Best way to organize squad and subgroups

I’m looking for a definitive answer as to how to organize a squad and it’s subgroups for the most efficient and optimal way to spread healing, boons and buffs.

For example let’s say we have 15 members, 3 firebrands, 3 scrappers, 1 Tempest, 5 scourges, 2 revenants and 2 weavers. How would you organize such a squad.

Last meta I was aware of per 5 man was 2 support (fb/scrapper) + 3 dps (rev/scourge).

Anything else either get dumped into its on group or any free slot. Or told to not join at all.

@Dawdler.8521 said:Last meta I was aware of per 5 man was 2 support (fb/scrapper) + 3 dps (rev/scourge).

Anything else either get dumped into its on group or any free slot. Or told to not join at all.

Right but I’m not really talking about what’s meta. It’s about what is most optimal in the distribution

Let’s say for example that we do have a meta composition. 2 subgroups, each with a firebrand, scrapper, scourges and revs in each one.

The 10 man squad gets hit with some unknown amount of damage distributed in such a way where group 2 is hit harder than group 1. group 2’s firebrand is therefor having a hard time. The first firebrands heals aren’t able to reach the 2nd groups firebrand because it’s prioritizing group 1’s need for healing even though it needs it less than group 2. Doesn’t this mean that in the given situation that a 10 man subgroup would be more optimal in healing those players that need it more?...

You basically answered your own question. Subgroups are about distributing boons evenly. As far as I am aware, there is no mechanism in place for heal to prioritize players who "need it more", so the point of putting everyone in one group is moot. Micro management groups beyond distributing boons evenly is overkill, in my opinion.

Firebrand Scrapper Scourge Scourge Tempest. Firebrand Scrapper Scourge Revenant Weaver. Firebrand Scrapper Scourge Revenant Weaver.

Basically, one Firebrand per subgroup, one Revenant per subgroup, no more than one Scrapper or Tempest per subgroup, distribute Scourges evenly across subgroups as best you can for more even barrier application. Try and make sure Weavers are in a subgroup with a Revenant to give them permanent Fury, and if you have Spellbreakers fit them in where you can. Obviously this all assumes you have enough of each class. If there aren't enough Firebrands, Weavers and backline Revenants are more able to cope without party support than other classes.

@"Len.1879" said:You basically answered your own question. Subgroups are about distributing boons evenly. As far as I am aware, there is no mechanism in place for heal to prioritize players who "need it more", so the point of putting everyone in one group is moot. Micro management groups beyond distributing boons evenly is overkill, in my opinion.

As far as i know, there is such a mechanism...kinda sorta;

Healing will prioritize healing those in their party/subgroup FIRST. If party members are at full health, the healing will "overflow"(which is just a re-target of the healing) to the rest of your squad in the following manner;Let's say you have a 40 man squad, and you are in subgroup 1, if 3 of the people in subgroup 1 are at max health, then 3 people in your squad are picked with relation to DISTANCE from the caster/AOE as long as they aren't also at max health. So lets say 4 people in your squad need healing, you could have one of those 4 people at 600 range with 1% HP, another at 300 range with 50% HP and two people at 50 range with 99% HP. It will prioritize the healing of the closest people... meaning the person at 600 range with 1% HP won't receive the heal, because the overflow chose the 3 closest people outside of your subgroup

So ya, healing has a priority for people given that the players closer to you are at full health. So when we talk about organizing subgroups in groups of 5, If your subgroup is always sitting at 99% health, the healing will always prioritize your subgroup over others. If you have a squad with no subgroups, your healing will be based on distance from the caster/aoe.

Boons work in a similar fashion, boons and buffs will always prioritize the subgroup, and they will also overflow. But because of the nature of overflow, health percentage doesn't matter, and so most of the time the boons and buffs will apply only to those in the subgroup regardless. Something to note that if you have two firebrands, and they both use Book 2 Oasis(5) at the same time, the buff from one of the guardians will overflow to another subgroup because the first subgroup already has the buff. If you have a squad with no subgroups, and 2 firebrands use Oasis at the same time, the buff will be distributed based on distance from the CENTER of AOE, to any players in the squad.

