The problem of WvW is that there is no real simultaneous offense and defense large scale fights

[Knighthonor.4061]

Old AV is the comparison I use for good large scale pvp fighting mechanics.

In WvW "typically" your alliance has 1 big offensive zergs. Sometimes that zerg will run into other offensive zergs or play defense of a choke point/large capture point like Keeps/SMC which arent normally captured/requires big resources to attack.

This is part of the problem. The game should motivate the split of population of an alliance into both Offense and Defensive large groups.

In old AV before it was changed, the 40 player teams would split into two large groups, 1 offense and 1 defense. Those two groups splinter into different sub roles within that main group.

Much different dynamics from what we have in WvW. 98% of players are playing offense and usually on defense its 1 or 2 players at a structure to defend it from other zergs.

The way players play the game is all determined by how its designed. Anet need to design WvW or add mechanism that make large number of players team up for defense along side offensive zergs instead of the "one or the other" model we have now.

One way to do this is to mark the map for enemy teams, when your offensive zerg moves outside its own territory. This would subconsciously make players react and gather at strategic defensive locations while other players of the same team continue to zerg on the offensive end. Both groups would feel rewarding by having more people concentrated in defensive locations to actually be somewhat of a defensive threat outside their main offensive zerg.

[steki.1478]

Sounds more like a server population problem than a problem with wvw system.

People only play offensive when there's a commander tag on the map, when there's no tag they either flip some basic stuff on the borders or do permanent EB siege on SM. Both can hardly be considered an offense. Most of the time the play style is defensive because it's far easier to defend with no organization than it is to attack without one.

With a healthy server population you should have enough time to stop attackers on both objectives with one blob hopping over and a few pugs already on the map (or by having enough people to defend in the first place). I personally haven't seen a blob going full yolo on one objective while other one is getting demolished by enemy (assuming that objective really has no people to defend and is t2 at least), most good comms always prioritized defense in those situations.

Some guilds also seem to favor splitting up, so everything you tried to explain is already happening, just not very often in open tags. Unless by defending you mean siege humping in advance which is quite low effort gameplay and also exists on some servers due to lack of organization.

[XenesisII.1540]

There are some major differences between wvw and av as to why they don't work exactly as each other. Each wvw map is about 2-3x bigger than the av map. Each wvw map has multiple ways to get from north to south while av has two major choke points in which you have to go through them and where the split between teams usually happens. AV is two sides with 40v40 most times through a game, wvw is three sides with basically 50v50v50 that can wildly vary in numbers all hours of the day.

There are two maps to worry about defense and two to worry about offense. When your team is on offense they can often times carry the entire map blob with them and not worry about defense because most commanders expect not to keep those structures in enemy lands, or spend the time to upgrade them, but if you're constantly putting pressure on the defense team it will take them a while to come take it back anyways.

When your team is on defense they have to worry about the two other sides and sometimes multiple groups on those sides hitting multiple targets at once or even the same place which puts a huge strain on the defending side and makes it harder for them to defend less important areas. You will see huge numbers show up for last stand areas like garrison or ebg keep because they're quick to get to. For av it's two sided straight one lane up and down the map, red is dead stalling by throwing out aoes and hoping stuff dies while the offensive team basically the guys who made it through the choke work on capping the graveyards and towers in the enemy base.

Defending in wvw is about prioritizing targets, getting intel on enemy movement, numbers, guilds, knowing how much you have to counter with, how long an upgraded structure can hold out, whether or not tactics are up, how much time you have to respond. A big part of defense is scouting and upgrading, and you don't need a zerg to do those things, you just need them to show up when the enemy shows up in numbers.

[Swagger.1459]

@"Knighthonor.4061" said:Old AV is the comparison I use for good large scale pvp fighting mechanics.

In WvW "typically" your alliance has 1 big offensive zergs. Sometimes that zerg will run into other offensive zergs or play defense of a choke point/large capture point like Keeps/SMC which arent normally captured/requires big resources to attack.

This is part of the problem. The game should motivate the split of population of an alliance into both Offense and Defensive large groups.

In old AV before it was changed, the 40 player teams would split into two large groups, 1 offense and 1 defense. Those two groups splinter into different sub roles within that main group.

Much different dynamics from what we have in WvW. 98% of players are playing offense and usually on defense its 1 or 2 players at a structure to defend it from other zergs.

The way players play the game is all determined by how its designed. Anet need to design WvW or add mechanism that make large number of players team up for defense along side offensive zergs instead of the "one or the other" model we have now.

One way to do this is to mark the map for enemy teams, when your offensive zerg moves outside its own territory. This would subconsciously make players react and gather at strategic defensive locations while other players of the same team continue to zerg on the offensive end. Both groups would feel rewarding by having more people concentrated in defensive locations to actually be somewhat of a defensive threat outside their main offensive zerg.

