Mistwraithe.3106

I am not convinced that allowing a 5 or 10 person group to blow up a stacked Zerg will have the effect OP thinks. That’s because I don’t think it is dead for most Zergs to split into 5 man groups working autonomously”. They don’t have the necessary number of party decision makers, skills or desire to run this way and I suspect if they tried then clouding players who have been training for years in this type of spread out play will likely own them. Instead of adapting and learning to play in parallel 5 player parties as OP argues I think most zergs would fail and then disband. Maybe that is OPs goal here but for the reasons Cael and others gave Zergs are important for new and less skilled players. If you force most to disband then you damage WvW badly. I thinks Zergs are too strong currently and am not impressed with recent changes as per other posts I have made but as presented this is the nuclear option. Maybe a lesser version could help tho.

Interesting thread and I agree with both OP and Cael in places. I think it is very hard for new players to compete with roamers. I have been playing WvW steadily for over a year now and I win some roaming encounters now but I lose more. Cloud fights are a bit easier than 1v1 because you can do things to avoid being focused but they have the same problems that players who have been doing WvW (or pvp) for years know most/all the specs, abilities and tricks for combining and countering them while new players don’t. Joining a not too elitist Zerg is a very good way for a newish player to feel like they are contributing and even “winning”, vs usually “losing” when solo. And it is easier to learn a Zerg support build to the point where you are actually contributing than getting competitive at roaming and clouding.

It's a bit surprising but I'm thinking you might be on the right track. Telemetry data will be telling Anet that there are a lot of very long drawn out fights in tiered keeps because a significant portion (around 50% I think) of the big attacking zergs I've seen in recent months are primarily there to get kills rather than to cap the keep (another 25% are there for both and only maybe 25% will try to cap as fast as they can). This makes sense - most good organised zergs are around fight guilds and by definition they primarily want to fight with capping objectives usually being secondary. I must admit I've been on both sides, I play in organised zergs when they are available and I've been in plenty of keep attacks which were solely to get a response so the zerg had people to fight and kill with no real intention to capture the keep. The best way to get others to fight you is to attack a tier 3 keep. So they will regularly roll all around the keep for 30+ minutes killing the clouding defenders (who as mentioned in my original post have minimal chance of organising a strong enough zerg to fight back unless one happens to already be online) without even bothering to kill the lord. I've been in zergs before where the commander got really annoyed because someone killed the lord and the keep got capped thereby spoiling the fun. Prior to this latest patch sometimes those zergs would eventually leave or die after 30 minutes of farming defenders because walls were repaired and they slowly got whittled down. This latest patch will make this much harder and make it easier for the zerg to keep farming defenders indefinitely by making it harder to repair walls and making it harder to down the attackers (by slashing the guild objective buffs). So if Anet made this change to reduce the length of these long drawn out keep fights (many of which are just zergs farming pugs) then they've gone completely the wrong way by making it easier for the zerg to farm forever...

