Idea to change WvW Zergs

[Magnuzone.8395]

On 5/20/2021 at 11:38 PM, Sreoom.3690 said:

What if...your WvW experience and drop rates decrease as the size of your zerg increase?

 

Nice idea. Punish the larger groups that actually give content and give extra prezzies to the small teams with pve rangers and thieves that run around and ppt all hours of the day and avoid fights. That should make things really much better. 

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

6 hours ago, Overedge.2435 said:

My guild is a havoc guild and most of us actively have no interest in zerging, so I'm a bit biased. It's disheartening to be all but unable to play some nights because every time the eight of us poke something we're overrun by a group of thirty.

An idea I had plays off the ideas of wartime logistics: add a debuff that's something like "-10 to all stats for each ally within 1500 range" to reflect the struggle of getting wartime supplies distributed to a massive group of soldiers. It then becomes a battle of quantity over quality: a group of 10 has the advantage of higher stats while the group of 20 has the advantage of higher numbers. It adds a layer of strategy to guilds trying to find the perfect balance that works for them.

its a mass-pvp mode... completely nuts to nerf grouping up. even the sheer thought of it.

 

u cannot just expect to get an easy clap on 30 with 10. while its not impossible to beat that... it was easier before the feb2020 dmg nerfs.

 

reactions and skill necessary to win fights overall get reduced by the dmg coefficient reductions in the end.

 

now the decisive thing is just to pressure hard enough till the other group breaks. especially inexperienced groups sometimes just rout and run, bc the leadership amongst the players is really low.

 

that way, if it is really only 30, with a decent comp a 10 people guild should be able to win that fight.

 

higher numbers aren't always an advantage. only if also higher quality and coordination, or at least equal quality and coordination, is given. if a 30 group splits in 5 - 10 -10 -5 at the first contact, they are as good as dead.

 

if u need debuffs to win that against 30 pugs/randoms, then yes, quality is your problem. just maybe in another way that u might have considered.

and i said it before, it makes zero sense to nerfs stats in bigger groups. everyone with a brain can split a 50 blob even down to 5*10, if that gives them the option to run the same size without any penalties.

 

most likely u just get jumped by 30 roamers of the more full servers. (or more active at your respective time or even map)... so yeah, what do we even discuss about here

 

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 5/26/2021 at 5:29 PM, ArchonWing.9480 said:

I'm afraid that's a futile struggle and there's nearly 9 years of proof that most players don't care.

 

 

Agree in general, but that does not mean one should not still share thoughts. But not saying anything we leave ANet with the idea that all is well when in fact there might be answer out there waiting to be found. One point you touched on still comes back to winning means nothing. Which is always funny when trying to explain to people outside of WvW. 'Why do you fight if its meaningless? Well because there's a fight to be had. But it's for nothing. Nope not a thing. ' Not saying end of week rewards would make sense, I think it might lead to more server stacking, but its also why zerging has more impact than winning and in that light I would question. Maybe there should be something more for winning the week.....

[ArchonWing.9480]

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

Agree in general, but that does not mean one should not still share thoughts. But not saying anything we leave ANet with the idea that all is well when in fact there might be answer out there waiting to be found. One point you touched on still comes back to winning means nothing. Which is always funny when trying to explain to people outside of WvW. 'Why do you fight if its meaningless? Well because there's a fight to be had. But it's for nothing. Nope not a thing. ' Not saying end of week rewards would make sense, I think it might lead to more server stacking, but its also why zerging has more impact than winning and in that light I would question. Maybe there should be something more for winning the week.....

Sure, but these thoughts have to be in the realm of the game everyone else is playing. If they should listen and make changes based on it, then these ideas will be imposed on everyone. Telling people to not fight large scale in the only game mode that allows to, doesn't make any sense to me.