This leads me to a final point. The bigger the subgroup, the more the healing and distribution of boons becomes associated with the casters location, and less about priority of specific players. Doesn't this mean that a squad can cover more players that may need the healing/boons without subgroups?

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:As far as i know, there is such a mechanism...kinda sorta;

Healing will prioritize healing those in their party/subgroup FIRST. If party members are at full health, the healing will "overflow"(which is just a re-target of the healing) to the rest of your squad in the following manner;Let's say you have a 40 man squad, and you are in subgroup 1, if 3 of the people in subgroup 1 are at max health, then 3 people in your squad are picked with relation to DISTANCE from the caster/AOE as long as they aren't also at max health. So lets say 4 people in your squad need healing, you could have one of those 4 people at 600 range with 1% HP, another at 300 range with 50% HP and two people at 50 range with 99% HP. It will prioritize the healing of the closest people... meaning the person at 600 range with 1% HP won't receive the heal, because the overflow chose the 3 closest people outside of your subgroup

I have never heard about such a mechanism, nor can I find anything about it. Do you maybe have a source to the wiki or a video of people testing this?

This leads me to a final point. The bigger the subgroup, the more the healing and distribution of boons becomes associated with the casters location, and less about priority of specific players. Doesn't this mean that a squad can cover more players that may need the healing/boons without subgroups?Since people are expected to stay close together anyway, this shouldn't be an issue. But I have indeed seen commanders that build subgroups of four people to have some boons and heals carry over to players who just run along the squad.

Only me that notices 16 pieces in that comp? Let's remove one Scourge in order to even numbers and probably the best setup would be:

FB/SCRP/NEC/NEC/REVFB/SCRP/NEC/NEC/REVFB/SCRP/TMP/WVR/WVR

With the reasoning being Weavers are ranged and need to have their own party to stick to - which again makes sense to pit 600 range tempest in for the revs to get additional 10 man support from the backline. The rest spreads evenly except the necro's, they need dedicated support from their melee oriented parties.

With this setup you have a solid meleeball and a mobile backline that your frontline can melt into for added support.

@"Len.1879" said:I have never heard about such a mechanism, nor can I find anything about it. Do you maybe have a source to the wiki or a video of people testing this?

Right now, my source lends from this Reddit thread (which was made 3-ish years ago?) https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/44mi8t/healing_priority_source_or_test/

This is a secondary source, with the primary source being an anet dev response, mentioned in the reddit post. There are a few people in that thread that mention their tests as well.

This leads me to a final point. The bigger the subgroup, the more the healing and distribution of boons becomes associated with the casters location, and less about priority of specific players. Doesn't this mean that a squad can cover more players that may need the healing/boons without subgroups?Since people are expected to stay close together anyway, this shouldn't be an issue. But I have indeed seen commanders that build subgroups of four people to have some boons and heals carry over to players who just run along the squad.

Right. I'm glad you said this because i had another question/example, but i thought it would have been too outlandish to ask. But what stops a group from running a 15 man subgroup of Firebrands and then another 15 subgroup of DPS? It would seem more beneficial to have all the healers in their own subgroup to have priority over survival. Then the question would be how often would the overflow occur? is such a subgroup structure to fallible if you have all your healers constantly at 99% HP all the time?

1 FB per 5 people
1-2 heralds per 5 people1-2 scourges per 5 people

1-2 scrappers per 10 people1 spellbreaker per 10 people1 weaver per 10 people
1 tempest per 15 people
1-2 chrono per any sized squad (?)

