WvW Moving Away From Non-Zerg Playstyles

[Kelian Ravenwood.4130]

It seems like almost every change that has been made for WvW in the last 2 years has been to promote playing in large zergs/blobs and minimized or flat out denied rewards for smaller group or individual play; is this ANet's intent?  I honestly think it's an understandable decision if the player data supports it, but we've been told multiple times that all playstyles are valid and vital to the WvW content... from increasing large target rewards to the most recent removal of event participation for repairing (outside of repairing a wall and disabling siege, what can a small group do to hold a keep until support arrives???), to nerfing range and duelist builds, it seems ANet wants to promote blob-group play only (heaven help you if you play during off-hours when no commanders are running).  I'd like to know if this is intentional and, if so, can ANet just tell us this, so can play these styles expecting little other than helping our team and, if we want rewards, create builds for zerg content only?  We already know scouting for a team is close to reward-less, so should havoc groups and roamers expect the same?  Thx for the time and consideration.

[kash.9213]

I'm not sure they're trying to promote blob or zerg play. Most changes seem over time seem to promote group coverage and often are even regulated down to group numbers. I still agree mostly though because the match and map structures promote blob play.

There's really no other activity in WvW besides fighting against the clock like actual match timers or how fast mostly paper walls get punched through and dominating a control point. People aren't spread out doing open world kind of stuff unless they're trying to catch people running across a map because that's about the only open world thing to do.

So, pretty much all builds of any scale are regulated to blob play and that's compounded by the fact that in current WvW mode, people have to think about their participation and points with the amount of time they get to play because that's the only way to fill bags. 

[Dawdler.8521]

If this is Anets intent wouldnt this imply they know what they're doing when they balance the classes? 😐

[TheGrimm.5624]

14 hours ago, Kelian Ravenwood.4130 said:

It seems like almost every change that has been made for WvW in the last 2 years has been to promote playing in large zergs/blobs and minimized or flat out denied rewards for smaller group or individual play; is this ANet's intent?  I honestly think it's an understandable decision if the player data supports it, but we've been told multiple times that all playstyles are valid and vital to the WvW content... from increasing large target rewards to the most recent removal of event participation for repairing (outside of repairing a wall and disabling siege, what can a small group do to hold a keep until support arrives???), to nerfing range and duelist builds, it seems ANet wants to promote blob-group play only (heaven help you if you play during off-hours when no commanders are running).  I'd like to know if this is intentional and, if so, can ANet just tell us this, so can play these styles expecting little other than helping our team and, if we want rewards, create builds for zerg content only?  We already know scouting for a team is close to reward-less, so should havoc groups and roamers expect the same?  Thx for the time and consideration.

Sadly this is one of the reasons we need reasons to win. Until we have that there will be little incentive for efficient game play. Meaning do the most you can everywhere at the same time with as little as you need. Further translation, you want easy, just zerg thru it and may the zerg with the most boons win.

[ZTeamG.4603]

Yeah, it pains me since the most fun I've had in WvW has pretty much always been in one of the following: smallscale (from solo roaming to 15v15ish), disorganized large group fights over objectives ("cloud v cloud" when its over a keep siege and not just a standstill at the Ogrewatch sentry), and zerg fights back when target caps were higher.

 

My least favorite things in the game mode are lopsided fights where an unkillable pirateship/boonblob rolls over groups that have half their numbers. Unfortunately, a lot of Anet's changes to WvW over the years reinforce the "just outnumber your enemies and karma train the objectives" playstyle. Remember, early on in the game's life, when an organized group of 15 could wade into a organized but not as good group of 50 and kill a bunch of them? Between target caps, nerfs to damage, and buffs to sustain that's not doable anymore.

 

Population imbalance has also exacerbated the problem. On my server we often end up heavily outnumbered when defending objectives (at most we usually have a commander on one map with a group of 20-30 when the enemy team has multiple zergs of 30+ running around). With siege and such it is still usually possible to repel larger groups of attackers or at least stall them until more allies arrive, but the design of the participation system doesn't reward actually defending and driving off attackers. Previously we had the band-aid of being able to tap a wall to get defense credit and refresh participation after driving off attackers (which, if they're a much bigger group, means you got no kills or other rewards from the defense even if you destroyed their siege and drove them off). Yesterday's change basically says "If you can't get kills, just don't even try to defend. Cap it back after or go for something else if you want rewards."

