Monoblobs kill the game

Israel.7056 · August 5, 2018

You know you can transfer servers to find a more populated one right? You don't have to be outnumbered all the time unless you choose to be

Sovereign.1093 · August 5, 2018

if we could reset wvw. just have 3 open servers and then birth 3.more as.thr first 3.are.filled.

this should be done regularly. we need a purge. then pay to transfers still ok.

man cant wait for alliance, the nearest format to this.

MarkBecks.6453 · August 5, 2018

@joneirikb.7506 said:Wish there was a way to discourage players from zerging constantly, but I don't think it would be possible at this stage, there are just too many things working toward zerging.

Maybe if a blob bigger than 10 players became vulnerable, or increased vulnerability if they were within certain distance of other players, it would act as a crowd control. So any blob would have increased vulnerability the bigger they are, allowing smaller groups to either defend, or do more damage to them. I honestly think the linking is causing more frustration than before the linking, that's my opinion though.

BlueMelody.6398 · August 5, 2018

@MarkBecks.6453 said:
@joneirikb.7506 said:Wish there was a way to discourage players from zerging constantly, but I don't think it would be possible at this stage, there are just too many things working toward zerging.

Maybe if a blob bigger than 10 players became vulnerable, or increased vulnerability if they were within certain distance of other players, it would act as a crowd control. So any blob would have increased vulnerability the bigger they are, allowing smaller groups to either defend, or do more damage to them. I honestly think the linking is causing more frustration than before the linking, that's my opinion though.

Implement that and watch the toxicity that's already out there reach new heights as people arrive at comm tags and cause issues simply by their existence. I don't want to play in that environment.

WvW is meant for large-scale fights, if you like small-scale fights you already have sPvP, those of us that only enjoy large-scale fights have no other options. Don't balance wvw around small groups.

Player.9621 · August 5, 2018

group 1: im just here to afk and pipfarmgroup 2: i got lost on my way to ascalongroup 3: this is our tower and were going to cap siege and camp this bitch for daysgroup 4: were a 900 pound no honor guild and were gonna veil and assjam those other two groups over theregroup 5: we just want to fight, ppt sucksgroup 6: we dont actually wvw at all but we like to pretend we dogroup 7: why wont those 8 guys fight our 50 man squad?group 8: we havent set foot in game or wvw in over 3 years but were here at the forums and we know better than anyone else how to fix what we dont like about wvw

..I could go on

DeadlySynz.3471 · August 5, 2018

Better solution for zerging, impose on them to split otherwise lose everything and end up in lower tiers where it'll be even worse to find fights and still will repeatedly lose stuff if they refuse to split up:

Server in 3rd place - Can freely map-hop without penaltyServer in 2nd place - Has to wait 30 min in between changing mapsServer in 1st place - Has to wait 60 min in between map hopping

So in other words, that dominant 1st place server (the only likely behind the big monoblob) will simply have to pick 1 keep to defend and lose the rest if they insist on trying to outnumber the other servers while fighting. Or break up that mono-blob and park 10-15 in each objective they'd like to defend, making the numbers more even in an actual confrontation.

Of course their will be some people that will still insist on blobbing, and their behavior will send them straight down to T4, with the rest of the servers who insist on blobbing, so that way they can blob each other in T4.

That's exactly how you stick it to them, they don't get fights and they lose most everything in the process. Or they can choose to chop their blob up for more even number fights across the maps.

Israel.7056 · August 5, 2018

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:Better solution for zerging, impose on them to split otherwise lose everything and end up in lower tiers where it'll be even worse to find fights and still will repeatedly lose stuff if they refuse to split up:
Server in 3rd place - Can freely map-hop without penaltyServer in 2nd place - Has to wait 30 min in between changing mapsServer in 1st place - Has to wait 60 min in between map hopping
So in other words, that dominant 1st place server (the only likely behind the big monoblob) will simply have to pick 1 keep to defend and lose the rest if they insist on trying to outnumber the other servers while fighting. Or break up that mono-blob and park 10-15 in each objective they'd like to defend, making the numbers more even in an actual confrontation.
Of course their will be some people that will still insist on blobbing, and their behavior will send them straight down to T4, with the rest of the servers who insist on blobbing, so that way they can blob each other in T4.
That's exactly how you stick it to them, they don't get fights and they lose most everything in the process. Or they can choose to chop their blob up for more even number fights across the maps.

