17 replies to this topic

[forthegz]

I’ve seen a large amount of threads being made regarding such things as:

Server Populations
Server Xfers
3 Teams
Server Rankings
Zerging

Although these are separate factors, they all come together to affect our overall gameplay within WvW. I just wanted to break down a few of these issues, explain why they are issues and explore possible solutions.

Open world PVP or WvW is a really great and interesting concept, but it requires certain considerations.

Server populations do vary from server to server and these populations have a direct and substantial effect on that servers overall outcome in WvW. Numbers play a large factor in WvW and rightly so, it will always be easier to take a keep with 20+ players, than it would be with 10. With free server transfers, players have the freedom to jump to a winning server without much hassle. This could cause even more unbalance in numbers because of constantly shifting populations.

Although it seems that numbers and server population have a serious effect on game-play, they are not the root of the issue.

Zerging (the massing of large groups/raids of either organized or unorganized players)…
is a CORE element of any Open World WvW/RvR mmo. Even if unpopular, this is simply unavoidable, with so many people interested in open world rvr, large groups are bound to get together to take common objectives.

The real problem(and solution) that is a common factor in all of the above..
WvW map design and size.. Let me explain.

A zerg is supposed to be a very powerful force, such a large massing of players forming in one place to take a common objective. Regardless of individual skill/organization, a much larger number of players is a deadly threat to ANY group.

The downside to a zerg is that they are typically less mobile than multiple smaller groups. A zerg moves in a large group, focusing on 1 keep at a time, moving from objective to objective. In Guild Wars 2 WvW, that downside does NOT currently exist due to map size and map design.

With the maps being so small, a large zerg can move across an entire zone with relative ease. With the exception of supply camps, smaller groups can very rarely capture a keep before the incoming zerg reaches them. A roaming zerg can cover the entirety of the map in minutes, making it almost impossible to flank/counter capture.

Typically on more populated servers, 2 or 3 zergs will roam around the map clashing at very specific points over the same objectives, while smaller groups roam taking supply camps and killing stragglers while trying to avoid the enemy zerg.

In terms of map design, Eternal Battlegrounds is much more suited for 3 faction/3 server war than the ‘borderlands’. The borderlands, although correctly placing the home servers ‘garrison’ at the top center.. failed to create a 3 server/triple faction open world zone. The reason for this is the large unnecessary body of water within the center of the map. This body of water creates two LANES that run south down the map. This would not be a problem, if those lanes were 2/3x wider, but with the map being so small, it really narrows the action literally almost forcing the players to zerg together.

I understand that the water was intended as a tool for players to develop strategy and travel, but mildly deep rivers running through a much larger landscape will do the trick.
With larger less ‘narrowed’ maps and more objectives, the ZERGs will lose their ability to cover and dominate the map as quickly, thus in itself allowing for more strategy between servers of different populations.

Instead of creating ‘lanes’ to guide the flow of players in WvW.. you should create truly open, much larger maps, that allow zergs and even smaller groups much more choice in what objectives they take.

Of course server populations and zergs are playing such a big role in the current outcome of WvW.. if you cram that many players into a small place, the group with more numbers more often will win. But with larger maps, big clusters of players lose their roaming ability and thus allow smaller guilds and servers to deploy some real strategy.

Btw, I play on ET.. so I know what it is like to be dominating other servers in Tier 2… and dealing with much bigger numbers in Tier 1.

(Another possible solution)

Increase the time if takes to break down walls/gates… it will force larger groups to either commit to taking something or to roam around, not both.

[madmaxII]

So, the main problem is that underwater combat ... isn't very popular? True.

[Arewn]

I believe it would be beneficial to have certain gates/walls scale in response to defenders/attackers present.
To be more specific: towers are (relative to keeps) a smaller objective to capture, so perhaps there should be mechanics in place to reflect that. Something along the lines of a system that increases or decreases the defensive value of the gate/walls based on active attackers and defenders present (consideration for siege would be necessary as well). As an example (numbers are arbitrary); when there are more than 15 attackers present, the tower's gate gains X defense stat.
The point of the system would be to create an objective/environment where smaller groups are more readily needed, and encourage zergs to either split into smaller groups, or go attack a bigger objective.