First 3 are mandatory in each party. Each party also needs 1 scrapper or 1 tempest, preferably not both and preferably scrapper over tempest until you have more than enough scrappers (ratio of scrapper:tempest should be around 3:1 for example). Chrono is used for utility, but it's a bit questionable after last patch.

Spellbreaker favors small scale and in case of 15 man squads it should always be in the squad, 2-3 at least. Even berserkers and daredevils can be good in those. Weaver is usually a waste because its damage is too slow and unreliable compared to warr and daredevil.

Weaver favors large scale fights because they usually revolve around pirateship and weaver loves that. In case of 15 man squads I wouldnt use more than 2 weavers if any (unless very experienced), another class is usually more useful. If you have more than 30 people in the squad then you'd definitely like weavers instead of melee dps.

party example:

FB, HER, SCG, healer, damage/utility

healer = tempest, scrapper
damage = weaver, daredevil, spellbreaker, berserker, scourge, herald
utility = chrono (heal herald/renegade can also fit here, but it's not really meta)

Weaver is also very flexible because it doesnt really need a healer in the party (overflow heals and random regen is enough) so it's quite good to stack weavers and a few heralds in the same party. I usually like to put 3 weavers per herald (so everyone has perma 20+ might) in one party, no matter how big it is.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:I’m looking for a definitive answer as to how to organize a squad and it’s subgroups for the most efficient and optimal way to spread healing, boons and buffs.

For example let’s say we have 15 members, 3 firebrands, 3 scrappers, 1 Tempest, 5 scourges, 2 revenants and 2 weavers. How would you organize such a squad.

have 1 fb per party. and hope everyone sticks tight. =) if you are aware of boon range, then your ahead of everyone else

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Right. I'm glad you said this because i had another question/example, but i thought it would have been too outlandish to ask. But what stops a group from running a 15 man subgroup of Firebrands and then another 15 subgroup of DPS? It would seem more beneficial to have all the healers in their own subgroup to have priority over survival. Then the question would be how often would the overflow occur? is such a subgroup structure to fallible if you have all your healers constantly at 99% HP all the time?

Lets say your healer is 99% health and you use healing ability that heals for 5k. The ally with 99% will be healed for those 5k even if it needs only 500. A lot of healing would be wasted and a lot of defensive boons wont affect dps classes in other group, especially stability which is the most important one. On the other side you have dps classes who provide constant boons (herald) and barriers (scourge) which supports need in order to cover their own boons from corrupts and absorb some damage. Barrier has a cap so if you place too many scourges in the same party it gets wasted.

In response to the question:

Q:

Are there any detailed posts/guides on healing/boon priority for the purposes of raids?

In 2015

@Jon Olson.8439 wrotePriority is:(1) Party/Subgroup(2) Squad(3) Allied players(4) Your kennel(5) Allied players’ kennels(6) All other allies

In response to the question

Q:

Any confirmation on if range from the center of the cast would be nice too (or if it somehwat randomly selects targets)@Jon Olson.8439 wroteBuffs themselves determine who their potential targets are before prioritization. i.e. I don’t know.

@steki.1478 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Right. I'm glad you said this because i had another question/example, but i thought it would have been too outlandish to ask. But what stops a group from running a 15 man subgroup of Firebrands and then another 15 subgroup of DPS? It would seem more beneficial to have all the healers in their own subgroup to have priority over survival. Then the question would be how often would the overflow occur? is such a subgroup structure to fallible if you have all your healers constantly at 99% HP all the time?

Right ya, but don't forget that the same principal applies, even in the 5 man subgroup structure. If your subgroup sit at 99% health, your heals are only reaching your own subgroup.

@steki.1478 said:...and a lot of defensive boons wont affect dps classes in other group, especially stability which is the most important one. On the other side you have dps classes who provide constant boons (herald) and barriers (scourge) which supports need in order to cover their own boons from corrupts and absorb some damage. Barrier has a cap so if you place too many scourges in the same party it gets wasted.

