Reducing squad size?

I'm just curious as to what people think about reducing the maximum size of squads in WvW and how it would be affecting the crurrent state of the game mode with regards to blob vs blobs.I do everything from solo roaming to organised blobbing (guild core with many pugs) and everything inbetween and I find that often times when a server is stacked with bandwagoners they tend to easily gather most of their players on 1 tag on the map the tag is on. This affects both the roaming climate and the zerging since many of the past bandw. servers had 1 massive blob on 1 map and then the other maps were empty both on roamers and other groups.

So basically I'm interested in what squad size you think would be the best to try to encourage different kinds of engagements rather than mega blobbing. Or if you got a different idea?Note: I'm not claiming this to be a universal fix for anything but maybe reducing the size could eventually have an affect (positive, i hope) on the style of which people play in WvW

Edit: Im also curious what impact people on lower pop servers think this would have

In the past, there is no such thing as squad and did it stop blobbing? No.

@SkyShroud.2865 said:In the past, there is no such thing as squad and did it stop blobbing? No.

it will at least shake up the buff sharing which is op in zergs. it may not be much but every little advantage helps.

@"Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365" said:I'm just curious as to what people think about reducing the maximum size of squads in WvW and how it would be affecting the crurrent state of the game mode with regards to blob vs blobs.I do everything from solo roaming to organised blobbing (guild core with many pugs) and everything inbetween and I find that often times when a server is stacked with bandwagoners they tend to easily gather most of their players on 1 tag on the map the tag is on. This affects both the roaming climate and the zerging since many of the past bandw. servers had 1 massive blob on 1 map and then the other maps were empty both on roamers and other groups.

So basically I'm interested in what squad size you think would be the best to try to encourage different kinds of engagements rather than mega blobbing. Or if you got a different idea?Note: I'm not claiming this to be a universal fix for anything but maybe reducing the size could eventually have an affect (positive, i hope) on the style of which people play in WvW

Edit: Im also curious what impact people on lower pop servers think this would have

I'm going to propose a question to you.... What difference does "squad" size make when maps allow for X players, and players would just follow a main squad, and use voice comms, if squad size were reduced?

@Swagger.1459 said:

@"Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365" said:I'm just curious as to what people think about reducing the maximum size of squads in WvW and how it would be affecting the crurrent state of the game mode with regards to blob vs blobs.I do everything from solo roaming to organised blobbing (guild core with many pugs) and everything inbetween and I find that often times when a server is stacked with bandwagoners they tend to easily gather most of their players on 1 tag on the map the tag is on. This affects both the roaming climate and the zerging since many of the past bandw. servers had 1 massive blob on 1 map and then the other maps were empty both on roamers and other groups.

So basically I'm interested in what squad size you think would be the best to try to encourage different kinds of engagements rather than mega blobbing. Or if you got a different idea?Note: I'm not claiming this to be a universal fix for anything but maybe reducing the size could eventually have an affect (positive, i hope) on the style of which people play in WvW

Edit: Im also curious what impact people on lower pop servers think this would have

It is true that there is still gonna be the fact that being more than you're opponent the better. Then the squads doesnt matter. We could remove squads altogether and have the same effect. One thing that would change for a fact is as pointed out above the boon prio.But I also wonder what would happen from a theoretical point of view? It could very well give coms more incentive to change their playstyle. I think it could spice things up in WvW especially for and against bandwagon servers.

Changing the size of squads won't really reduce that kind of behavior.

If you really want people to spread around in smaller groups all over all maps, you have to:

1. Make sure teams in any given match have player numbers and schedules that are as close as possible to make their populations as close as possible at any given time.
2. Add cumulative scoring bonuses the more locations are controlled, and the longer each one is controlled. Make sure that both controlling and maintaining objectives is way better than running in circles taking over things that will be taken back in 5 mins, for War score, personal participation and all personal and shared rewards.
3. Give very strong reasons to split and spread all over every map, with reasons to stay and plenty of things to do even when there's no enemies to be found in those areas.
   • For example, by creating a 4th NPC faction (e.g.: Aetherblades with a gray or black team color) that will assault and take over any undefended locations if they are not attacked by players for a certain time, attacking doylaks and sentries, disrupting supply lines, and basically being annoying when things are slow and there's no players to be the annoying ones. Counter-intuitive as it is, 'more PvE' turns out to be one of the best ways to get 'more pvp'. Since more players would have to stay behind at each objective's general area and supply lines, defending them instead sticking with a zerg, the likelyhood of players in smaller groups encountering other players in smaller groups increases.

@MithranArkanere.8957 said:Changing the size of squads won't really reduce that kind of behavior.