I understand that there are supply camps and 'scouts' for small objective, but zergs can just take those in passing so it doesn't discourage them to do so. They also aren't walled off (a reason why zergs can easily take them in passing) which means small/medium sized groups often don't have the chance to experience siege combat while maintaining that group size.
If they reinforced towers as a "medium group size" objective, it would help split zergs (which have a slew of problems such as repetitive aoe ranged combat, and rendering issues), but still leave an environment that zergs can attack (keeps, and castle).

[forthegz]

"So, the main problem is that underwater combat ... isn't very popular? True."

No, that has literally nothing to do with anything I said. Underwater combat has nothing to do with WvW, shouldn't have anything to do with WvW. This is not 'water wars'. All player controled character breathe air and walk on land, therefore the fighting should be focused on land. What happened with the underwater thing is someone who works at Anet just went BATSHIT NUTS about underwater combat.. and pretty much forced it into all of these other parts of the game that didn't need it like WvW for example.

The main 'point' is that the maps are far too small. There are enough objectives, there is not enough distance between each objective.. in 'Borderlands' there is almost NO CHOICE in what objectives to take or in what order to take them. They are all just way too small. People complain about server populations.. and that would not matter half as much if we actually had large open world WvW maps.

Also since the maps are so small every large/important battle has CONSTANTLY replenishing forces. Which is absolutely ridiculously stupid. If the maps were the size they should be, when you died you would have to REGROUP and then VENTURE BACK OUT INTO THE OPEN WORLD. Not just spawn literally up the road and run back out into the same field within 30 seconds.

The Anet Devs said 'we were truly inspired by DAOC and studied its RvR system'... but apparently no one that works for Anet even played DAOC.

The problem is that there is no distance between objectives, 1 large group can roam around the map effortlessly within minutes, you respawn SO CLOSE to battle that both sides have constant reinforcements...

Its bad. They should not of even said they 'studied daoc's rvr system'... idk what they studied, but daoc didn't have a small instance rvr map that forced everyone to zerg down 1 path with instant respawn right next to where you fight.

[Shasow]

I would have to disagree. They maps are large enough. Unless you can zerg all 4 battlegrounds without failure and capture everything within minutes, it's not a problem.

Edited by Shasow, 10 October 2012 - 04:25 AM.

[forthegz]

Shasow, on 10 October 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

I would have to disagree. They maps are large enough. Unless you can zerg all 4 battlegrounds without failure and capture everything within minutes, it's not a problem.

....That is exactly the problem? Did you not read the thread? The maps are too small, you can run acorss borderlands in minutes. It does not take long enough to take a keep or tower, and 1 zerg dominates the zone until another zerg contests it. That is failure.

The objectives need to be WAY more spread apart. Currently 1 zerg roams around taking things until another zerg fights it. Small groups roam around hitting supply camps trying to avoid the zerg. Every insta respawns right next to the fight because the maps are so small... and that creates the illusion of a good time.

A real good fight is long because both sides were good.. and the fight lasted a long time due to rallies and tatics.. when a fight lasts 30 minutes because each side is respawning 45 seconds away and thus has a constant flow of reinforcements... that's stupid.

Apparently this is your first open world pvp game and you don't realize that you've been sold a fake MINI instanced open world experienced that encourages zerging around the map in groups of 30 taking the same keep over and over.

OH YEAH AND YOU PLAY ON EHMRY BAY.... you opinion does not count at all actually.

Play on a real server like HoD, JQ, ET, SBI, CD, IOJ..... you will probably notice the problem then...

If you only had 30 players from each server per zone... this game would be perfect... but guess what, thats not the case.. and its game breaking.

The sad part is.. Anet did it on PURPOSE... they looked at DAoC.. and thought.. this was successfull because .. PEOPLE LOVE ZERGING!... which is NOT why is was successfull... DAoC was great because of proper map design. HUGE open world pvp zone, TONS of keeps, VERY FAR spread apart.. so a zerg was this big easily avoidable thing that didn't dictate the entire game...

[Krazzar]

The main "problem" with WvW is differing schedules. Being matched up with two opponents that are not active when your server is active makes for a boring match and wild back-and-forths.

To address some points: there is scaling in WvW, but it's done by the players. Use some blueprints and supply and you have a scaled-up keep.