This is what i would imagine be the crux of the setup, the exclusion of boons from one subgroup to another. In my expierence boons almost never cross over into other subgroups...so this is what really forbids that kind of setup from happening, so i think one has to have each class in at least each subgroup to have a chance of their being a spread of boons (Len from earlier in this post pretty much said this already) However i'm still not convinced why 5 man subgroups are "better" than say, 10 man or 15 man subgroups.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@steki.1478 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Right. I'm glad you said this because i had another question/example, but i thought it would have been too outlandish to ask. But what stops a group from running a 15 man subgroup of Firebrands and then another 15 subgroup of DPS? It would seem more beneficial to have all the healers in their own subgroup to have priority over survival. Then the question would be how often would the overflow occur? is such a subgroup structure to fallible if you have all your healers constantly at 99% HP all the time?

But if they are low it will prioritize them over some randoms. If you have a low healer, he can heal himself so there's no point of healing one healer with another one.

@steki.1478 said:...and a lot of defensive boons wont affect dps classes in other group, especially stability which is the most important one. On the other side you have dps classes who provide constant boons (herald) and barriers (scourge) which supports need in order to cover their own boons from corrupts and absorb some damage. Barrier has a cap so if you place too many scourges in the same party it gets wasted.

This is what i would imagine be the crux of the setup, the exclusion of boons from one subgroup to another. In my expierence boons almost never cross over into other subgroups...so this is what really forbids that kind of setup from happening, so i think one has to have each class in at least each subgroup to have a chance of their being a spread of boons (Len from earlier in this post pretty much said this already) However i'm still not convinced why 5 man subgroups are "better" than say, 10 man or 15 man subgroups.

Simply because most boons and buffs are shared to 5 people.

groups of five, has one minstrel fb, all in that party stays near the fb. the fb, stays near the commander. in effect everyone stays together.because most boons have 5 targets and is small ae range.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:However i'm still not convinced why 5 man subgroups are "better" than say, 10 man or 15 man subgroups.But you already answered this by yourself:@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:The bigger the subgroup, the more the healing and distribution of boons becomes associated with the casters locationIf someone gets isolated from the tag by pulls / CCs, or is a little too far ahaed and eats some rev hammer, or just by making a movement mistake, he / she is ready to get killed. So you want to prioritize players that are farest away (but still in range) from the tag. And if the subgroup is bigger than 5 (the number a FB is able to heal and buff), the closest subgroup members would be prioritized, though the members who are farest away would need most likely need that heal or boon reapplication more urgent.

(PS: and as it was already mentioned: equally distributed heals and boons, to avoid 20 x stab stacks on player A and 0 stab on player B )

Okay, this is garnering a few responses, most of them in favor of the 5 man subgroup structure.@Sovereign.1093@enkidu.5937@"steki.1478"

Allow me to pose an analogy.

Take the sinking of Titanic. It had about 9 or more compartments in the hull. The idea was that if one was breached, it would isolate any flooding in the hull due to the compartmentalization. So if one became compromised, the ship would still float. As we all know, the Titanic sank, because 3 compartments became breeched. This was enough to have a cascading effect, in which the ship sank low enough for their to be overflow of water to the remaining compartments, and slowly but surely the rest of the ship sank.

This analogy is very much similar to what is happening in a zerg setting with compartmentalizing these subgroups. We have each group of 5 with a firebrand able to self sustain their own subgroup, with some overflow heals . If a subgroup is compromised, you would think that this compartmentalization would prevent the fall of the squad. The problem is that once you have enough of these subgroups taking too much pressure, they will buckle because the healers in each subgroup that need more than just their own heals to stay alive will cause a cascading effect when they die. This is why when a healer goes down in a subgroup, that subgroup will almost always perish. When enough healers die, the zerg will wipe. The truth is that it's this very effect that i'm trying to explain...is that the self contained system has a flaw, which is that the healers in the squad, when put under enough pressure, will not be able to get support from others because of said compartmentalization.