If you really want people to spread around in smaller groups all over all maps, you have to:

See I wasnt asking what would spread people around on maps. I just made an example about bandwagon servers soaking up everything and having very few roamers.Decreasing squad size would have an impact on the direct engagement in combat due to heal and boon prio. I absolutely don't see how its impoosible to shakes things up

@Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:I'm just curious as to what people think about reducing the maximum size of squads in WvW and how it would be affecting the crurrent state of the game mode with regards to blob vs blobs.I do everything from solo roaming to organised blobbing (guild core with many pugs) and everything inbetween and I find that often times when a server is stacked with bandwagoners they tend to easily gather most of their players on 1 tag on the map the tag is on. This affects both the roaming climate and the zerging since many of the past bandw. servers had 1 massive blob on 1 map and then the other maps were empty both on roamers and other groups.

So basically I'm interested in what squad size you think would be the best to try to encourage different kinds of engagements rather than mega blobbing. Or if you got a different idea?Note: I'm not claiming this to be a universal fix for anything but maybe reducing the size could eventually have an affect (positive, i hope) on the style of which people play in WvW

Edit: Im also curious what impact people on lower pop servers think this would have

“Bandwagoning” is being address by the Alliance System.

Nothing will change short of adding more active maps to play on AND reducing map caps.

You also need to consider that WvW was designed for “blobs” primarily. WvW was modeled after DAoC RvR.

Increase squad size.

Reducing won't stop blobbing, and would just be an unnecessary inconvenience.

@Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:Decreasing squad size would have an impact on the direct engagement in combat due to heal and boon prio. I absolutely don't see how its impoosible to shakes things upNo, it really wouldnt. Lets say we half it. Instead of having 1 squad of 50 for 10 meta parties in total boonsharing, you'd have 2 squads of 25 for 10 meta parties in total boonsharing. Either way you do it, its 10 five-man parties.

How do we know it wont work? Because thats how it work today. Many border zergs already run 2 tagged commanders because 50 isnt enough. This change would only make them run 3.

S> @Dawdler.8521 said:

@Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:Decreasing squad size would have an impact on the direct engagement in combat due to heal and boon prio. I absolutely don't see how its impoosible to shakes things upNo, it really wouldnt. Lets say we half it. Instead of having 1 squad of 50 for 10 meta parties in total boonsharing, you'd have 2 squads of 25 for 10 meta parties in total boonsharing. Either way you do it, its 10 five-man parties.

Also, people followed tag before squads were developed. A second tag or even one tag with multiple parties following won’t change the sizes of Zergs.

Only way to change the Zerg size is th incentivize in some way, splitting up.

@Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:I wasnt asking what would spread people aroundYou did when you wrote:I'm interested in what squad size you think would be the best to try to encourage different kinds of engagements rather than mega blobbing.and when you wrotemaybe reducing the size could eventually have an affect (positive, i hope) on the style of which people play in WvW

I just made an example about bandwagon servers soaking up everything and having very few roamers.Actually no, you didn't make an example of that. You made a claim, which is backed up by perception that so-called bandwagon teams only zerg. That seems counter-intuitive: people who like to roam exist on every server; they aren't likely to start zerging just because there's a a bandwagon.

Decreasing squad size would have an impact on the direct engagement in combat due to heal and boon prio. I absolutely don't see how its impoosible to shakes things upWe know it won't shake things up because there was zerging before there were squads, and after squads, without the current heal|boon prioritization.

The reason we have blobs is that it's easy for people and there's no incentive to change strategies.

@Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:But I also wonder what would happen from a theoretical point of view?What already happens when a spuad reaches 50: a second suqad within that zerg is created, to organise the other 10-15 ppl in groups, as well.

@Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:when a server is stacked with bandwagoners they tend to easily gather most of their players on 1 tag on the map the tag is on. This affects both the roaming climate and the zerging since many of the past bandw. servers had 1 massive blob on 1 map and then the other maps were empty both on roamers and other groups.So basically I'm interested in what squad size you think would be the best to try to encourage different kinds of engagements rather than mega blobbing.I chose other.As always, I have no idea about the US but in the EU there is now a severe shortage in active guilds which leads to a severe shortage in tags (at least tags that actively command and lead other players) and self-sufficient roaming parties . Reducing squad size will not really affect that issue at all.

If you want to diversify the game mode you need to make sure content is available in the mode and for the between-scales. That there is a major gap between solo-small and full blob is not very surprising. All forms of organized filler scales are in dire straits. That is the diversity that is all but gone in the mode today. There is no immidiate shortage of players who casually and leisurely stroll about on their own or near a tag (even if map- and server coverage overall is far lower than before). However, critical mass has been hit with players and player-groups who attempt to organize themselves and do a bit more.

