What are your ideas to balance small scale vs zerg play? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

What are your ideas to balance small scale vs zerg play?

Zexanima.7851Zexanima.7851 Member ✭✭✭✭

It's hard for the two too exist at the same time and both be balanced. I know "small scale" isn't really this officially supported goal of anet's but it exists as a big part of the WvW community none the less. How would you go about balancing this two ways to play the one mode? Maybe a fifth map targeted at small scale? Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back. Idk, maybe it isn't practical. I just want to see if anyone has any good ideas to what might work.

Depression and anxiety are the worst...

<1

Comments

  • miguelsil.6324miguelsil.6324 Member ✭✭✭

    I see no reason why balancing the game from a 1vs1 or 3vs3 point a view would affect zergging, at most would require more coordination and make bigger fight better with no absurd aoe skills damage or healing .

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 20, 2020

    I think the game is doing the brunt of the balance work the way it should be done with regards to scale. The issues that the game mode has are mostly not player-scaling issues and rather systems scaling issues. When it comes to player scaling the game has always been rather balanced in the middle between 1 and 50. It has always had its best balance there and that is how things should be. The extremes tend to be the least balanced and balance focus should not explicitly be on the extremes. They should not needlessly imbalance the extremes of course, they should keep an eye on them so problems do not become rampant but they should not be prioritized. Especially not the low extreme since this is a massive multiplayer game. There are other games for people who want a hyper focus on solo gameplay in an online environment.

    If you are talking about balancing group/scale compatibility (force multiplication, undermanned fights, punching above weight; ie., making sure that a smaller group can create content with a larger group) that is obviously important. In this game that is mostly mediated through objectives and through the original combat design that made player ability more of a factor than it perhaps is today. Some of the changes have perhaps made it a bit less of a factor today (eg., healing predominantly through fields or through auto spam) but while people on the forums often mention how "skill" is less of a factor with these changes they also often overlook that the experience levels between different players and playergroups are larger today than in the past and that makes the discussion about it a bit divisive at times because alot of players at this point in time can't even conceive what others are suggesting to be possible. Simply put, on the one hand people will say that skill matters less now but on the other hand they will write off what some really good groups actually do as implausible.

    You will most likely see that in responses in this thread. If I say that "Hey, towers are a good force multiplier" you will see comments that say that towers are completely useless and are a disadvantage to have when you fight around them (as was mentioned in another thread yesterday). Comments like those are not only objectively untrue but also means that they can't even fathom how others make effective use of them to fight eg., 5 vs. 15 or 15 vs 50.

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭✭
    • make zergs much less efficient than small groups for actually winning matchups. This encourages players to split up
    • incentivize winning matchups so that players actually split up
    • make small scale kills more rewarding. Eg. If a group wins a 5vs10, each of those kills ought to be much more rewarding than a zerg doing a 50vs25.
    • consider pvp balance changes. Many pvp balance decisions ought to be applied to wvw for the sake of small-scale fights.
    • make lag worse in large fights. .. kidding .. sort of.
  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The entire premise for this question is nonsensical. Because its not possible to balance what you want. WvW isnt a singleplayer game with a difficulty slider that can make allies magically appear or make enemies dumber and fewer. It has all the mechanics it needs already in place to help players fight - three sides spread out the fight, multiple instances so that a single zerg cant be everywhere at once and multiple objectives on top of that so that a zerg on the map cant hold everything at once. You say you dont have the manpower? It has tiers for that so that you drop and fight servers more equal to yours.

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

  • Zexanima.7851Zexanima.7851 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    The entire premise for this question is nonsensical. Because its not possible to balance what you want. WvW isnt a singleplayer game with a difficulty slider that can make allies magically appear or make enemies dumber and fewer. It has all the mechanics it needs already in place to help players fight - three sides spread out the fight, multiple instances so that a single zerg cant be everywhere at once and multiple objectives on top of that so that a zerg on the map cant hold everything at once. You say you dont have the manpower? It has tiers for that so that you drop and fight servers more equal to yours.

    No need to be Mr. High-and-Mighty calling my post nonsensical. It may not be practical, I even state that in the OP, so no idea why you're coming on so strong. Have a bad morning or something? Also, the tiers don't really work out. There are usually a couple nights a week it isn't even worth playing WvW due to having the numerical disadvantage and that effect just snow balls until there are only a handful of people on your side. That's something completely out of the players control that nothing can be done about. So like, why even play at that point? I'm not saying "DOWN WITH ZERGS, UP WITH SMALL SCALE" here I'm just asking others for their ideas.

    Depression and anxiety are the worst...

  • Zexanima.7851Zexanima.7851 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    I think the game is doing the brunt of the balance work the way it should be done with regards to scale. The issues that the game mode has are mostly not player-scaling issues and rather systems scaling issues. When it comes to player scaling the game has always been rather balanced in the middle between 1 and 50. It has always had its best balance there and that is how things should be. The extremes tend to be the least balanced and balance focus should not explicitly be on the extremes. They should not needlessly imbalance the extremes of course, they should keep an eye on them so problems do not become rampant but they should not be prioritized. Especially not the low extreme since this is a massive multiplayer game. There are other games for people who want a hyper focus on solo gameplay in an online environment.

    I agree on not focusing on the extremes but as it currently is there are times when it's not even worth playing WvW because you're so vastly out numbered. As a singular example, just the other night me and a handful of guildies were trying to help someone with their warclaw. We couldn't even manage to take a single keep because there were a couple 10+ plus groups on the map with a zerg so we just went to do some PvE stuff instead. I, along with a good handful of people I assume, don't really enjoy the 50-people-deep-auctioneer-commander-spam-fest zerg fight but we do like the 'open world pvp' style of things. "Go play another game" is kind of a non-solution. I enjoy the combat of guild wars and it would be nice if they had something for players looking for this kind of experience. WvW is as close as you can get to that.

    If you are talking about balancing group/scale compatibility (force multiplication, undermanned fights, punching above weight; ie., making sure that a smaller group can create content with a larger group) that is obviously important. In this game that is mostly mediated through objectives and through the original combat design that made player ability more of a factor than it perhaps is today. Some of the changes have perhaps made it a bit less of a factor today (eg., healing predominantly through fields or through auto spam) but while people on the forums often mention how "skill" is less of a factor with these changes they also often overlook that the experience levels between different players and playergroups are larger today than in the past and that makes the discussion about it a bit divisive at times because alot of players at this point in time can't even conceive what others are suggesting to be possible. Simply put, on the one hand people will say that skill matters less now but on the other hand they will write off what some really good groups actually do as implausible.