It's pretty easy to rotate with a blob and it's very easy to rotate with two zergs that can blob up when needed. All it takes is a couple commanders in coms. At some point you just gotta outrotate win node fights and outblob.

Handin.4032 · August 5, 2018

Monoblobs don't kill the game as much as tag sniping/spying and trolls from other servers... At this point most servers monoblob at some point or another

joneirikb.7506 · August 6, 2018

@BlueMelody.6398 said:
@MarkBecks.6453 said:
@joneirikb.7506 said:Wish there was a way to discourage players from zerging constantly, but I don't think it would be possible at this stage, there are just too many things working toward zerging.

Maybe if a blob bigger than 10 players became vulnerable, or increased vulnerability if they were within certain distance of other players, it would act as a crowd control. So any blob would have increased vulnerability the bigger they are, allowing smaller groups to either defend, or do more damage to them. I honestly think the linking is causing more frustration than before the linking, that's my opinion though.

Implement that and watch the toxicity that's already out there reach new heights as people arrive at comm tags and cause issues simply by their existence. I don't want to play in that environment.

WvW is meant for large-scale fights, if you like small-scale fights you already have sPvP, those of us that only enjoy large-scale fights have no other options. Don't balance wvw around small groups.

ANet/GW2 design philosophy is adamant on this point, never ever make a penalty for grouping together. Simply won't happen.

If anything there would need to be changes to the outnumbered players (an actual buff, as opposed to the Outnumbered EFFECT we have now, aka the warning sign). Or a change to either points, structures, or reward that actually encourages different behavior. Granted, that's easier said than done when you have to stay within the above design principle they will not break under any circumstances.

Example: Reverse scaling of Rewards to number of players would technically be a punishment of players grouping up, thus we can't have that. So if you take that camp solo or with 80 people you get the same reward. Even though scaling loot, participation, wxp etc to the numbers would definitively have encouraged a lot of people to divide up into smaller groups (as small as they'd dare).

Technically, having defensive players buffed (stats, pulsing resistance and stability etc) while defending an objective, scaled depending on the number of enemy players, would actually bypass that limitation (somewhat). And considering how casual the entire design of WvW is, might not actually be a bad idea. That still doesn't mean that most of the players would like it (which I'm quite certain they won't). Technically that sounds like banners, perhaps just link banners to defense events ?

Anyways, WvW is a sandbox game mode, which means there are multiple different playstyles that ANet needs to keep in mind when designing and balancing it. As such, Zerging have a place here, as does small scale, siege, defense, scouting, roaming, dueling, gvg's and whatever else. This idea that the game is only for one thing (be it zerg, gvg, roam, or defense or what nots) is honestly destroying the game mode more so than what ANet could manage.

And WvW can never be balanced around large scale, because the entire combat system is balanced around small scale. The entire game at launch was balanced around sPVP up until HOT where they started balancing more after PvE part, but the entire ground system is built around 5vs5. That's the whole reason why so many things been busted in WvW (stealth, target limit, aoe nukes, you name it).

It is what it is, make the best out of it.

bq pd.2148 · August 6, 2018

@joneirikb.7506 said:
@BlueMelody.6398 said:
@MarkBecks.6453 said:
@joneirikb.7506 said:Wish there was a way to discourage players from zerging constantly, but I don't think it would be possible at this stage, there are just too many things working toward zerging.

Maybe if a blob bigger than 10 players became vulnerable, or increased vulnerability if they were within certain distance of other players, it would act as a crowd control. So any blob would have increased vulnerability the bigger they are, allowing smaller groups to either defend, or do more damage to them. I honestly think the linking is causing more frustration than before the linking, that's my opinion though.

Implement that and watch the toxicity that's already out there reach new heights as people arrive at comm tags and cause issues simply by their existence. I don't want to play in that environment.

WvW is meant for large-scale fights, if you like small-scale fights you already have sPvP, those of us that only enjoy large-scale fights have no other options. Don't balance wvw around small groups.

ANet/GW2 design philosophy is adamant on this point, never ever make a penalty for grouping together. Simply won't happen.

If anything there would need to be changes to the outnumbered players (an actual buff, as opposed to the Outnumbered EFFECT we have now, aka the warning sign). Or a change to either points, structures, or reward that actually encourages different behavior. Granted, that's easier said than done when you have to stay within the above design principle they will not break under any circumstances.