The zerg is one powerful group. If you split into smaller more efficient groups you can take more objectives while the zerg is away, so while they are capping 1 keep you can capture everything around it and they're left spending most of their time as a team running while you spend most of your time as a team capping. You don't have to fight just because you see an opponent in front of you, if you see a zerg avoid it and, as they say in Battlefield, PTFO.

[Rekkwum]

First of all, where are all these threads you've been seeing? I can't seem to find any, even in the WvW forum ...
Secondly, use the water. It's not an insurmountable obstacle, it's an alternate path.
Thirdly, there's more routes than just the roads. You can avoid zergs pretty easily.

The only time I've ever gone with the zerg was taking towers/keeps, and I've done pretty well.

[Rezman]

Krazzar, on 10 October 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

The main "problem" with WvW is differing schedules. Being matched up with two opponents that are not active when your server is active makes for a boring match and wild back-and-forths.

To address some points: there is scaling in WvW, but it's done by the players. Use some blueprints and supply and you have a scaled-up keep.

The zerg is one powerful group. If you split into smaller more efficient groups you can take more objectives while the zerg is away, so while they are capping 1 keep you can capture everything around it and they're left spending most of their time as a team running while you spend most of your time as a team capping. You don't have to fight just because you see an opponent in front of you, if you see a zerg avoid it and, as they say in Battlefield, PTFO.

^^ This.

Also I would like to see a future patch that would show the following:

1. Where all your team members are on the map, not just the ones near you.
2. If a wall/gate is taking damage and you have team members at that location then have that wall on the map flash a green, yellow, orange or red line (depending on how damage it is).
3. Have people with the commander title also have that little blue icon show up on /team chat in front of their name or have their name a different color. Something to make them stand out.

Some input I thought of. I'm sure they could be tweaked to be made even better.

[Hexenn]

forthegz, on 09 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

The downside to a zerg is that they are typically less mobile than multiple smaller groups.

I'm afraid I disagree with your thesis, making the supporting evidence more or less irrelevant. The downside of a zerg isn't, nor was it ever its mobility, if anything a zerg can move faster than anything short of a small group if it's well-led, and the only reason a small group can exceed it is it's more likely to remain intact between Point A and Point B because it's easier to coordinate. The downside of a zerg is that you put all of your eggs in one basket, something that can often be countered if several small groups can undo what the zerg did faster than they did it. Zerg hitting point A is superfluous if Point A and C can be retaken by two groups half the zerg's size. That's not an issue of mobility, it's just concentration of power. The map design in WvW is actually amazing, if I were to change anything it would be to diversify the terrain between the borderlands to increase the learning curve and give those of us obsessed with using terrain some more to play with, but that can wait.

Edited by Hexenn, 10 October 2012 - 04:38 PM.

[Shasow]

forthegz, on 10 October 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

....That is exactly the problem? Did you not read the thread? The maps are too small, you can run acorss borderlands in minutes. It does not take long enough to take a keep or tower, and 1 zerg dominates the zone until another zerg contests it. That is failure.

The objectives need to be WAY more spread apart. Currently 1 zerg roams around taking things until another zerg fights it. Small groups roam around hitting supply camps trying to avoid the zerg. Every insta respawns right next to the fight because the maps are so small... and that creates the illusion of a good time.

A real good fight is long because both sides were good.. and the fight lasted a long time due to rallies and tatics.. when a fight lasts 30 minutes because each side is respawning 45 seconds away and thus has a constant flow of reinforcements... that's stupid.

Apparently this is your first open world pvp game and you don't realize that you've been sold a fake MINI instanced open world experienced that encourages zerging around the map in groups of 30 taking the same keep over and over.

OH YEAH AND YOU PLAY ON EHMRY BAY.... you opinion does not count at all actually.

Play on a real server like HoD, JQ, ET, SBI, CD, IOJ..... you will probably notice the problem then...

If you only had 30 players from each server per zone... this game would be perfect... but guess what, thats not the case.. and its game breaking.