Then aside from this problem that i'm pointing out, the discussion opens up to whether there is a better alternative. I feel like the larger the subgroup, the less likely you are to not receive heals just because of this compartmentalization issue. The way i see it, is that each healer can be treated like "the commander" which creates a somewhat web of healing. The closer in proximity to the real commander you are, the more these radi of healing intersect, and therefor is the location of most of the healing. So lets say you had about 6-7 healer/support in a group of 15, the radius enlarges because you have more points of intersection in which you will receive a heal based on their location.

It's a bit of an abstraction, but the key idea i'm trying to explain here is that unlike the 5 man subgroup setup, you will have more healers able to heal one another when put under pressure, so that in turn, healers don't die, and in turn, the dps don't die. Remember that boons and buffs operate in the same fashion as healing, with the exception that they ignore player health percentage and rely only on proximity to caster within the subgroup.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:Okay, this is garnering a few responses, most of them in favor of the 5 man subgroup structure.@Sovereign.1093@enkidu.5937@"steki.1478"

Allow me to pose an analogy.

Take the sinking of Titanic. It had about 9 or more compartments in the hull. The idea was that if one was breached, it would isolate any flooding in the hull due to the compartmentalization. So if one became compromised, the ship would still float. As we all know, the Titanic sank, because 3 compartments became breeched. This was enough to have a cascading effect, in which the ship sank low enough for their to be overflow of water to the remaining compartments, and slowly but surely the rest of the ship sank.

This analogy is very much similar to what is happening in a zerg setting with compartmentalizing these subgroups. We have each group of 5 with a firebrand able to self sustain their own subgroup, with some overflow heals . If a subgroup is compromised, you would think that this compartmentalization would prevent the fall of the squad. The problem is that once you have enough of these subgroups taking too much pressure, they will buckle because the healers in each subgroup that need more than just their own heals to stay alive will cause a cascading effect when they die. This is why when a healer goes down in a subgroup, that subgroup will almost always perish. When enough healers die, the zerg will wipe. The truth is that it's this very effect that i'm trying to explain...is that the self contained system has a flaw, which is that the healers in the squad, when put under enough pressure, will not be able to get support from others because of said compartmentalization.

Then aside from this problem that i'm pointing out, the discussion opens up to whether there is a better alternative. I feel like the larger the subgroup, the less likely you are to not receive heals just because of this compartmentalization issue. The way i see it, is that each healer can be treated like "the commander" which creates a somewhat web of healing. The closer in proximity to the real commander you are, the more these radi of healing intersect, and therefor is the location of most of the healing. So lets say you had about 6-7 healer/support in a group of 15, the radius enlarges because you have more points of intersection in which you will receive a heal based on their location.

It's a bit of an abstraction, but the key idea i'm trying to explain here is that unlike the 5 man subgroup setup, you will have more healers able to heal one another when put under pressure, so that in turn, healers don't die, and in turn, the dps don't die. Remember that boons and buffs operate in the same fashion as healing, with the exception that they ignore player health percentage and rely only on proximity to caster within the subgroup.

The thing about gw2 is that you dont necessarily rely THAT much on healers to keep you alive. As I said in previous posts - weaver can survive without dedicated healer because if positioned properly, the only damage you take would be retaliation which is countered with a single healing skill from any healer (or your heal+ random passive overflow heals).

Healers run defensive gear so if they take damage, they take less than your dps classes. Putting more healers in same party is counter productive because healers should prioritize on healing their damage dealers, not other healers. Healers should prioritize healing party members, not focusing on maximizing overflow. Most heals are 5 man, most boons are shared to 5 people even if you make 10 man parties, it's not just heals that needs to be shared.

If you have a support that shares certain buff in 300 radius, and you have 7 people in that radius, it would be a lot more beneficial and a lot more reliable to share it to all 5 people of your party than to share it to random 5/7 people (if the party had 10 people for example). That way you keep your supports dedicated to buffing only party members instead of relying on rng and distance.