I'm not a fan. I decided to post a new thread as there are a few existing threads but they either are not particularly serious discussions or aren't addressing this particular issue. The recent changes seem to be trying to make it so your only realistic chance of defending your tiered up keep against an organised zerg is to have your own organised zerg. This comes partly from the reduction in defender bonuses but I think a slightly bigger factor is the change to wall repairing. Often the only viable way for an unorganised defending group to defeat an attacking zerg (even if they outnumber it significantly) is to pick off the tail when they can, usually at a bad K/D exchange rate (ie the zerg is killing far more of you than you are getting of them). But this only works if you can destroy their siege and then tap the walls shut so those you kill can't just easily rejoin their zerg. It was hard work but pre the latest changes it was possible for a sizeable group of unorganised defenders to pull off an unlikely, you could say heroic, defence against an organised zerg. Now it's much less likely. So, it seems Anet only want you to be able to defend against an organised zerg with another organised zerg. But most links won't have organised zergs on 24/7 - in fact I suspect no links ever achieve this? And if you don't have an organised zerg then you can't just create one out of nothing. We have people who will try to tag up but without the numbers, party composition, teamwork and ideally discord communication (not essential but useful) it's a doomed attempt. A quickly assembled ragtag zerg loses to to a pre-organised zerg virtually every time and quickly - maybe they could wear them down but the new reduction in defence bonuses and difficulty in sealing the walls makes this much more unlikely. People know that (from experience) so they generally don't join the squad or don't stack tight with the commander - and those that do die to the enemy zerg for the aforementioned reasons. Which is a vicious circle. People without an organised zerg don't cloud for no reason, they do it because it's the best way of surviving and maybe winning if you don't have the luxury of an organised zerg. This means Anet are making it essentially random whether you can defend your keeps. If you have are lucky enough to have an organised zerg ready to defend at the same time as an enemy guild is doing their run then yeah you could have a good fight (but I argue you could before these changes too). But if you don't then chances are that your attempts to defend will be futile. It's a small step from there to deciding not to try to defending (if you don't have an organised zerg) which I think is pretty clearly bad for the game and for player motivation (players not in organised zergs that is). This seems like a serious step backwards. And I'm not sure what Anet think the upside is? Those situations where both sides have organised zergs already happened before the latest patch. I don't see this change increasing the frequency. Likely the opposite, by making it much less worthwhile trying to defend any defending team will likely struggle to get the numbers to form even an unorganised zerg to fight back, so it's reducing one of the stepping stones towards getting more organised (since I think getting experience working together on defence is one impetus towards trying to join or band together into more organised groups). I don't think Anet act without reasons, so my only conclusion is that they are basing these changes on incomplete or flawed data. Perhaps the developers or decision makers only play WvW during peak times when all sides have organised zergs? Maybe they only play WvW with strong guild zergs and hence haven't experienced it from the other side? Maybe they are playing with Anet tags and always get a bunch of people joining them because of who they are? I dunno. But they seem to only have one very limited view of how the gameplay works and it's based on maybe 15-30 hours out of a 168 hour week...

I think OPs suggestion, or some variation of it, is a pretty good idea.

It's Rubi, not Rudy. I had it wrong. I think GW2 is already a great looking game to explore and that's one (of many) reasons I play the game. It's great to hear Anet are working on further improvements such as the texture compression.

I would be on board with that, along with buffing the HP slightly - not to Svanir Shaman levels, but a moderate amount more when there are high player counts on the map.

Agreed. I think Anet have done a pretty good job of making things morally interesting in the past. Joko is a great example of it, in PoF there were a lot of Elonian people who were loyal to Joko or even adored him because he had (prior to Balthazar's arrival) provided safety and stability for them and their families. And that sort of made good sense for their world view but at the same time Joko was a tyrannical ruler who literally killed his opponents and subjects so he could resurrect them back again as his awakened slaves and gloated while doing so. I found it quite fascinating and was pleasantly surprised that Anet had put in that level of twisting normal tropes about good and evil.

It would make more sense for them to have one slot which allows you to pick only between different loot bonuses and another slot which allows you to pick only between different utility bonuses. That should improve the variety in what players pick.

Agreed. While individually the differences are only 5% per weapon damage/armour defence/character stat (less percentage wise if it's a character stat with a 1000 base) the bonuses compound upon each other. Even just a 2.5% bonus multiplied three times is 7.7%, to the power of 4 it is 10.4%, etc, plus of course there are the infusions. Full ascended with stat infusions is more like 10-15% better than exotic when you factor in everything including increased survivability (possibly better for Celestial if your build can make good use of all the stats).

Can’t tell if OP is joking or not. Seems like quite good rewards, particularly for just 3 events per day per MC instead of 5 with the LWS2 return (tho events are very easy in Silverwastes).

My guess is that there is also a timer for each map and Anet want each map to be closed down once it has been up quite a while, probably because event bugs build upon over time and slowly cycling thru new map copies gives the best experience. Agreed tho, there have been multiple times that I have clicked to leave the supposedly unpopulated map and then found the new map had similar or fewer players and the meta was further behind or non existent. It would be great if the logic was improved, ideally if there is a timer it would align itself with the end of the map meta.

I think getting the game to remember the most recent setup version of each weapon type for each character (or ideally each character's equipment template) would be a very good QoL improvement. Even if it only remembered within the same gaming session it would still be nice. That way when you swap back to your legendary staff it would automatically apply the same stats, sigils and infusions (assuming they were available still) as when that character last had a legendary staff equiped.

There is a middle ground between the Hp scaling on the silverwaste bosses and what they did with the starter zone boss revamps. In fact it’s a yawning gulf. I would be happy with somewhere in the middle, a 50% buff maybe, particularly with the scaling for lots of people.

And great, love and well done.