The sad part is.. Anet did it on PURPOSE... they looked at DAoC.. and thought.. this was successfull because .. PEOPLE LOVE ZERGING!... which is NOT why is was successfull... DAoC was great because of proper map design. HUGE open world pvp zone, TONS of keeps, VERY FAR spread apart.. so a zerg was this big easily avoidable thing that didn't dictate the entire game...

Well who's fault is it playing on an overpopulated server? There are still free server transfers.

[Sixes]

Shasow, on 10 October 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Well who's fault is it playing on an overpopulated server? There are still free server transfers.

Actually there are population caps, logically the maps should be balanced around a number near or at those caps, especially when many servers (and a majority of players) are facing queues 12+ hours a day which mean the zones are capped.

Saying "It works if no one showed up !" is kind of like saying "Gear doesn't matter in WoW arenas as long as everyone shows up without gear !".

I agree with the original post and actually a few relatively minor modifications could do a lot for the maps we have. Here are the two I suggest:
a ) For non EB maps, make a boardwalk (like the krait ones in many PvE zones) on top of portions of the lake. This should at least allow some walking shortcuts, it also makes a better use of z-levels as groups wanting to be stealthy can still use the water. Optionally you could even make a high level boardwalk (second story as opposed to just on the water) to add a 3rd z-level to the area. Note that none changes the size of the map, just makes a lot more of it usable.
b ) In EB turn the outter wall of SM castle into a ruined relic that can be used to hide/skirmish/set up siege and add a second inner door of some form. This would reduce the ridiculous footprint of SM castle while not changing how many doors it has. More obstacles/hiding places also mean better options for small groups to outsmart and outmaneuver zergs.

A third option I would really like to see is reducing the range of trebuchets so no keep/tower can be attacked from another keep/tower. I think it's really silly that some keeps can bomb the nearby tower or vice versa. If you are breaking the wall/door your siege weapon should be at least a little vulnerable. Maybe it can go right outside the keep wall, but it shouldn't be up top.

Edited by Sixes, 10 October 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[chado2011]

I don't get it. Make the maps larger so that smaller groups have more opportunities to take things because there will be less pvp..

Am I the only one that just wants to pewpew? Ive played lots of pvp games (eve, Darkfall, potbs, etc) where people were so spread out that you could go long periods of time without fighting anyone.. not good gaming. At all.

Lots of pewpew >>>>>>>>>> winning.

[Inferneous]

Quote

OH YEAH AND YOU PLAY ON EHMRY BAY.... you opinion does not count at all actually.

Play on a real server like HoD, JQ, ET, SBI, CD, IOJ..... you will probably notice the problem then...

Don't say garbage like that please

[Impmon]

forthegz, on 10 October 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

The sad part is.. Anet did it on PURPOSE... they looked at DAoC.. and thought.. this was successfull because .. PEOPLE LOVE ZERGING!... which is NOT why is was successfull... DAoC was great because of proper map design. HUGE open world pvp zone, TONS of keeps, VERY FAR spread apart.. so a zerg was this big easily avoidable thing that didn't dictate the entire game...

Thing is DAOC in its heyday people only ran in emain in organized 8 man groups.  You could also bottleneck invaders at the milegates. Every frontier had this big wall with one small door the enemy had to go through once in your frontier.  Once you wiped them you could blockade the milegate and stop them totally.  

People didn't like zerging in DAOC, 8mans were preferred and most people strived to make a decent 8man group.  Zergs were made fun of.

If anything I'd prefer they made keeps much stronger then what they currently are.  Siege battles in DAOC used to go on for 24 hours.  I recall one where 8 of us held off enemies from the lord room most of the night until they finally gave up.  Battles ranged up and down the stairs to outside, we'd try fixing the doors, get pushed back it was awesome.

The keeps in GW2 seem like they're made out of paper.

[Switchback]

The camps are for the small groups and they are vital to hold if you want your structures to hold out vs any sustained siege. If you make the maps too large, there will be much less strategy to the flow of territory gain, because it won't be predictable what place will be hit next. Then you get something like musical keeps, where sides just avoid each other, as it is so much easier to get free rewards by capping empty places, while the opponent does the same somewhere else. This happened early on in planetside when they originally had open access to any objective on the map, and it was just a bunch of back capping bases that had no defenders.