The larger the subgroup, the less likely you are to receive 5 man buffs. If you had 6/7 supports in a 15 man party you'd receive random overflow buffs instead of having those 6/7 supports spread around 3x5 man parties. Missing a single stability stack because you werent close enough to guardian (because 4 other players of 15 man party were closer to it than you) can essentially kill you if you got pulled by mesmer for example.

1 fb 3 scourge 1 rev every party the rest is useless

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:you will have more healers able to heal one another when put under pressure, so that in turn, healers don't die, and in turn, the dps don't die.Makes sense, but if you have groups of five, a FB has e. g. guaranteed (strong word lul) barrier and dwarf rite. If the group is 15, some FBs might get it multiple time, some FBs might get nothing.

More healing is an additive factor, so which one is better:(A) healing + rite + barrier + prot + stab(B) healing + healing + healing + stab + stab.

And if we consider additive and multiplicative effects its even more like:(A) healing x rite x barrier x prot x stab(B) (healing + healing + healing) x (stab + stab)

@"steki.1478" said:The larger the subgroup, the less likely you are to receive 5 man buffs. If you had 6/7 supports in a 15 man party you'd receive random overflow buffs instead of having those 6/7 supports spread around 3x5 man parties. Missing a single stability stack because you werent close enough to guardian (because 4 other players of 15 man party were closer to it than you) can essentially kill you if you got pulled by mesmer for example.

Right, but in such a situation, you are compromising one party member over an entire subgroup.

I'm gonna put this out there that zergs, and WvW are chaotic in nature...and we are dealing with loads of hidden variables. We want to find the most realistic scenario to occur in a given situation with a fundamental understanding of what the variables are.

In the case of a player, which happens to be out of range of a Firebrand due to the inclusion of 4 other players in closer proximity to a firebrand (Said player can actually be within the 360 range) We can actually have such an example be shown in the picture in the post made above.

At that particular instance in time, that player pointed at by the black arrow will not be healed or buffed by anyone. So he can become compromised. But like i said before, i think it's actually better to compromise a single, non healing player than an entire subgroup. Keep in mind that the same scenario can play out under the 5 man subgroup setup, but in a different manner, in which a player is simply out of range of their own subgroup. There are MORE possibilities for this player to not receive heals in said situation than he would if there was a larger subgroup, because there are more opportunities to receive proximity heals the more open the subgroup is, and less opportunities the more closed the subgroup is. Here is an image that shows such a scenario

You may also want to note that the two healers toward the bottom of this squad will ALWAYS heal those in closest proximity to them, regardless of color change or not. Changing the colors (or rather the team in which the healer belongs) will drastically change the number of people who are healed in this particular instance. For example, exchange the Green healer and Pink Healer and swap their colors (which essentially swap their positions) And you'll notice that the pink player next to our orange player (the one with the arrow pointed) will now also not receive any heals/buffs. Note that these players are also very close to the tag, just not close to their respective subgroups.

@steki.1478 said:1 FB per 5 people

1-2 heralds per 5 people1-2 scourges per 5 people

1-2 scrappers per 10 people1 spellbreaker per 10 people1 weaver per 10 people

1 tempest per 15 people

1-2 chrono per any sized squad (?)

First 3 are mandatory in each party. Each party also needs 1 scrapper or 1 tempest, preferably not both and preferably scrapper over tempest until you have more than enough scrappers (ratio of scrapper:tempest should be around 3:1 for example). Chrono is used for utility, but it's a bit questionable after last patch.

Spellbreaker favors small scale and in case of 15 man squads it should always be in the squad, 2-3 at least. Even berserkers and daredevils can be good in those. Weaver is usually a waste because its damage is too slow and unreliable compared to warr and daredevil.

