Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Zexanima.7851

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RedShark.9548 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Zexanima.7851 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...