    You will most likely see that in responses in this thread. If I say that "Hey, towers are a good force multiplier" you will see comments that say that towers are completely useless and are a disadvantage to have when you fight around them (as was mentioned in another thread yesterday). Comments like those are not only objectively untrue but also means that they can't even fathom how others make effective use of them to fight eg., 5 vs. 15 or 15 vs 50.

    Towers, no matter how well played, will only help you stall a lager force. If you don't have the man power on your server then it's pointless really. Just a drawn out death. Am I saying 1 guy should be able to shut down a 50 man zerg? No, but when you're outnumbered with an unorganized pug you're just going to end up losing anyways. That's when people start leaving, then your color disappears from the map and you might as well go farm fractals or something. That's not fun for either side really. Alliances if it's ever released may be the magical solution but I was just curious if anyone had thought long and hard as to a better solution around this. I know I dont have it.

    Depression and anxiety are the worst...

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 20, 2020

    @Zexanima.7851 said:

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    make effective use of them to fight eg., 5 vs. 15 or 15 vs 50.

    Towers, no matter how well played, will only help you stall a lager force. If you don't have the man power on your server then it's pointless really.

    That's where perspective comes in. Let's assume for a second that you are a guild that would attempt 5v15 or 15v50 on the regular. You would do it open field. Then your perspective on what a tower can do for you changes. What you can do with a tower and the use of siege changes it even more. It changes to the point where a group like that would find it cowardly to even use the siege versus a larger group at times.

    Anyway, I didn't come in here to gloat or anything, simply put, objectives were designed to be mediating factors. That is their role besides keeping score. That is the idea. That answers your question. How good they are at fulfilling that role we could keep discussing down the line, I guess.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 21, 2020

    @Zexanima.7851 said:
    Alliances if it's ever released may be the magical solution but I was just curious if anyone had thought long and hard as to a better solution around this. I know I dont have it.

    No its not because Alliances isnt intended to solve that. There is no solution.

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

  • borgs.6103borgs.6103 Member ✭✭✭

    Dynamic Outnumbered Buff - They already "chopped-up" territories when gliding was implemented. They have the tech to apply dynamic outnumbered buffs in territories where opposing forces greatly outnumber one or the other. They could change the way Objective Auras and Presence of the Keep to benefit/disadvantage forces during the times of huge player difference.

    Check out the fable of the Boiling Frog.

  • bluberblasen.9684bluberblasen.9684 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 21, 2020

    remove rally bots or remove down stat would improve small scale.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 21, 2020

    @bluberblasen.9684 said:
    remove rally bots or remove down stat would improve small scale.

    And create even more problems since any advantage the outnumbered get from no downed state or rally is also exponentially increased for the outnumbering if we're assuming they are equally good or better.

    I would say 1 step forward and 1 step back, but really it's more like 1 step forward, then twist your lower leg 90 degrees forward and hop back on the other leg because you can no longer walk.

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

  • RedShark.9548RedShark.9548 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @coro.3176 said:

    • make zergs much less efficient than small groups for actually winning matchups. This encourages players to split up
    • incentivize winning matchups so that players actually split up
    • make small scale kills more rewarding. Eg. If a group wins a 5vs10, each of those kills ought to be much more rewarding than a zerg doing a 50vs25.
    • consider pvp balance changes. Many pvp balance decisions ought to be applied to wvw for the sake of small-scale fights.
    • make lag worse in large fights. .. kidding .. sort of.

    Missed the topic, F.
    OP didnt ask far ways to reduce large scale fights. He asked for ways to balance BOTH smallscale AND zergfights.

    You know there are a ton of ppl who actually like fights with 20v20 up to 80v80?

    You might not like them, but not all of those zergplayers are doing it for the karmatrain... Speaking for myself, im not much of a PPT player, but objectives are often a way of getting fights.

    To get to the topic, i dont rly think there is a way to perfectly balance both forms of wvw. One of them will always have skills that are necessary to survive in wvw, while they might become OP in smallscale or duels.

  • Bring the Mistlock singularities into WvW. Social Akwardness will balance the zerg lol.

    In all seriousness. The target cap needs to be increased in WvW, but the amount of incoming attacks needs to be limited. Right now we have the inverse. 50 peeps and 1111 you and you can only hit 3-5 in return (more in certain cases).

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    • make zergs much less efficient than small groups for actually winning matchups. This encourages players to split up
    • incentivize winning matchups so that players actually split up
    • make small scale kills more rewarding. Eg. If a group wins a 5vs10, each of those kills ought to be much more rewarding than a zerg doing a 50vs25.
    • consider pvp balance changes. Many pvp balance decisions ought to be applied to wvw for the sake of small-scale fights.
    • make lag worse in large fights. .. kidding .. sort of.

    Missed the topic, F.
    OP didnt ask far ways to reduce large scale fights. He asked for ways to balance BOTH smallscale AND zergfights.

    You know there are a ton of ppl who actually like fights with 20v20 up to 80v80?

    You might not like them, but not all of those zergplayers are doing it for the karmatrain... Speaking for myself, im not much of a PPT player, but objectives are often a way of getting fights.

    To get to the topic, i dont rly think there is a way to perfectly balance both forms of wvw. One of them will always have skills that are necessary to survive in wvw, while they might become OP in smallscale or duels.

    Did you read the topic? OP was asking about ways to have small groups be effective.

    Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back

    I'm offering solutions to that. Balance is more than just skill numbers. There needs to be a way for small groups to contribute tactically. That is lost when a massive blob is more efficient and effective than coordinated parties.

  • Damage should scale by how many people are in your party (or squad). More people = more damage, less people=less damage. Force these solo and small groups to group up into much larger zergs. . . . .

  • Zexanima.7851Zexanima.7851 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Arioch.6507 said:
    Damage should scale by how many people are in your party (or squad). More people = more damage, less people=less damage. Force these solo and small groups to group up into much larger zergs. . . . .

    That's not balancing the two, it's eliminating the one...

    Depression and anxiety are the worst...

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 22, 2020

    the game should imo be balanced around 5v5 to 10v10, with outliers being treated on an individual basis. for zergs, they need core mechanical changes. anything balance related doesn't fix the real issue or if it does only temporarily since nerfs and buffs go around and come around.

    Te lazla otstara.

  • KrHome.1920KrHome.1920 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 21, 2020

    The skill splitting of warrior sums it up: damage immunities have a higher duration (but on a higher cooldown) in wvw because you have to avoid damage for a higher duration to be viable in the frontline. In smallscale this leads to the fact that you can facetank everything for at least 10 seconds which is broken.