That's also why we have a vicious circle of fewer commanders that actively command because there are also fewer players around who let themselves be actively commanded, discouraging experienced but unsupported commanders from tagging up and creating frustrations or back-and-forths about whose fault it is that active squads do not form to create or meet content. So there is little to no rebirth in active guilds and commanders between new or casual players and jaded semi-retired veterans. It also means those sorts of targets are missing the eco-system now, ie., smaller or less experienced guild groups that experienced roaming parties thrived on. Splitting up squads for the few tags that exist does not create those other forms of organisation that produce those groups, targets or overall content.

Incentives to start guilds and organize parties or smaller squads with your friends do, but where are those incentives? Not in WvW. Rather the opposite.

In part that is on the players for not stepping up to create it anymore but it is chiefly on the developer for not only neglecting it but also actively discouraging it or discriminating against it (ie., the discussion from the last Teatime episode is a quite telling example where they spoke about how the developer has been decent in supporting ingame player events as long as they were not WvW/guild oriented). It is a running joke by now. Draw a doodle and you get a standing community spot on official channels, organize a WvW event for hundreds of players with hundreds of viewers and you get nothing, no hosting on streams or highlights on forums. You don't even get the decency of a reply to your emails about it, or so I have heard. Ask Roy or Domi.

It would only work if people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what comps are for in the first place. And even then it's still better to blob.

In the dark ages, people made their comps by forming several parties. The squad system has made no effective change to this system. It's just easier for the commander to set up comps, instead of waiting for a bit for everyone else to do it. Regardless of system, each guild is going to have set its own parties and 25, 50, or 15 even, the comps are going to be exactly the same. The rest of the space is for pugs that may not even be running a build suitable to be part of a comp anyways and are likely to be all over the place, thus boon share is of minimal concern to their peformance. Basically, there is no guild that requires a 50 person comp to be functional anyways, so the increased squad size is merely to give pugs a space. If you just make the squad size smaller, people will just start kicking out pugs faster.

The change would really only hurt pugmanders for the most part who are just trying to get anything extra out of randoms. And there's really no incentive to pugmand in the first place.

And bandwagons are generally multiple guilds, and this does not affect them at all.

Leave it as it is... or bigger.

It would change nothing other then making it more frustrating.

I personally want it increased to 80.Way less annoying.

The only way I see actively encouraging smaller groups as possible, is adding some sort of boon dependant on squad size. But it would be too easy to abuse since you'd need to make it better the smaller the squad is and well... people would just create many small squads and stack anyway. So it's not really feasable.

I prefer encouraging objectives actually cappable by smaller forces, instead of being stopped dead by the 5 arrowcarts raining down death, breaching the keep, getting killed by a borderzerg easily hopping in and mopping everything up while draining zero supplies, so you accomplished nothing and probably wont try again because that zerg will just quickly hop in again. All the while it keeps ticking exponential PPT so you have to cap it or loose the matchup. This is what ruins it for small squads - they cant do anything without larger squads doing things for them first, like resetting structures. They cant fight over fortified objectives. Just bash their heads against a brick wall until either they or the brick wall gets tired enough to stop trying. At which point most likely their own 50+ man zerg comes in and takes the keep in less than 3 minutes, that the smaller squad tried to break for over 2 hours with constant enemy zergs porting in.

i think the easiest way to get smaller groups is changing the rewards to favor smaller groups. currently you will just kill more and capture faster in a larger group and you get the same reward doing a task solo or with 50 people. if rewards for any given task are fixed and are shared between all participants, then you would probably see more smaller groups (and toxic: go away you stealing my loot)changing the squad wont change the behaviour, id say they should increase squad size to get everyone on the map in.

I just want an option for healthbars to be visible for all allies instead of just squadmates so I don't have to join the tag to see them. Sometimes I want to just casually play support without joining comms and taking up a squad spot.

Why encourage small groups? The whole purpose of WvW is huge, epic-type battles.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365 said:I wasnt asking what would spread people aroundYou did when you wrote:I'm interested in what squad size you think would be the best to try to encourage different kinds of engagements rather than mega blobbing.I realise that now. I was a bit unclear, ment with focus on combat

Overall very interesting thoughts from u guys! Havnt had time to read all comments yet. Keep them coming

20 or less.

@dynomite.5834 said:Why encourage small groups? The whole purpose of WvW is huge, epic-type battles.

On NA what happens is big server just ktrain smaller to empty servers and bail out when they find that the queue on their side is getting dificulties, actually most groups try to avoif combat unless they outman targets by alot(Anet have been sure to get links borking up population balanace it seams...)Big and medium server will always avoid to fight each other and just ktrain stuff.This is what is happenign in WvW.

this would work if it went along with a massive change to targeting. for example your buffs/heals only go to people in your party, and if someone dies, the next party down in the squad list or something like that.