Example: Reverse scaling of Rewards to number of players would technically be a punishment of players grouping up, thus we can't have that. So if you take that camp solo or with 80 people you get the same reward. Even though scaling loot, participation, wxp etc to the numbers would definitively have encouraged a lot of people to divide up into smaller groups (as small as they'd dare).

outnumbered buff is mapwide and not local wich means you might be outnumbered on the map but still gank a poor soul 5 vs 1. so first of all any kind of buff helping in a fight while outnumbered would have to be local. then we got still toxicity issue and punishment for grouping up. picture this there is a 5 man roaming guild of average skill level and lets say i am better then each of them and with the buff able to kill them solo, would be awesome for me. now 3-4 bad pugs join the fight on my side preventing me from getting this buff and ontop being a liability infight by not adding anything usefull + going downstate just when i bursted one of the opponents into downedstate aswell. then i would be punished infight for having bad pugs around me.a mapwide buff would balance the game around monoblobs wich punishes you for everyone on the map not running with you, wich also leads to toxicity.reverse scaling of rewards is different as it is also faster if you do something together. doesnt have to be linear scaling. so is actually doable, currently your punished more or less for not grouping up with as many people as you can find for rewards.

Anyways, WvW is a sandbox game mode, which means there are multiple different playstyles that ANet needs to keep in mind when designing and balancing it. As such, Zerging have a place here, as does small scale, siege, defense, scouting, roaming, dueling, gvg's and whatever else. This idea that the game is only for

one

thing (be it zerg, gvg, roam, or defense or what nots) is honestly destroying the game mode more so than what ANet could manage.

WvW for only one thing would work but not with a 1 week long matchup. as for a set goal you want to compete for like winning the matchup you first of all need equal numbers on each team => equal coverage in this case. this is more difficult the longer the match is and when we talk about 1 week it is impossible. but WvW also tries to be an RvR mode, that builds communities etc. for this you need long or rather infinite matches and then the current state matter not some score based on average performance over a week. the issue WvW faces is that it tries to be a competitive mode and a more open community focused mode but it wont work together. IMO we either need shorter matches to make it really competitive like 2 hours or infinite matches were you just join 1 side a faction more or less red/green/blue and fight over those maps maybe several instances of them, maybe even with effect on the open world PvE maps.And WvW can never be balanced around large scale, because the entire combat system is balanced around small scale. The entire game at launch was balanced around sPVP up until HOT where they started balancing more after PvE part, but the entire ground system is built around 5vs5. That's the whole reason why so many things been busted in WvW (stealth, target limit, aoe nukes, you name it).

as WvW is not a real competitive mode and not played like it, no roles in this mode have been developped and you cannot balance around them. in spvp and pve there are specific roles you can balance around. thats why the game was more balanced around those 2 modes, stealth for example is pretty useless in both and the way WvW is played, its pretty hard for anet to find the right balance for it.

Trajan.4953 · August 6, 2018

Blobs have been around since launch. However, the ability for a smaller, well organized, group to dismantle said blob has been greatly diminished. If you can't beat them, join them. Right Anet? Amirite Anet?

aspirine.5839 · August 6, 2018

@MarkBecks.6453 said:
@joneirikb.7506 said:Wish there was a way to discourage players from zerging constantly, but I don't think it would be possible at this stage, there are just too many things working toward zerging.

Maybe if a blob bigger than 10 players became vulnerable, or increased vulnerability if they were within certain distance of other players, it would act as a crowd control. So any blob would have increased vulnerability the bigger they are, allowing smaller groups to either defend, or do more damage to them. I honestly think the linking is causing more frustration than before the linking, that's my opinion though.

Too late for that now, the zerglings uproar will be legendary and if not changed back to their precious zerg they will move on to another game. Zerging is the only way now.

Sovereign.1093 · August 6, 2018

zerging isnt so bad if equal in nos. =) which is the challenge for anet

if not equal. non zergs, i urge you to boycot fighting so they decide not to zerg. =)

Etheri.5406 · August 6, 2018

@"Trajan.4953" said:Blobs have been around since launch. However, the ability for a smaller, well organized, group to dismantle said blob has been greatly diminished. If you can't beat them, join them. Right Anet? Amirite Anet?

You can fight bad zergs perfectly fine. 99% of zergs are bad zergs.

Downsides :Zerg won't come out several times even if you beat them with smaller numbers.Zerg will quickly lose numbers if you beat themZerg will build siege even when outnumbered. There's nothing that stops bad zergs from bunkering as soon as you zergbust their ass.

Sure it's not redguard days and yes some changes make it more difficult; but general skill is so slow it's really not difficult to beat bad zergs.