    Smallscale balancing for wvw would lead to a pirateship meta because no one could survive a 20v20 at melee range. Everyone has to decide for himself whether this would be good or bad.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 21, 2020

    @Zexanima.7851 said:
    It's hard for the two too exist at the same time and both be balanced. I know "small scale" isn't really this officially supported goal of anet's but it exists as a big part of the WvW community none the less. How would you go about balancing this two ways to play the one mode? Maybe a fifth map targeted at small scale? Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back. Idk, maybe it isn't practical. I just want to see if anyone has any good ideas to what might work.

    Do you think it’s realistic for the devs to balance for pve, spvp, large group wvw play and small group wvw play? Also, what do you think the primary design purpose of wvw is?

  • Zexanima.7851Zexanima.7851 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:
    It's hard for the two too exist at the same time and both be balanced. I know "small scale" isn't really this officially supported goal of anet's but it exists as a big part of the WvW community none the less. How would you go about balancing this two ways to play the one mode? Maybe a fifth map targeted at small scale? Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back. Idk, maybe it isn't practical. I just want to see if anyone has any good ideas to what might work.

    Do you think it’s realistic for the devs to balance for pve, spvp, large group wvw play and small group wvw play? Also, what do you think the primary design purpose of wvw is?

    I mean, if you have the man power then yeah you can balance them but they will need to be split. I know very well WvW isn't designed for small scale. I stated that in my OP. Regardless of what it's designed for there are a lot of players that play WvW like it's open world pvp because it's the closest thing to it. It's not really designed for this kind of play though. It might take a whole new mode all together. I'm going to ask questions though because I'm willing to sacrifice possibly sounding like an idiot to come up with good ideas.

    Depression and anxiety are the worst...

  • @KrHome.1920 said:
    The skill splitting of warrior sums it up: damage immunities have a higher duration (but on a higher cooldown) in wvw because you have to avoid damage for a higher duration to be viable in the frontline. In smallscale this leads to the fact that you can facetank everything for at least 10 seconds which is broken.

    Smallscale balancing for wvw would lead to a pirateship meta because no one could survive a 20v20 at melee range. Everyone has to decide for himself whether this would be good or bad.

    Pirateship is the current meta though.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Less AOE spam .. know how to spike required.

    Add punishment to a group that fails its aoe...spam is bad.

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

    @Zexanima.7851 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:
    It's hard for the two too exist at the same time and both be balanced. I know "small scale" isn't really this officially supported goal of anet's but it exists as a big part of the WvW community none the less. How would you go about balancing this two ways to play the one mode? Maybe a fifth map targeted at small scale? Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back. Idk, maybe it isn't practical. I just want to see if anyone has any good ideas to what might work.

    Do you think it’s realistic for the devs to balance for pve, spvp, large group wvw play and small group wvw play? Also, what do you think the primary design purpose of wvw is?

    I mean, if you have the man power then yeah you can balance them but they will need to be split. I know very well WvW isn't designed for small scale. I stated that in my OP. Regardless of what it's designed for there are a lot of players that play WvW like it's open world pvp because it's the closest thing to it. It's not really designed for this kind of play though. It might take a whole new mode all together. I'm going to ask questions though because I'm willing to sacrifice possibly sounding like an idiot to come up with good ideas.

    How do the devs change skills and rule sets for different styles of play inside of 1 mode?

  • @Arioch.6507 said:
    Damage should scale by how many people are in your party (or squad). More people = more damage, less people=less damage. Force these solo and small groups to group up into much larger zergs. . . . .

    LoL

  • Zexanima.7851Zexanima.7851 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:
    It's hard for the two too exist at the same time and both be balanced. I know "small scale" isn't really this officially supported goal of anet's but it exists as a big part of the WvW community none the less. How would you go about balancing this two ways to play the one mode? Maybe a fifth map targeted at small scale? Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back. Idk, maybe it isn't practical. I just want to see if anyone has any good ideas to what might work.

    Do you think it’s realistic for the devs to balance for pve, spvp, large group wvw play and small group wvw play? Also, what do you think the primary design purpose of wvw is?

    I mean, if you have the man power then yeah you can balance them but they will need to be split. I know very well WvW isn't designed for small scale. I stated that in my OP. Regardless of what it's designed for there are a lot of players that play WvW like it's open world pvp because it's the closest thing to it. It's not really designed for this kind of play though. It might take a whole new mode all together. I'm going to ask questions though because I'm willing to sacrifice possibly sounding like an idiot to come up with good ideas.

    How do the devs change skills and rule sets for different styles of play inside of 1 mode?

    I mean I said ...

    It's not really designed for this kind of play though. It might take a whole new mode all together.

    If I had the answer for how to balance them both in one mode, why would I be asking the question in my OP? I'm not offering answers here, I'm seeking them.

    Depression and anxiety are the worst...

  • Ubi.4136Ubi.4136 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Make all weapon skills require a target. Get rid of the endless aoe spam everywhere, make people actually target an enemy and use the skill at the right time (otherwise they get constant out of range or no line of sights). Doing that would solve a lot of things, small and large.

    Lost in the Maguuma (TC)
    For the geographically challenged, yes, Tarnished Coast is located IN the Maguuma Jungle.

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

    @Zexanima.7851 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:
    It's hard for the two too exist at the same time and both be balanced. I know "small scale" isn't really this officially supported goal of anet's but it exists as a big part of the WvW community none the less. How would you go about balancing this two ways to play the one mode? Maybe a fifth map targeted at small scale? Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back. Idk, maybe it isn't practical. I just want to see if anyone has any good ideas to what might work.

    Do you think it’s realistic for the devs to balance for pve, spvp, large group wvw play and small group wvw play? Also, what do you think the primary design purpose of wvw is?

    I mean, if you have the man power then yeah you can balance them but they will need to be split. I know very well WvW isn't designed for small scale. I stated that in my OP. Regardless of what it's designed for there are a lot of players that play WvW like it's open world pvp because it's the closest thing to it. It's not really designed for this kind of play though. It might take a whole new mode all together. I'm going to ask questions though because I'm willing to sacrifice possibly sounding like an idiot to come up with good ideas.

    How do the devs change skills and rule sets for different styles of play inside of 1 mode?

    I mean I said ...

    It's not really designed for this kind of play though. It might take a whole new mode all together.

    If I had the answer for how to balance them both in one mode, why would I be asking the question in my OP? I'm not offering answers here, I'm seeking them.

