbered situations in a real way. The actual outnumbered buff does absolutely nothing in this matter.