[Sandzibar.5134]

1 minute ago, ZTeamG.4603 said:

 

 

My least favorite things in the game mode are lopsided fights where an unkillable pirateship/boonblob rolls over groups that have half their numbers.

 

Amen.

 

 

[LordHT.8297]

I'm the only one who thinks there's a possibility that all these recent changes are anet's attempt to stop maguma? Imagine how bizarre it would be if they were actually punishing the entire community over a server that no one should care about. Like chemotherapy to remove a wart

[subversiontwo.7501]

16 hours ago, Kelian Ravenwood.4130 said:

It seems like almost every change that has been made for WvW in the last 2 years has been to promote playing in large zergs/blobs and minimized or flat out denied rewards for smaller group or individual play; is this ANet's intent?  I honestly think it's an understandable decision if the player data supports it, but we've been told multiple times that all playstyles are valid and vital to the WvW content... from increasing large target rewards to the most recent removal of event participation for repairing (outside of repairing a wall and disabling siege, what can a small group do to hold a keep until support arrives???), to nerfing range and duelist builds, it seems ANet wants to promote blob-group play only (heaven help you if you play during off-hours when no commanders are running).  I'd like to know if this is intentional and, if so, can ANet just tell us this, so can play these styles expecting little other than helping our team and, if we want rewards, create builds for zerg content only?  We already know scouting for a team is close to reward-less, so should havoc groups and roamers expect the same?  Thx for the time and consideration.

I think you may be opening up a much larger discussion than you anticipated when you wrote these questions.

Here are a couple of comments on it:

Do ArenaNet see a specific value in organised public groups? Yes, I think they do, to a certain degree. I believe that, as in PvE, there are a fair amount of players who only play when there is prepared public content. Contrary to what you seem to have observed, I see that type of content shrinking, becomming less common (with veteran players leaving, go on hiatus, going more private or simply choosing not to lead). I think ArenaNet have observed that and are looking at ways to stem that tide. What I observe is clouds growing more common and more organised groups becomming less common.

That brings us to a second point. While playing in clouds can be fun and is a fair way to play, they come with some problems for WvW. Fights are less decsive with players trickling in and out of combat, that makes taking objectives much more difficult. Cloud fights tend to stall to stalemates outside or around objectives to a much higher degree. That type of content (usually seen north and south of SM's outer walls during less intensive hours) tend to become very repetetive, rather quickly. I would presume that ArenaNet has caught onto this too, as it is pretty obvious.

It also serves to ask what you mean by expressions like havoc, roaming, scouting and boonballs, those words have a bunch of different interpretations and underlying relationships. The type of content I have seen collapse the most over the past year or so is traditional 5, 15 and 25 (ish) man content. However, those are also the type of groups that tend to have the highest degree of organisation and veterancy. They are not helped by balance skewering in favour of crowd-control or content sliding towards clouds. They are often the groups that fight outmanned or supply leadership to public content.

The collapse of midsized organised groups and experienced public leadership is what drives the trends of clouds and larger private groups (public groups that close off as public organisation collapses, or more casual raiding groups that rely more on numbers above 30 players being prevalent in the wake of veteran 5-25 man groups disappearing). Similarily, words like scouting implies that there is something to scout for or if you simply use words like roaming and havoc to imply group sizes of say 5 and 10 (as some people seem to do), there isn't really anything stopping groups of 5 or 10 to play objectives, should they want to (in fact, it is often better to have multiple organised groups hitting objectives). Well, possibly barring being heavily out-manned and clouded. That's why I am being picky about what words are being chosen. They are often thrown around here with little regard for what they imply or how they play and relate (to content).

What many inexperienced players here tend to regard as "boonballs" (organisation for superior access to eg., stability; inventive ways to compose different synergies in your parties) is what you use to take objectives, what you scout for or what enables midsized groups to fight outmanned against larger clouds and blobs (or public groups). Like I said, my observation is that those things are becomming less common, not more common. To some degree due to class (or effect-) balance issues, but mostly due to population balance (content management) issues and that Alliances are forever delayed.