    So ideally you want an entire new pvp mode on top of the 2 existing pvp modes that are struggling to maintain players? Wouldn’t it make most sense to put efforts into making what we already have better?

  • Zexanima.7851Zexanima.7851 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:
    It's hard for the two too exist at the same time and both be balanced. I know "small scale" isn't really this officially supported goal of anet's but it exists as a big part of the WvW community none the less. How would you go about balancing this two ways to play the one mode? Maybe a fifth map targeted at small scale? Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back. Idk, maybe it isn't practical. I just want to see if anyone has any good ideas to what might work.

    Do you think it’s realistic for the devs to balance for pve, spvp, large group wvw play and small group wvw play? Also, what do you think the primary design purpose of wvw is?

    I mean, if you have the man power then yeah you can balance them but they will need to be split. I know very well WvW isn't designed for small scale. I stated that in my OP. Regardless of what it's designed for there are a lot of players that play WvW like it's open world pvp because it's the closest thing to it. It's not really designed for this kind of play though. It might take a whole new mode all together. I'm going to ask questions though because I'm willing to sacrifice possibly sounding like an idiot to come up with good ideas.

    How do the devs change skills and rule sets for different styles of play inside of 1 mode?

    I mean I said ...

    It's not really designed for this kind of play though. It might take a whole new mode all together.

    If I had the answer for how to balance them both in one mode, why would I be asking the question in my OP? I'm not offering answers here, I'm seeking them.

    So ideally you want an entire new pvp mode on top of the 2 existing pvp modes that are struggling to maintain players? Wouldn’t it make most sense to put efforts into making what we already have better?

    I'm purposefully avoiding giving any kind of rock solid opinion here. Instead I'm trying to get other people to share theirs. As soon as I commit to any kind of 'view' on what I might think should happen the conversation will devolve to "kitten kitten idiot, git good, just dodge4head". So how would you answer your own questions?

    Depression and anxiety are the worst...

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 21, 2020

    @Zexanima.7851 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Zexanima.7851 said:
    It's hard for the two too exist at the same time and both be balanced. I know "small scale" isn't really this officially supported goal of anet's but it exists as a big part of the WvW community none the less. How would you go about balancing this two ways to play the one mode? Maybe a fifth map targeted at small scale? Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back. Idk, maybe it isn't practical. I just want to see if anyone has any good ideas to what might work.

    Do you think it’s realistic for the devs to balance for pve, spvp, large group wvw play and small group wvw play? Also, what do you think the primary design purpose of wvw is?

    I mean, if you have the man power then yeah you can balance them but they will need to be split. I know very well WvW isn't designed for small scale. I stated that in my OP. Regardless of what it's designed for there are a lot of players that play WvW like it's open world pvp because it's the closest thing to it. It's not really designed for this kind of play though. It might take a whole new mode all together. I'm going to ask questions though because I'm willing to sacrifice possibly sounding like an idiot to come up with good ideas.

    How do the devs change skills and rule sets for different styles of play inside of 1 mode?

    I mean I said ...

    It's not really designed for this kind of play though. It might take a whole new mode all together.

    If I had the answer for how to balance them both in one mode, why would I be asking the question in my OP? I'm not offering answers here, I'm seeking them.

    So ideally you want an entire new pvp mode on top of the 2 existing pvp modes that are struggling to maintain players? Wouldn’t it make most sense to put efforts into making what we already have better?

    I'm purposefully avoiding giving any kind of rock solid opinion here. Instead I'm trying to get other people to share theirs. As soon as I commit to any kind of 'view' on what I might think should happen the conversation will devolve to "kitten kitten idiot, git good, just dodge4head". So how would you answer your own questions?

    We don’t need a 3rd pvp mode, especially when the existing modes need help. Having too many modes spreads players and participation rates too thin. And it makes most sense to devote dev time and money into the existing modes that are already designed for the small scale pvp crowd (spvp) and for the large scale realm vs realm pvp crowd (wvw).

  • RedShark.9548RedShark.9548 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @coro.3176 said:

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    • make zergs much less efficient than small groups for actually winning matchups. This encourages players to split up
    • incentivize winning matchups so that players actually split up
    • make small scale kills more rewarding. Eg. If a group wins a 5vs10, each of those kills ought to be much more rewarding than a zerg doing a 50vs25.
    • consider pvp balance changes. Many pvp balance decisions ought to be applied to wvw for the sake of small-scale fights.
    • make lag worse in large fights. .. kidding .. sort of.

    Missed the topic, F.
    OP didnt ask far ways to reduce large scale fights. He asked for ways to balance BOTH smallscale AND zergfights.

    You know there are a ton of ppl who actually like fights with 20v20 up to 80v80?

    You might not like them, but not all of those zergplayers are doing it for the karmatrain... Speaking for myself, im not much of a PPT player, but objectives are often a way of getting fights.

    To get to the topic, i dont rly think there is a way to perfectly balance both forms of wvw. One of them will always have skills that are necessary to survive in wvw, while they might become OP in smallscale or duels.

    Did you read the topic? OP was asking about ways to have small groups be effective.

    Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back

    I'm offering solutions to that. Balance is more than just skill numbers. There needs to be a way for small groups to contribute tactically. That is lost when a massive blob is more efficient and effective than coordinated parties.

    He asked to have both things balanced out, you offered solutions to push ppl to run in small groups and make big zergs less enjoyable...

  • Joey.2769Joey.2769 Member ✭✭

    Would love for them to implement a skill like ESOs proximity detonation. Where the more enemies in the small aoe location the more damage there is for the skill.

  • kash.9213kash.9213 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Joey.2769 said:
    Would love for them to implement a skill like ESOs proximity detonation. Where the more enemies in the small aoe location the more damage there is for the skill.

    Portal bombing would come back in a big way, imagine how fast you'd be disintegrated standing next to a commander with all their squad right there.

    Northern Shiverpeaks [EL]

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    • make zergs much less efficient than small groups for actually winning matchups. This encourages players to split up
    • incentivize winning matchups so that players actually split up
    • make small scale kills more rewarding. Eg. If a group wins a 5vs10, each of those kills ought to be much more rewarding than a zerg doing a 50vs25.
    • consider pvp balance changes. Many pvp balance decisions ought to be applied to wvw for the sake of small-scale fights.
    • make lag worse in large fights. .. kidding .. sort of.

    Missed the topic, F.
    OP didnt ask far ways to reduce large scale fights. He asked for ways to balance BOTH smallscale AND zergfights.

    You know there are a ton of ppl who actually like fights with 20v20 up to 80v80?