EU is funny. Half these "eeeew zerg" players play on EB hugging their side objectives trying to small-scale gank other players abusing pewpew and numbers advantage. I've seen T1 servers get 50+ man gank clouds, that magically dissipate the moment a 30 man coordinated zerg shows up. Half the players who are defending and "small scale" are looking for uneven fights all the same. How is ganking players from your objectives and ganking in large cloudy groups of 50+ different from zerging? Oh wait - I know, you can pretend it's solo skill (???) by not interacting or communicating with others. Then when a zerg shows up even with fewer numbers; you can call it a monoblob and go man your siege.

Organizing and coordinating? Overrated.Also i'm wondering how you wanna go away from monoblobs on EU. If I tag public I get a blob. I can ask 30 players to leave but - oh wait I already do and they won't. You can have 5 tags, unless they're guilds half the pugs still follow whatever commander gives most bags. Hell, if the guild gets most bags most of the pugs will even follow that.

EU WvW has so many players looking to leech bags compared to commanders / guilds left that any group capable of winning fights consistently just automatically gravitates towards a monoblob. There's nothing they can do about it; because they pugs will follow them to leech no matter what.

You'd need way more commanders and players willing to split up, following comms they prefer rather than comms that give them loot to get that done. But as I said, almost all the players are more interested in rewards and pretending they kill enemies than actually playing / improving at WvW.

If you have 200 players and 10 comms; you'll get small groups. Nowadays most servers have 1 comm for every 100+ players and they still won't follow their new / inexperienced comms. Even gankdara can get a 70 man monoblob as long as you magically manage to carry them. If you win the fights, they'll come to tag ;)

Rysdude.3824 · August 6, 2018

I love the self righteousness going on in this thread. Everyone thinks they know best lol

Etheri.5406 · August 6, 2018

@Rysdude.3824 said:I love the self righteousness going on in this thread. Everyone thinks they know best lol

Which is every single thread on this forum and next to no real discussion.Meanwhile anet has no idea what's actually going on in WvW. At least in EU. I know the wvw devs are working hard; but I genuinely don't think they actually know what's happening in EU wvw.

Offair.2563 · August 6, 2018

@aspirine.5839 said:blobbing in general was not a problem when most servers could do it. But since WvW is on the decline it is getting more boring than ever.But hey of course that is something that the so called alliances will solve right :/

People that believe aliances will solve all problems will get a huge fat reality check once its implemented.

Israel.7056 · August 6, 2018

@Etheri.5406 said:
@Rysdude.3824 said:I love the self righteousness going on in this thread. Everyone thinks they know best lol

Which is every single thread on this forum and next to no real discussion.Meanwhile anet has no idea what's actually going on in WvW. At least in EU. I know the wvw devs are working hard; but I genuinely don't think they actually know what's happening in EU wvw.

Well they don't really play the game much so....

Etheri.5406 · August 6, 2018

@Israel.7056 said:
@Etheri.5406 said:
@Rysdude.3824 said:I love the self righteousness going on in this thread. Everyone thinks they know best lol

Which is every single thread on this forum and next to no real discussion.Meanwhile anet has no idea what's actually going on in WvW. At least in EU. I know the wvw devs are working hard; but I genuinely don't think they actually know what's happening in EU wvw.

Well they don't really play the game much so....

I must admit we kinda hunt them whenever they log in out of sheer boreddom.

Sovereign.1093 · August 6, 2018

new coms got to understand, you dont get followers, you earn it. takes atleast 3 days to get a full group anywhere i go, its not.automatic.

cobbah.3102 · August 6, 2018

@Israel.7056 said:
@oOStaticOo.9467 said:Have you seen the Nerf Arrow Cart thread? The majority in that thread think Zerging is the only thing to do. Having to stop and spend time trying to take down a small group of people defending a structure is dumb, it wastes their time, you should have to come out and defend it, and furthermore if you don't have enough people to defend it you shouldn't keep it! Blob mentality is the only WvW mentality. At least according to some.

I'm kind of amazed that that's what you took away from that thread.

I'm amazed that your amazed did it hurt?

joneirikb.7506 · August 6, 2018

@MUDse.7623 said:
@joneirikb.7506 said:
@BlueMelody.6398 said:
@MarkBecks.6453 said:
@joneirikb.7506 said:Wish there was a way to discourage players from zerging constantly, but I don't think it would be possible at this stage, there are just too many things working toward zerging.