Edited March 15, 2023 by subversiontwo.7501

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, LordHT.8297 said:

I'm the only one who thinks there's a possibility that all these recent changes are anet's attempt to stop maguma? Imagine how bizarre it would be if they were actually punishing the entire community over a server that no one should care about. Like chemotherapy to remove a wart

lol, no. People have been asking for more balance between the game modes, WvW, sPvP, PvE forever. There also have been tons of requests to increase the speed that Leggo armor can be acquired since just about day 1 of the armory system. The third major topic that's been floated since the tournament years is more reasons to win. These changes start to address all of these topics that have been around before Mag was even in T1.

[TheGrimm.5624]

59 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

I think you may be opening up a much larger discussion than you anticipated when you wrote these questions.

Here are a couple of comments on it:

Do ArenaNet see a specific value in organised public groups? Yes, I think they do, to a certain degree. I believe that, as in PvE, there are a fair amount of players who only play when there is prepared public content. Contrary to what you seem to have observed, I see that type of content shrinking, becomming less common (with veteran players leaving, go on hiatus, going more private or simply choosing not to lead). I think ArenaNet have observed that and are looking at ways to stem that tide. What I observe is clouds growing more common and more organised groups becomming less common.

That brings us to a second point. While playing in clouds can be fun and is a fair way to play, they come with some problems for WvW. Fights are less decsive with players trickling in and out of combat, that makes taking objectives much more difficult. Cloud fights tend to stall to stalemates outside or around objectives to a much higher degree. That type of content (usually seen north and south of SM's outer walls during less intensive hours) tend to become very repetetive, rather quickly. I would presume that ArenaNet has caught onto this too, as it is pretty obvious.

It also serves to ask what you mean by expressions like havoc, roaming, scouting and boonballs, those words have a bunch of different interpretations and underlying relationships. The type of content I have seen collapse the most over the past year or so is traditional 5, 15 and 25 (ish) man content. However, those are also the type of groups that tend to have the highest degree of organisation and veterancy. They are not helped by balance skewering in favour of crowd-control or content sliding towards clouds. They are often the groups that fight outmanned or supply leadership to public content.

The collapse of midsized organised groups and experienced public leadership is what drives the trends of clouds and larger private groups (public groups that close off as public organisation collapses, or more casual raiding groups that rely more on numbers above 30 players being prevalent in the wake of veteran 5-25 man groups disappearing). Similarily, words like scouting implies that there is something to scout for or if you simply use words like roaming and havoc to imply group sizes of say 5 and 10 (as some people seem to do), there isn't really anything stopping groups of 5 or 10 to play objectives, should they want to (in fact, it is often better to have multiple organised groups hitting objectives). Well, possibly barring being heavily out-manned and clouded. That's why I am being picky about what words are being chosen. They are often thrown around here with little regard for what they imply or how they play and relate (to content).

What many inexperienced players here tend to regard as "boonballs" (organisation for superior access to eg., stability; inventive ways to compose different synergies in your parties) is what you use to take objectives, what you scout for or what enables midsized groups to fight outmanned against larger clouds and blobs (or public groups). Like I said, my observation is that those things are becomming less common, not more common. To some degree due to class (or effect-) balance issues, but mostly due to population balance (content management) issues and that Alliances are forever delayed.

Well put. 

I admit, as I am sure you have seen me say, server pride myself. I think once the WR project is launched we will be living in interesting times. I think tiers will reflect in the level of organization that occurs to form the groups. That doesn't mean cloud versus traditional squad, but like minded will start to form up and those that identify which play styles works for them and their team will link up more leaving the lower tiers to being people that just let themselves be sorted. In that sense the WR might be a rather good thing if it allows people that are looking for more organized squad play to gather together with others, or if you are more a cloud player looking for others or even a community style player where you just want to know Bob and Betty will be out there repairing your stuff that's been broke. Again, glad we are seeing some changes, hope we will see more since it means development time and it keeps the sandbox fresh allowing players to create the content based on what they seeing whatever time zone or region they play in.

[Chaba.5410]

2 hours ago, LordHT.8297 said:

I'm the only one who thinks there's a possibility that all these recent changes are anet's attempt to stop maguma? Imagine how bizarre it would be if they were actually punishing the entire community over a server that no one should care about. Like chemotherapy to remove a wart

This is a Maguuma thread after all?

[Chaba.5410]

Small scale/roaming has been dying for years now though.