    You might not like them, but not all of those zergplayers are doing it for the karmatrain... Speaking for myself, im not much of a PPT player, but objectives are often a way of getting fights.

    To get to the topic, i dont rly think there is a way to perfectly balance both forms of wvw. One of them will always have skills that are necessary to survive in wvw, while they might become OP in smallscale or duels.

    Did you read the topic? OP was asking about ways to have small groups be effective.

    Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back

    I'm offering solutions to that. Balance is more than just skill numbers. There needs to be a way for small groups to contribute tactically. That is lost when a massive blob is more efficient and effective than coordinated parties.

    He asked to have both things balanced out, you offered solutions to push ppl to run in small groups and make big zergs less enjoyable...

    Because at the moment the game heavily favours zergs over small groups. Thus, small scale needs some extra incentive.

    Zerg play is always going to be popular, even with the changes I suggested. The safety in numbers means having allies around to revive you if you die. It means less experienced players can tag along and still get to be part of the fight. That's a good thing! I don't mean to eliminate it. Large fights can be intense and fun. I fully expect to still see zerg vs zerg combat in WvW (eg. for upgraded keeps).

    However, what I want to see more of is stuff like: 5vs5 for a critical camp needed to upgrade an objective. 10vs10 in a tower. 3vsX intercepting enemy reinforcements to a larger force. etc.

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

    @coro.3176 said:

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    • make zergs much less efficient than small groups for actually winning matchups. This encourages players to split up
    • incentivize winning matchups so that players actually split up
    • make small scale kills more rewarding. Eg. If a group wins a 5vs10, each of those kills ought to be much more rewarding than a zerg doing a 50vs25.
    • consider pvp balance changes. Many pvp balance decisions ought to be applied to wvw for the sake of small-scale fights.
    • make lag worse in large fights. .. kidding .. sort of.

    Missed the topic, F.
    OP didnt ask far ways to reduce large scale fights. He asked for ways to balance BOTH smallscale AND zergfights.

    You know there are a ton of ppl who actually like fights with 20v20 up to 80v80?

    You might not like them, but not all of those zergplayers are doing it for the karmatrain... Speaking for myself, im not much of a PPT player, but objectives are often a way of getting fights.

    To get to the topic, i dont rly think there is a way to perfectly balance both forms of wvw. One of them will always have skills that are necessary to survive in wvw, while they might become OP in smallscale or duels.

    Did you read the topic? OP was asking about ways to have small groups be effective.

    Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back

    I'm offering solutions to that. Balance is more than just skill numbers. There needs to be a way for small groups to contribute tactically. That is lost when a massive blob is more efficient and effective than coordinated parties.

    He asked to have both things balanced out, you offered solutions to push ppl to run in small groups and make big zergs less enjoyable...

    Because at the moment the game heavily favours zergs over small groups. Thus, small scale needs some extra incentive.

    Zerg play is always going to be popular, even with the changes I suggested. The safety in numbers means having allies around to revive you if you die. It means less experienced players can tag along and still get to be part of the fight. That's a good thing! I don't mean to eliminate it. Large fights can be intense and fun. I fully expect to still see zerg vs zerg combat in WvW (eg. for upgraded keeps).

    However, what I want to see more of is stuff like: 5vs5 for a critical camp needed to upgrade an objective. 10vs10 in a tower. 3vsX intercepting enemy reinforcements to a larger force. etc.

    WvW was designed to be an open world realm vs realm mode where players have the autonomy to play how they want to play and for unpredictable scenarios. If you want things revolving structure, the devs made an entire mode for that in spvp.

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 22, 2020

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    • make zergs much less efficient than small groups for actually winning matchups. This encourages players to split up
    • incentivize winning matchups so that players actually split up
    • make small scale kills more rewarding. Eg. If a group wins a 5vs10, each of those kills ought to be much more rewarding than a zerg doing a 50vs25.
    • consider pvp balance changes. Many pvp balance decisions ought to be applied to wvw for the sake of small-scale fights.
    • make lag worse in large fights. .. kidding .. sort of.

    Missed the topic, F.
    OP didnt ask far ways to reduce large scale fights. He asked for ways to balance BOTH smallscale AND zergfights.

    You know there are a ton of ppl who actually like fights with 20v20 up to 80v80?

    You might not like them, but not all of those zergplayers are doing it for the karmatrain... Speaking for myself, im not much of a PPT player, but objectives are often a way of getting fights.

    To get to the topic, i dont rly think there is a way to perfectly balance both forms of wvw. One of them will always have skills that are necessary to survive in wvw, while they might become OP in smallscale or duels.

    Did you read the topic? OP was asking about ways to have small groups be effective.

    Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back

    I'm offering solutions to that. Balance is more than just skill numbers. There needs to be a way for small groups to contribute tactically. That is lost when a massive blob is more efficient and effective than coordinated parties.

    He asked to have both things balanced out, you offered solutions to push ppl to run in small groups and make big zergs less enjoyable...

    Because at the moment the game heavily favours zergs over small groups. Thus, small scale needs some extra incentive.

    Zerg play is always going to be popular, even with the changes I suggested. The safety in numbers means having allies around to revive you if you die. It means less experienced players can tag along and still get to be part of the fight. That's a good thing! I don't mean to eliminate it. Large fights can be intense and fun. I fully expect to still see zerg vs zerg combat in WvW (eg. for upgraded keeps).

    However, what I want to see more of is stuff like: 5vs5 for a critical camp needed to upgrade an objective. 10vs10 in a tower. 3vsX intercepting enemy reinforcements to a larger force. etc.

    WvW was designed to be an open world realm vs realm mode where players have the autonomy to play how they want to play and for unpredictable scenarios. If you want things revolving structure, the devs made an entire mode for that in spvp.

    I'm not asking for structure. I'm asking for smaller engagements to matter. I don't care what the actual # of players is or whether both sides have equal numbers.

    I'm hoping for a WvW where commanders don't come on map and yell at all the roamers to go away and make room for more firebrands in their megablob.

    Ideally, those roamers fighting their smaller engagements could contribute too.

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

    @coro.3176 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    • make zergs much less efficient than small groups for actually winning matchups. This encourages players to split up
    • incentivize winning matchups so that players actually split up
    • make small scale kills more rewarding. Eg. If a group wins a 5vs10, each of those kills ought to be much more rewarding than a zerg doing a 50vs25.
    • consider pvp balance changes. Many pvp balance decisions ought to be applied to wvw for the sake of small-scale fights.
    • make lag worse in large fights. .. kidding .. sort of.