 

And of course, a huge issue, which nobody has even thought of a solution to here or even thought of, is that any player limiting mechanic means that there is some point where the addition of a player will have a negative effect. People are already complaining about toxicity and not being allowed to join squads or whatnot. I mean, this already exists with rally on kill but I guess it's tolerated since it's been around too long. It's still been nerfed.

 

Anything that pushes it in that direction will only increase the level of elitism (or really,  organized groups just keeping it real). This goes against the entirety of the point of this entire game mode, and possibly game itself. The only reasonable conclusion is that it will cause the already shrinking population to become even more exclusive, and die faster as a result.

 

This still isn't the biggest problem either! Do you know why winning mattered back then? If you can't understand that, then you won't understand why guilds act the way they do now.

 

Also it's 2021; most people aren't going to to stay up late to ppt empty doors. It's not about the rewards. It was never about them.

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by ArchonWing.9480

[Sreoom.3690]

I've heard a lot of "It will break WvW" arguments, but I don't see how.  Why would having a no down state if you are fighting in close proximity to a zerg (let's define it as half of your world's map capacity) break WvW?

Edited May 28, 2021 by Sreoom.3690

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

@Sreoom.3690 that's not the point. i personally would be fine with a "no downstate" overall. but not bound to conditions, that'd be just against any logic.

 

it would basically "force" a big pirate ship where 60 players cloud in small groups around each other. complete chaos. and it would not change up a lot,  the better group there would be even more broken.

groups of 50 players get often carried by the dps of 10 within the group, roughly, which is roughly half or even less of the dps classes within a group of that size. the best players would just clinge together way harder than it happens yet, and it'd be probably even a more easy farm; also the pug- or randomgclouds would be forced to stay rather far from each other as well. in the end just chaos. unplayable really.

 

u cannot nerfs numbers, especially if that's what the format is really built for. no sense in that.

[Sreoom.3690]

Okay, ANET already made an attempt to address unbalanced fights with the Outnumbered Buff...how's that working for us?  How would it break WvW if they added a no Down State for teams fighting a battle with (let's say half of their map's max population)...if all three teams are engaged in a mass battle with at least half their map's max population then all would have no down states, those servers with less population, fighting the battle with less than half of their map's max population would not have no down state.

 

Also, I do agree with some comments mentioning allowing area of effects to effect EVERYONE in the area and not a limited number of people...I think making that change would significantly change the zerg boon ball mentality that is the current meta.

[XenesisII.1540]

Ahem... the bloodlust buff and guild claim buffs helps with unbalanced/outnumbered fights.

The outnumbered buff is just for bonuses for standing around or you manage to kill something.

 

You cannot add any stat effects based on the number of players around, because then you would force players in turn to be negative to those around them to stay away so that they are not negatively affected. We already have something like this in "rallybots". This pretty much rules out adding anything negative to an area based on the number of players in that area.

 

This is why adding something like stats to the outnumbered buff will always be a terrible idea as it would force groups to demand everyone else to get off the map so they can get the bonus. If this was triggered in a server wide comparison to the other two servers instead of just by zone, then it could work (planetside had this mechanic for outnumbered sides).

 

The bloodlust effect however is game mode wide and can be turned on or off by players no matter the number of players involved, which is why that method is more acceptable. 

 

Now you can argue just add the effect to just the areas of control, but then you would have players avoiding those areas anyways, unless forced to like defending a keep, which quite frankly isn't as important as it use to be. 

 

The only other thing to do is to add diminishing positive effects to actual groups/squads, for example if a squad with a commander and 5-10 players then it gains 10% bonus xp/rewardtrack, if it's 10-20 players it gains 5% bonus xp/rewardtrack, if it's 20-50 in size then it gains no bonuses. This way you can encourage running smaller groups, while the bigger groups just don't get anything extra.

 

If you want to introduce negative effects like no down state, then it has to be done game mode wide so everyone is affected equally, and there's no pressure on players from their peers, there's already enough of that with class/boonball metas.

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by XenesisII.1540