Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Zexanima.7851

Recommended Posts

@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”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 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”.

Thanks! I remember them stating something about it but I couldn't remember which way produced more system impact. On that I retract that previous statement since we need less skill latency versus more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 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”.

Usually aoes get reduced in quantity and 2 or 3 skills could have its aoe increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my personal opinion I don't think you can incentivize small scale play in contrast to zergs as long as the warclaw exists, it gives the generally large and disjointed zergs too much mobility to move about the map at a steady pace without having anyone lag behind.

Smaller grouper can in turn of course use them as well, but the benefit they reciev in contrast to the zerg in much less overall.

It's also just a random thought and probably a stupid idea, but you could possibly restrict the ranged/aoe potential on the walls of towers and the like. While I don't really like the idea of that I think it could possibly incentivize more siege vs siege gameplay at the very least when it comes to capturing objectives and cut back a bit on zergs just steam rolling through everything. Though overall I'm not sure if it would really do much at all even if I'm not quite sure.

Also if you don't mind me commenting about player skill level, I'd say it's about the same as it was in the past. It's just that in contrast to the past compared to now there's not as many options for effective build diversity or at the very least anything you could pick for meaningful build diversity. There's always been a problem in my opinion with the general community making overarching wide assumptions about gear/runes/sigils/etc. that need to be picked while at the same time never really experimenting with new build ideas. I'm sure there's people around here that remember the not so little amount of people near the games start that shouted from the rooftops about how mesmers were apparently terrible in wvw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure what op wants. There is already a 5th map for small scale, noone plays it though.Do you want to flip keeps with a group of 5? Thats just not good design.Anyway I dont really have problems with small scale in wvw. Actually I find more action solo or in a small group than in a large zerg because there the fights are often one sided and not so interesting. Epic fights are rare while with small groups or solo theres plenty imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random idea (off the whim thought):

Make players impassable, or just really hard to pass through (they cannot occupy the same space for long). A big change, since it would force people to actually pay attention to the formation instead of forming a ball. Scouting would also become easier.

Smaller groups would have more flexibility when it comes to moving around compared to larger groups, especially if it’s an uncoordinated group.

Coordination would now play a much larger role than it would ever had before.

Very unlikely to be implemented, for there are very likely going to be flaws that are too glaring to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Use to be viable before WvW mounts and gliders. You could use Havoc tactics and terrain easier to slow, stunt or mislead a zerg/blob. Now mobility is something everyone has, being downed only keeps you out of the fight for a short time. But I've seen 2 well-played deadeyes hold off a dozen players. So perhaps it's not the amount of people you're fighting, it's the effectiveness you're fighting against. If a mob rolls over you like water on rock, it's probably cause they've done this cycle over a thousand times - literally (have you seen some of their levels? 9k!!!). Which means you need to out-think/play them that much more. Simply putting a cannon on a wall and shooting isn't enough to stop a zerg. You need more tactics than that. Placement - timing - focus targeting. Don't play against your enemies weakness - aka: dont stand in front of a zerg!! Understand how zergs move and how they "refuel." Following up to reflip camps and take down supply routes keeps them from resupplying, aka: keeping them from building more siege. The immediate fight doesn't matter, it's who's got control of the map at the end of the count session. You can help your team by scouting zergs and communicating location. Supply stomping. Camp flipping. Building defense seige at their presumed next target location. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2020 at 6:20 PM, Ourasa.7306 said:

Random idea (off the whim thought):

Make players impassable, or just really hard to pass through (they cannot occupy the same space for long). A big change, since it would force people to actually pay attention to the formation instead of forming a ball. Scouting would also become easier.

Smaller groups would have more flexibility when it comes to moving around compared to larger groups, especially if it’s an uncoordinated group.

Coordination would now play a much larger role than it would ever had before.

Very unlikely to be implemented, for there are very likely going to be flaws that are too glaring to ignore.

 

that's a probably a heavy tol in the sever, if its done server side and can be hacked if its on the cliente side, still  the gw2 clients have a checkbox that makes the player  alone  get some sorta of body colision,but players that wont have it activated will still ghost trough your toon.

 

Reason during wvw colisions u have to have that disabled so u can go trough enemie toons.