    Missed the topic, F.
    OP didnt ask far ways to reduce large scale fights. He asked for ways to balance BOTH smallscale AND zergfights.

    You know there are a ton of ppl who actually like fights with 20v20 up to 80v80?

    You might not like them, but not all of those zergplayers are doing it for the karmatrain... Speaking for myself, im not much of a PPT player, but objectives are often a way of getting fights.

    To get to the topic, i dont rly think there is a way to perfectly balance both forms of wvw. One of them will always have skills that are necessary to survive in wvw, while they might become OP in smallscale or duels.

    Did you read the topic? OP was asking about ways to have small groups be effective.

    Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back

    I'm offering solutions to that. Balance is more than just skill numbers. There needs to be a way for small groups to contribute tactically. That is lost when a massive blob is more efficient and effective than coordinated parties.

    He asked to have both things balanced out, you offered solutions to push ppl to run in small groups and make big zergs less enjoyable...

    Because at the moment the game heavily favours zergs over small groups. Thus, small scale needs some extra incentive.

    Zerg play is always going to be popular, even with the changes I suggested. The safety in numbers means having allies around to revive you if you die. It means less experienced players can tag along and still get to be part of the fight. That's a good thing! I don't mean to eliminate it. Large fights can be intense and fun. I fully expect to still see zerg vs zerg combat in WvW (eg. for upgraded keeps).

    However, what I want to see more of is stuff like: 5vs5 for a critical camp needed to upgrade an objective. 10vs10 in a tower. 3vsX intercepting enemy reinforcements to a larger force. etc.

    WvW was designed to be an open world realm vs realm mode where players have the autonomy to play how they want to play and for unpredictable scenarios. If you want things revolving structure, the devs made an entire mode for that in spvp.

    I'm not asking for structure. I'm asking for smaller engagements to matter. I don't care what the actual # of players is or whether both sides have equal numbers.

    I'm hoping for a WvW where commanders don't come on map and yell at all the roamers to go away and make room for more firebrands in their megablob.

    Ideally, those roamers fighting their smaller engagements could contribute too.

    You were asking for structured rules to be implemented for certain scenarios. “However, what I want to see more of is stuff like: 5vs5 for a critical camp needed to upgrade an objective. 10vs10 in a tower. 3vsX intercepting enemy reinforcements to a larger force. etc.”...

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

    @coro.3176 @Zexanima.7851

    WvW needs to be redesigned if you peeps want real improvements to smaller scale play...

    We are not getting skill and trait balance patches that split between someone who chooses to roam or small scale vs someone who chooses to zerg. It would also be a bad idea of the devs to code in objectives where x amount of players must sit somewhere for x amount of time to accomplish x, all in a effort to bring the “5v5” or 10v10” scenarios you are looking for Coro... It would take adding in new maps with different objective and designs, and caps on population too, to accomplish anything lasting and meaningful. Example below...

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/62658/alliance-design-that-stops-the-qq

    “MAPS MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR SMALL GUILDS, SMALL TEAMS AND SOLO ROAMERS WITH A 50 PLAYER MAP CAP PER SIDE

    • 6 Guild Wars inspired PvP/PvE Maps http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/The_Mists
    • Let’s call these “Hot Zones” (for this discussion) that draw elements from GW lore.
    • Players fight against each other and NPCs here.
    • These maps have *MOSTLY OPEN AREA CAPTURE POINTS, EVENTS AND META EVENTS as well.
    • WvW wide alerts can be given to indicate a meta event will occur on a map.
    • (SO 6 MAPS MADE MOSTLY FOR SMALL OPS AND SOLO ROAMERS WITH A MAP CAP OF 50 PLAYERS PER SIDE)”
  • Ive always wondered how the meta would change if the target cap of offensive skills was removed. In theory, organized small groups would be very powerful, being able to take down a zerg of any size with stealth & coordinated bombs. However for keep sieges and defenses zergs would still be necessary to carry enough supply for siege/repairs. For open field fights i would guess that 10-15 man parties would probably be the optimal size, and there would be several small squads roaming around instead of one big zerg.

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

    @Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:
    Ive always wondered how the meta would change if the target cap of offensive skills was removed. In theory, organized small groups would be very powerful, being able to take down a zerg of any size with stealth & coordinated bombs. However for keep sieges and defenses zergs would still be necessary to carry enough supply for siege/repairs. For open field fights i would guess that 10-15 man parties would probably be the optimal size, and there would be several small squads roaming around instead of one big zerg.

    Well, the “meta” would be way more laggy. Larger groups would still have more advantages.

  • Malavian.4695Malavian.4695 Member ✭✭✭

    Give NPCs the Outnumbered buff and remove protections from players who attack Outnumbered groups. If they have a 10% bonus to NPCs, remove it. If they have 25% reduction damage, remove it. You shouldn't get buffs for your rank if you are a mob of cowards attacking outnumbered foes.

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

    @Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:
    Ive always wondered how the meta would change if the target cap of offensive skills was removed. In theory, organized small groups would be very powerful, being able to take down a zerg of any size with stealth & coordinated bombs. However for keep sieges and defenses zergs would still be necessary to carry enough supply for siege/repairs. For open field fights i would guess that 10-15 man parties would probably be the optimal size, and there would be several small squads roaming around instead of one big zerg.

    Yes because 50 people getting nuked from stealth by a couple of of random classes is really what we all desire. A single thief ganking people is just not enough.

    Here is the simple truth about this - the game isnt designed for the simple "removal" of things. Because it's designed as is. The AoE in particular has waaaaay too large and heavy damage fields for this to be a viable option, thus all AoE would have to be changed. And that pretty much means everything has to be changed.

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

  • RedShark.9548RedShark.9548 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:
    Ive always wondered how the meta would change if the target cap of offensive skills was removed. In theory, organized small groups would be very powerful, being able to take down a zerg of any size with stealth & coordinated bombs. However for keep sieges and defenses zergs would still be necessary to carry enough supply for siege/repairs. For open field fights i would guess that 10-15 man parties would probably be the optimal size, and there would be several small squads roaming around instead of one big zerg.

    It would be all pirateship again, because nobody would be able to push, every frontliner would explode. Only being able to get anywhere close to the enemy with the help of stealth is just disgusting honestly.
    This would be the worst change ever.
    You do realize that those 15 would also get hit by everyone in a 50 man blob.
    It would kill frontline entirely, because nobody can survive a bomb of 50ppl without having the dmg split between a larger group.

