Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Zexanima.7851

Recommended Posts

@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.

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?

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?

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.

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 "Herp derp idiot, git good, just dodge4head". So how would you answer your own questions?

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?

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).

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.

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

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.

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.

  • Thanks 1
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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 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.

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.

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.”...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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)”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

@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.

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

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...