The objective of large scale WvW is for large forces to battle each other. The game has sPVP for organized small unit combat. Which is not to say there is no place for small groups in WvW, there absolutely is, heck 5 people can stealthily take down a keep in about 15 minutes if no one is defending it. And it is silly for a giant zerg to chase a small group halfway across the map as well. But you have to some way to direct people together, and have a map that makes sense defensively with certain camps supplying to towers, the towers buffering the keeps, and the keeps granting access on the Garrison in the BL maps. Having established and recognizable frontlines, flanks, etc, is desirable, instead of just whack-a-mole, which is what you would get with a dozen objectives strewn about randomly across a massive map, offering no connection or protection to each other.

Edited by Switchback, 11 October 2012 - 03:14 AM.

[Sixes]

Impmon, on 11 October 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

Thing is DAOC in its heyday people only ran in emain in organized 8 man groups.  You could also bottleneck invaders at the milegates. Every frontier had this big wall with one small door the enemy had to go through once in your frontier.  Once you wiped them you could blockade the milegate and stop them totally.  

People didn't like zerging in DAOC, 8mans were preferred and most people strived to make a decent 8man group.  Zergs were made fun of.

If anything I'd prefer they made keeps much stronger then what they currently are.  Siege battles in DAOC used to go on for 24 hours.  I recall one where 8 of us held off enemies from the lord room most of the night until they finally gave up.  Battles ranged up and down the stairs to outside, we'd try fixing the doors, get pushed back it was awesome.

The keeps in GW2 seem like they're made out of paper.

Shameless Self-quote from another thread:

Sixes, on 04 October 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

To be honest I think that the one big thing that is missing in WvW right now is a way for 5-10 people to kill 40-50 by playing better. This is a basic issue with game mechanics and a complete lack of long cc (and limited support).

DAoC, much like starcraft in the RTS scene, was an amazing game due to a lot of accidents and happy coincidences. One of the things that happened is that when a realm (which in this game would be a server) was overpopulated the small gank squad guilds would go to the underpopulated side because a) they could kill large numbers with a small gank squad, they wanted the challenge and c) they gained more from fighting against the odds than from facerolling inferior numbers.

Anyways, my point is that while small numbers, even better coordinated can't do much against superior numbers and have no incentive to do so, the server with the highest off peak population wins.

To change this you would need some form of incentive to not just zerg around or try to gank 5v1. In DAoC it was the realm points, a 1v1 solo kill was roughly 1200 rp, 2v1 was 400 or so, 50 v one was damn near 0. Those 8 man gank squads kept going because that's the only way they got their high renown ranks. While I agree with the "everyone gets 100% reward" in PvE, in PvP it just feeds the zerg and gives no incentive to split up.

Note that a lot of the comments regarding bypassing, outrunning and outmaneuvering the zerg stand true for DAoC. If the zerg h*aded the walls a lot of times the teams would just go to hadrian instead of emain (for those not familiar with DAoC it would be kind of like just fighting in another borderland because one of them got too zergy). Given group only speed buffs (at +200% not +33%) the small groups could also get away from masses really easily so they were rarely forced to fight a zerg.

And for those who don't understand what I mean by "taking on superior numbers" here is one of my favourite DAoC videos:

https://www.youtube....h?v=58RqVejOP2A

First fight is 8v8 with a very strong opposing 8 man adding in afterwards (for an effective 8v16) which they win losing a single person. The second fight is roughly 8v40 in which they kill most of their opponents several times over before being overwhelmed. From a realm point perspective that first fight is about 3k rp to them and 200 to the opponent, the second is 6-8k rp for them and maybe 300-500 for the opponents who got the most.

Edited by Sixes, 11 October 2012 - 10:13 AM.

[Switchback]

8 people will never kill 40 in GW2, or even 10 of the 40, because of the Downed State.

This mechanic leaves me very underwhelmed in WvW, because what you get is total victory for one side, usually the bigger force as its hard to keep all those extra people from reviving the downed. Then the zerg just moves on as if they didn't just meet another force that perhaps wiped out 90% of their forces.

When you get a zerg on zerg battle, both sides should be decimated after. One side may win and claim the keep or objective, which should be reward enough, but there should be some permanent losses. Right now there is none, except some brief rez time.

Edited by Switchback, 12 October 2012 - 12:52 AM.