    How boring would it be to literally do the same thing over and over and over again, with no other option with your 15 man group. Stealth, bomb, run. Rinse repeat. All full dmg, to hope its enough to kill everyone in sight. And if not enough die in 1 push you lose. This would also make ppl take as many automated defensive skills as they can get their hands on, to survive such gameplay. Which ppl and anet are trying to reduce.

  • Kiso.8465Kiso.8465 Member ✭✭

    cap the maps at 50 players ea and write how many people are on the map so we can flame small scalers and roamers for taking up valuable slots on the map

  • @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:
    Ive always wondered how the meta would change if the target cap of offensive skills was removed. In theory, organized small groups would be very powerful, being able to take down a zerg of any size with stealth & coordinated bombs. However for keep sieges and defenses zergs would still be necessary to carry enough supply for siege/repairs. For open field fights i would guess that 10-15 man parties would probably be the optimal size, and there would be several small squads roaming around instead of one big zerg.

    Yes because 50 people getting nuked from stealth by a couple of of random classes is really what we all desire. A single thief ganking people is just not enough.

    Here is the simple truth about this - the game isnt designed for the simple "removal" of things. Because it's designed as is. The AoE in particular has waaaaay too large and heavy damage fields for this to be a viable option, thus all AoE would have to be changed. And that pretty much means everything has to be changed.

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:
    Ive always wondered how the meta would change if the target cap of offensive skills was removed. In theory, organized small groups would be very powerful, being able to take down a zerg of any size with stealth & coordinated bombs. However for keep sieges and defenses zergs would still be necessary to carry enough supply for siege/repairs. For open field fights i would guess that 10-15 man parties would probably be the optimal size, and there would be several small squads roaming around instead of one big zerg.

    It would be all pirateship again, because nobody would be able to push, every frontliner would explode. Only being able to get anywhere close to the enemy with the help of stealth is just disgusting honestly.
    This would be the worst change ever.
    You do realize that those 15 would also get hit by everyone in a 50 man blob.
    It would kill frontline entirely, because nobody can survive a bomb of 50ppl without having the dmg split between a larger group.

    How boring would it be to literally do the same thing over and over and over again, with no other option with your 15 man group. Stealth, bomb, run. Rinse repeat. All full dmg, to hope its enough to kill everyone in sight. And if not enough die in 1 push you lose. This would also make ppl take as many automated defensive skills as they can get their hands on, to survive such gameplay. Which ppl and anet are trying to reduce.

    Yeah it would be a mess if they implemented it now, but if they designed the game with no target cap in mind it might have been interesting.

  • I've seen small groups with actual skill take on larger groups. Its usually people with voice comms and synergistic guild comps.

    Don't see a need to involve the devs on the combat system in this reguard. If anything the map caps and servers need rebuilt.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 22, 2020

    @coro.3176 said:

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    @RedShark.9548 said:

    @coro.3176 said:

    • make zergs much less efficient than small groups for actually winning matchups. This encourages players to split up
    • incentivize winning matchups so that players actually split up
    • make small scale kills more rewarding. Eg. If a group wins a 5vs10, each of those kills ought to be much more rewarding than a zerg doing a 50vs25.
    • consider pvp balance changes. Many pvp balance decisions ought to be applied to wvw for the sake of small-scale fights.
    • make lag worse in large fights. .. kidding .. sort of.

    Missed the topic, F.
    OP didnt ask far ways to reduce large scale fights. He asked for ways to balance BOTH smallscale AND zergfights.

    You know there are a ton of ppl who actually like fights with 20v20 up to 80v80?

    You might not like them, but not all of those zergplayers are doing it for the karmatrain... Speaking for myself, im not much of a PPT player, but objectives are often a way of getting fights.

    To get to the topic, i dont rly think there is a way to perfectly balance both forms of wvw. One of them will always have skills that are necessary to survive in wvw, while they might become OP in smallscale or duels.

    Did you read the topic? OP was asking about ways to have small groups be effective.

    Theres just times you can't even really play WvW solo or with a small group because zergs are dominating the maps. Other times you are so vastly out numbered it isn't worth grouping up and trying to fight back

    I'm offering solutions to that. Balance is more than just skill numbers. There needs to be a way for small groups to contribute tactically. That is lost when a massive blob is more efficient and effective than coordinated parties.

    He asked to have both things balanced out, you offered solutions to push ppl to run in small groups and make big zergs less enjoyable...

    Because at the moment the game heavily favours zergs over small groups. Thus, small scale needs some extra incentive.

    Zerg play is always going to be popular, even with the changes I suggested. The safety in numbers means having allies around to revive you if you die. It means less experienced players can tag along and still get to be part of the fight. That's a good thing! I don't mean to eliminate it. Large fights can be intense and fun. I fully expect to still see zerg vs zerg combat in WvW (eg. for upgraded keeps).

    However, what I want to see more of is stuff like: 5vs5 for a critical camp needed to upgrade an objective. 10vs10 in a tower. 3vsX intercepting enemy reinforcements to a larger force. etc.

    The problem with this whole discussion is that most of the issues are not small-scale issues they are WvW issues and only really shows how smaller scales were designed to be integral to the system. For example, there's no way for a camp to be critical to winning if no one cares about winning because of population imbalances. No objective is critical to winning then, either small or large. The design does not favour zergs over small groups in any way shape or form. Zergs are formed by player behaviour and their size and composition change over time based on balance and demography. The original design is simply to have scaling tiers of objectives while at the same time every objective can be claimed by a solo player.

    In that design zergs are certainly not favoured. Communities that PPT alot proves time and time again how splitting up into smaller pieces is more effective for PPT. That it isn't more of a frequent reminder is entirely down to the population imbalance that causes people not to care about winning and thus causes a divide between PPT and PPK that is then segmented into finer play styles. The divide between PPT and PPK exists throughout the scales.

    In fact, perhaps the largest contributing reason to the lack of perceived variation as of recently is that the glue in the middle has disappeared and the community is too fractured and entrenched in these different play styles and the behaviour or experience level commonly associated with them. The very generic "We are a WvW guild" (generic groups that were the first to die when the general mode felt abandoned) were the groups that would engage in the broadest variety of things and do that to a reasonable degree. Other groups tend to be more specialised (only doing some things) and also either very good or very bad at what they do.