Nah, the devs aren’t gonna do that. The mode was designed to allow as much player autonomy as possible, and its not gonna change to be like wow av battleground.

[Dawdler.8521]

WvW is already exactly designed like this. Hell it even got the zerg spotting down, there are sentries, balloons, target traps and map chat.

Its just that players choose not to be that strategical. Players, not the game mode. You dont control an entire border by running around a 90 man easily avoidable zerg. Sure they win every individual fight, but 3 groups of 30 people would dominate the border - and all the other borders - on the whole and have that solo zerg run in circles. WvW has multiple objectives per border which actively encourage groups to split up.

But here is the thing, players dont want that. They want to win. Ergo, the zerg.

The WvW mentality of zerging for winning fights is so ingrained into the brains of players that its taboo to even consider the idea of two open tags on one border. It doesnt matter if one of the tags has 3-5 people and have been running there for 2h scouting and roaming, if a 50+ man descends on the border its heresy to remain.

TL;DR what you are actually saying with the OP is that players are the problem of WvW. Players cant be fixed.

[Djamonja.6453]

WvW is basically designed to be similar to Dark Age of Camelot (DAoC), a three sided battle on multiple maps. Alterac Valley is not WvW, it's just a big 40v40 battleground -- two sides, not three and only on one instanced map. Each side did not split into 2 groups, it was just two zergs smashing into each other until one pushed the other back and overwhelmed the other side (30-40 would barely be considered a zerg now, but that's another topic). People really do split up into smaller groups in WvW to be effective, but as someone else pointed out, the population has a hard time sustaining it -- often times there is no tag on any map, and maybe just a handful of roamers in certain timezones. The game-mode is sort of designed with a decent amount of players being online, multiple tags on different maps, some attacking, some defending, but instead you often get one side with 40, and 5-10 people defending.

[enkidu.5937]

Split to attack, stack to defend.

(Usually, ktrain ppl make the first one hard, and thus the second one inevitable.)

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

Honestly alot of this is because there's no real reason to defend anything, since you can just flip it back later.

The game mode is actually more active now than it used to be, because back before Warclaw, at least on our server (Jade Quary), everyone just avoided each other so that they could capture as many points as possible, and this went on for years.

Now that people can get back to the fight faster they seem less.. afraid, I guess?

@Djamonja.6453 said:WvW is basically designed to be similar to Dark Age of Camelot (DAoC), a three sided battle on multiple maps. Alterac Valley is not WvW, it's just a big 40v40 battleground -- two sides, not three and only on one instanced map. Each side did not split into 2 groups, it was just two zergs smashing into each other until one pushed the other back and overwhelmed the other side (30-40 would barely be considered a zerg now, but that's another topic). People really do split up into smaller groups in WvW to be effective, but as someone else pointed out, the population has a hard time sustaining it -- often times there is no tag on any map, and maybe just a handful of roamers in certain timezones. The game-mode is sort of designed with a decent amount of players being online, multiple tags on different maps, some attacking, some defending, but instead you often get one side with 40, and 5-10 people defending.It tries to be like DAoC, but its not true RvR.

That game promotes heavy and direct conflict for extended periods of time, and the biggest difference is players were extremely effective, while in GW2 they're pretty much just random, nameless soldiers and siege is what matters. If not for the existence of way too many AoE skills, the average player in this game would mean absolutely nothing and have no impact on the flow of conflict.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

@Dawdler.8521 said:WvW is already exactly designed like this. Hell it even got the zerg spotting down, there are sentries, balloons, target traps and map chat.

Its just that players choose not to be that strategical. Players, not the game mode. You dont control an entire border by running around a 90 man easily avoidable zerg. Sure they win every individual fight, but 3 groups of 30 people would dominate the border - and all the other borders - on the whole and have that solo zerg run in circles. WvW has multiple objectives per border which actively encourage groups to split up.

But here is the thing, players dont want that. They want to win. Ergo, the zerg.

The WvW mentality of zerging for winning fights is so ingrained into the brains of players that its taboo to even consider the idea of two open tags on one border. It doesnt matter if one of the tags has 3-5 people and have been running there for 2h scouting and roaming, if a 50+ man descends on the border its heresy to remain.

TL;DR what you are actually saying with the OP is that players are the problem of WvW. Players cant be fixed.

Put in quite a few hours over the weekend to take advantage of double XP, and I saw 100% literally the exact opposite of what you described. Not saying your scenario doesn't happen, but what I'm saying it isn't the ONLY way people play this game. Maybe it's a prime time only thing, I dunno. /shurg

[shiri.4257]

Splitting into 2 zergs to work a map isn't the problem. Finding 2+ competent tags on the same map is the primary issue.