Weaver favors large scale fights because they usually revolve around pirateship and weaver loves that. In case of 15 man squads I wouldnt use more than 2 weavers if any (unless very experienced), another class is usually more useful. If you have more than 30 people in the squad then you'd definitely like weavers instead of melee dps.

party example:

FB, HER, SCG, healer, damage/utility

healer = tempest, scrapper

damage = weaver, daredevil, spellbreaker, berserker, scourge, herald

utility = chrono (heal herald/renegade can also fit here, but it's not really meta)

Weaver is also very flexible because it doesnt really need a healer in the party (overflow heals and random regen is enough) so it's quite good to stack weavers and a few heralds in the same party. I usually like to put 3 weavers per herald (so everyone has perma 20+ might) in one party, no matter how big it is.

Why 1-2 herald for 5 players if Hereald can affect 10 players???If ur talking abour Jalis rev or renegades i would agree, but even so the jalis F2 passive with the damage reducing takes affect of 10 players if elite spec is Herald.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 (just some informative note to that post): That's why i have bigger health bars for the players on my squad and use the smaller/normal one to the rest, i can scream to overextended players outside my heal areas or know if i need to hrow ventari tablet to heal while ill use staf and shield heals (5k each) on the close allies, while it can remove as well the condies, people are rellying wayyy to much in scourge and FB's...wich leads to those cant reach situations.

It's not rocket science...

You create groups with 2 supports and 3 dps.Why? Because that's how many it currently takes to somehow keep people alive against a similar built group. Less healer means a more defensive setup will kill you, more healers means you lose to much pressure.

Groups are built ideally with 5 people per group.Why? Because of boon limitations (and blasting limitations), especially stability or to be more exact: primarily for stability and as much as you can get your hands on of it.

Firebrand is the backbone of every support strucutre.Why? Stability.

You seperate close, medium and ranged groups.Why? So guards and other support have an easier time standing at the appropraite range if need be.

If not enough Firebrands are available you start making ranged groups and seperate warriors/spellbreakers into stand alone groups until guards are found.Why? Because this way ranged dps can tag behind or at least try to not be part of the melee ball. Warriors can operate independantly and without sustain longer than most other classes.

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@steki.1478 said:1 FB per 5 people

1-2 heralds per 5 people1-2 scourges per 5 people

1-2 scrappers per 10 people1 spellbreaker per 10 people1 weaver per 10 people

1 tempest per 15 people

1-2 chrono per any sized squad (?)

First 3 are mandatory in each party. Each party also needs 1 scrapper or 1 tempest, preferably not both and preferably scrapper over tempest until you have more than enough scrappers (ratio of scrapper:tempest should be around 3:1 for example). Chrono is used for utility, but it's a bit questionable after last patch.

Spellbreaker favors small scale and in case of 15 man squads it should always be in the squad, 2-3 at least. Even berserkers and daredevils can be good in those. Weaver is usually a waste because its damage is too slow and unreliable compared to warr and daredevil.

Weaver favors large scale fights because they usually revolve around pirateship and weaver loves that. In case of 15 man squads I wouldnt use more than 2 weavers if any (unless very experienced), another class is usually more useful. If you have more than 30 people in the squad then you'd definitely like weavers instead of melee dps.

party example:

FB, HER, SCG, healer, damage/utility

healer = tempest, scrapper

damage = weaver, daredevil, spellbreaker, berserker, scourge, herald

utility = chrono (heal herald/renegade can also fit here, but it's not really meta)

Weaver is also very flexible because it doesnt really need a healer in the party (overflow heals and random regen is enough) so it's quite good to stack weavers and a few heralds in the same party. I usually like to put 3 weavers per herald (so everyone has perma 20+ might) in one party, no matter how big it is.

Because rev is your main dps, your main spike and because boons from facets stack. You don't lose anything by having more heralds as long as fb/scg/healer are covered. Every other class other than those 4/5 are optional.