    For example, people who prefer to play small-scale, defensively and PPT-oriented, their gameplay rarely amounts to much more than writing in map chat and complaining to pickup commanders when objectives are lost. It is not hard to do better than that yet it is very possible to do better than that. To find likeminded individuals who wants to perfect a defensive, small-scaled PPT-minded style. The system has tons of potential in that but there are extremely few players left with the experience (knowledge, ability) and gumption to do so. Most players who can do not want to or do not care about it. The problem is not the impossibility of beating zergs out of objectives (or more effectively: out of score) but rather that it is quite pointless behaviour because the objectives will be reset when they sleep and no cares who wins anyway. So the people who could teach or be examples have quit or do something else now.

    So, solving those issues that you talk about is the same as solving the same issues everybody else is talking about. You solve them by making sure friends can play together again, by making sure there is a general population balance and by making sure people care about winning matchups. If the system works it works for all scales. If winning matters camps will matter and if winning matters then pulling off a small-scale heist against a much larger objective will be something fun to try, to plan and to attempt executing. It will be a challenge that drives player behaviour.

    The type of player behaviour that the few recent changes have shaped are the opposite, at all scales. It is not a question of being new. It is not a question of being a social player. It is not a question of being casual (by the definition of playing more seldom or with less long-term investment). It's a question of an overabundance of players on all scales just whining and expecting other players to do things for them, players they are not even actively looking to help or socialize with. That is what they have become acustomed to elsewhere and that just vibes poorly with PvP modes where players create the content and consume the content, where an enemy is as valuable to you as a friend.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Currently roam/havoc and occasionally zerg surf, so coming at this from that standpoint. If there is in imbalance between zerg and non-zerg play is in the reasons why not to try and do more with less. Its easier to amass and run around, it pays well, has high participation and has higher chances of success. So you need factors that address that imbalance. To zerg or not to zerg, that is the reasons of why.

    There is still room for all playstyles. I don't think we need a stand alone map for less than zerg play. Could we use bigger new maps, yes. Would more objectives on a map be better for less than zerg play, yes. Roamers and havocs jobs though against a zerg are the same as they have been, divide and conquer. Distract, mis-lead, take out supply lines, slow down reinforcements. Now that said yes its still much easier to play as a mass versus solo or havoc. To that end I would increase the value of PPT for scoring and keep the logic that higher tier objectives are worth more. The reason for this is you need to have a reason for people to split up and cover it all. Increasing PPT pays the side that can control the most more but that also mean they are more spread out. And yes we have to think population is balanced here in the this example even though we know it never will be. For today even servers that are out numbered will error on the side to zerg versus split up and come at it from multiple directions.

    Now that said you want to also encourage fights. I would also increase the personal reward for player kills but not increase their PPK. I would increase rewards for fighting for both sides and award larger defense ticks to defenders, and reward attackers more for taking over a defended structure. In an ideal world a structure would be worth a fixed amount of reward (with tiers factored in & duration held) divided by the differences in the numbers attacking and defending and further increased based on duration of time that the objective was being attacked. Largest reward for that would come from an undersized group taking it from a larger number of defenders where as the lowest rewards would be paid to people just taking empty structures diminishing more and more the larger the attacking force is uncontested. Would add end of match rewards for all three servers and that to be factored by total weeks participation for that player compared to all players for that server. If someone just plays one day week they should not gain as much benefit as someone that played all week long, unless everyone just played that one day a week. This can be structured in the forms of currencies or tiering reward gain, T1 - WvW siege, T2 - coin, T3 - Bags, T4-gear T5 - Tokens/Tickets, T6 - ..... Its similar to reward tracks now but is modified in the end by the servers placement as well as the players total level of participation.

    Now personally I think changes in downstate to include defeated must return from a waypoint would increase the odds of smaller forces attacking larger ones if they know they can at least thin out their opponents some even if its pricer for the smaller side is higher and they are already at a disadvantage. But at least you know that defense or death had some value versus the larger side being to able to just rez their dead/defeated right back up where they are having never lost any ground. In my book that's one of the biggest imbalances in gameplay.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • first, the format was initially designed to not be normally played small-scale. roamers yes, but not 5-10ish roamer groups.

    zergs are not really favoured by the system, they just plainly have twice as many people to fire off their shots. but the balancing should not reward these roamergroups over zergs. both have the right to be around, usually it's just bad coordination of a server if they cannot field at least a 30ppl zerg.
    if you use your eyes, u often can dodge zergs as single player or smaller group. and roamer groups are by no mean better than 30-40 people groups who just stomp smaller zergs. while smaller zergs can stomp bigger ones, depends on the players within them on both sides surely.

    second, if players would be motivated to 1) use their brains 2) not just suicide into bigger numbers 3) communicate ingame with each other,
    then servers could more frequently field sth like a zerg size of a group. (at least sth around 20 people, so a small variant)

    third, reducing overall lag issues would be great for everyone. idk if they can though, but for the big number formats it would be pretty nice if we could acutally push our skills and not have insane lags even on lowest graphical resolutions. like why exactly does low graphics still have strong graphical effects like rain, fog activated? kinda sure that these things make fps and/or ping worse.
    (for me it's rather the ping that absolutely randomly perks - EU region, our connection-point server should be the german one; and it's been getting worse of the last year somehow.)

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:
    Ive always wondered how the meta would change if the target cap of offensive skills was removed. In theory, organized small groups would be very powerful, being able to take down a zerg of any size with stealth & coordinated bombs. However for keep sieges and defenses zergs would still be necessary to carry enough supply for siege/repairs. For open field fights i would guess that 10-15 man parties would probably be the optimal size, and there would be several small squads roaming around instead of one big zerg.

    Another to consider here is how much skill lag is accounted for by having the game have to apply those caps when calculating whether damage was applied or if the cap was reached. Would also be curious if that cap was adjustable if a test week was setup for players to try.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 22, 2020

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:
    Ive always wondered how the meta would change if the target cap of offensive skills was removed. In theory, organized small groups would be very powerful, being able to take down a zerg of any size with stealth & coordinated bombs. However for keep sieges and defenses zergs would still be necessary to carry enough supply for siege/repairs. For open field fights i would guess that 10-15 man parties would probably be the optimal size, and there would be several small squads roaming around instead of one big zerg.

    Another to consider here is how much skill lag is accounted for by having the game have to apply those caps when calculating whether damage was applied or if the cap was reached. Would also be curious if that cap was adjustable if a test week was setup for players to try.

    We were told there were “technical limitations” with regard to player generated AoEs. It would contribute to lag bc the servers have to process each action in real time. More AoEs = More lag.

    This would also create a meta where everyone must roll with AoE builds, because to combat AoEs you’ll need even more AoEs. We don’t need even more AoE wars, bc there are enough as is. Ben P even stated that passives can’t be worked on bc there were “too many AoEs being flung around”.