Yes i would love that every one would have that activated W/O being a option... and a game server side validation to detect players who actually bypass others, rather than be server side calculating all the body colisions :|.

 

think big fights would be funnier 🙂

Edited by Aeolus.3615
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

People stack on the pin so that only 5 players get damaged. With no cap, the whole zerg would be hit and spreading out would then reduce the damage the zerg takes. Skill range has nothing to do with it.

Right, so they spread out and die because they are out of range of the support. Or the support has to use more skills because people are spread out and can't hit them all so they have less support and die. 

Abusing target cap is only one reason groups stack up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

Right, so they spread out and die because they are out of range of the support. Or the support has to use more skills because people are spread out and can't hit them all so they have less support and die. 

Abusing target cap is only one reason groups stack up...

Gee, what if the subgroups moved together like units? This is simulated war after all. Zerg v zerg was more fun prior to the target cap. That's my opinion on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Gee, what if the subgroups moved together like units? This is simulated war after all. Zerg v zerg was more fun prior to the target cap. That's my opinion on it.

Wait, to clarify, would no caps just be on dps and cc skills? Not support skills? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zikory.6871 said:

lmao what? So I can have 1 Firebrand and 1 Scrapper support 48 other people? 

No, it means if no caps mean no caps that 1 firebrand can support 85+ other people (we dont know the exact map cap).

 

Jusg saying. Dunno why you think a squad would be the limiting factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

And one Firestorm could wipe them all if they stack too close.

Because groups won't choose to stack the new uncapped super support classes. Its hilarious you think damage classes are going to get the better end of this deal. 

Maybe in core, this was a reasonable request (ignoring servers probably not being able to handle it). But in the games current state, you don't understand what you are asking for. If people think boon share in HoT was bad or the current "boon balls", Just wait till we can stack 30-40 support into a squad because your 10 dps hit everything. 

 

12 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

No, it means if no caps mean no caps that 1 firebrand can support 85+ other people (we dont know the exact map cap).

 

Jusg saying. Dunno why you think a squad would be the limiting factor.

I'm not surprised you are confused. I'd assume squad priority would still work as now so 50 gives a nice base for the sake of discussion. Since we all know its not going to happen so we can never really test it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

reduce the aoe spam 😛  with compensation would solve that!!

 YESS im back at it!

 

People stack mono blob cause aoe is king, then make it a 7 (tried i joke 😞 im sad didnt worked)

 

Some aoe skills need to become strong aoe skills with increased target cap ,10x or more as compensation for alot of skills have less targets,  larger rings  and heavier CD.

Everything else reduce the number of targets, so theres more small scale skirmishes(pocket fights between parties)  on blob figths rather than try to tag every thing with aoe only and passtrough enemies like a ghost.

This could promote players in the zerg parties working tgether in the pocket fights rather than being somewhere else in the zerg 11111111222111 while boons are just being spammed left and right, this way players would have to stay closer to their party group as well, palyers would have to become somewhat competent so .. wich means i could stop right here cause that will never happen.....

 

😛 reduce the overall aoe and cleave, ocmpensate with big necro, ele skills, metor storm, blizards, necro fields 😛 raised minions from the bodies of the dead bags, even druid could play in this field.

 

 

Now being small scale or larget combat would not be much diferent due target the players inside the party would have to work together and heal each other rather  low effort stacking spam, the thing i notice  arround the massive stacking  and spam most dont even know what they are hitting not supporting just target something basicly wich results in very idiotic combat(in truth gw2 combat is a bit idiotic wich so much stacking).

So, what would be best IMO would be to streamline the combat itself to feel more similiar between those numbers gap large fight would create smaller fights rather than only bombs ence and repeat.

 

On low scale combat u work with the nearby player cause u arent trying to hit  20-30 players nor dodgning 20-30 players spam, if targets get reduced besides the big aoe skills, players will follow calls or teams will focus on groups while players inside a party will assists each other  similiar to small scale resulting in pocket fights, parties could be more vocal each one having a party leader as well.

Some would focus on the big aoe players proly with rangers, wath we have atm is single mono blob of pure random spam and stacking... it is not funny but carry alots of players, the more minstrells u have the better.

 

(probably would not work due how bad most gw2 player are lol they would be very ineficient w/o the blob wall of spam).

 

Edited by Aeolus.3615
  • Like 1
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...