Are people satisfied that WvW has devolved into zerg v zerg fest?

[SweetPotato.7456]

What ever do you mean "devolved" it has always been the bigger your zerg the more effective you are.

[Sviel.7493]

> @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > > > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > > @"subversiontwo.7501"

> > > >

> > > > Obviously, being alone isn't ideal, but that's clearly not what he was talking about. The problem was specifically the ease of attacking over the top of the wall compared to attacking people at the base of it. You can manage to do some things in the current system, but there's no argument that this basic inequality exists.

> > > I beg to differ, I'd say that's exactly what's being talked about here. The argument was for immunity on walls. That would enable classes to stand and fire with impunity as opposed to having to be adaptive, smart and organised about it. The only inequality with regards to walls is that it is better to have them than not. What is being asked for is making that inequality more favourable to defenders to which my response was that it is already quite favourable and people in general are just not good at taking advantage of it anymore because dedicated defenders are as rare as most other dedicated subgroups of players these days. I'm not saying the mode is entirely made up of tag-followers and solo players these days but it has certainly gravitated alot in that direction. That is also why we see these kinds of suggestions.

> > >

> > > At the end of the day, a single Soulbeast on a wall should be far less successful than four Weavers and a spririt Druid (or a Scrapper, a Spellbreaker and three staff Daredevils) etc. That dedicated defenders are rare doesn't make it any less appealing, competetive or effective, rather the opposite. It isn't expected anymore and competition is low. The same goes for commanding or havocing around commanders. The available content is ripe for it if you do it right. Most of these issues have nothing to do with new, bad, casual or PvE, they have to do laziness and consumption - and the developer taking that direction over instigation and creativity when it comes to most things in the game (-mode).

> > >

> >

> > He doesn't mention immunity at all. He just said that he hates that you can't defend from on top of a wall. He didn't ask for or make any suggestion. The whole bit about standing and firing with impunity is entirely your creation.

> >

> > But you surely can't be acting in good faith if you're saying that the only inequality with walls is that is better to have them than not. They are certainly useful in a certain sense, but that doesn't change the way AoE wraps in this game engine. Or how LoS works.

>

> It was suggested by Kylden after s/he quoted Static, if that came across as misrepresenting Static (who had more sweeping arguements) that was my mistake, however, I find it to be relevant to the thread. The argument was made. What I said was that it was being talked about here and clearly it was. There is nothing dishonest about it. Static said that you can't stand on walls to defend, but clearly, you can do that too.

>

> That goes for you too, Sviel, as you made the argument that there is an inequality between being on a wall and the base of it. I highly doubt that you implied that it was favourable to be on the wall as opposed to the base. However, that is exactly what is true. The only inequality that actually exists is that opposite, that it is more favourable to be inside an objective than at the base of it.

>

> The only arguments I see from you people in this thread is that it isn't good enough and that there should be even more advantages to it, beyond the advantages that already exists. My argument is simply that it is useful enough if you know how to make it count, without needing equal numbers because the advantage is a force multiplier. I make that argument because I know the ways AoE wraps and LoS works, for a multitude of classes, and that is why I can't identify with what is being said here. I also make that argument because I have experience with fighting undermanned or busting zergs (and specifically trolling zergs with parties around forward objectives, even being in guilds formed for that purpose). Players who complain about dying on walls "all the time" clearly do not know how those things work or they wouldn't making such arguments.

>

> So on one hand we ask that people do not just throw an L2P statement in our face, but when someone comes along to honestly discuss the topic he is just being called dishonest and there seems to be little interest in discussing the topic openmindedly. Given the mindset a crude L2P would have been in order.

 

This sleight of hand is not going to fly. I'm saying that walls have problem A. You're saying that walls have unrelated advantage Z and, for some reason, that negates the existence of problem A. I acknowledged that unrelated advantage Z exists but explain that it is unrelated to problem A. I say that both things are true, but it was problem A that was being discussed and unrelated advantage Z is unrelated. You respond that problem A is a L2P issue and that you wish I wouldn't tell you to L2P (something I never did).

 

I'm not saying that players can't use what exists to great effect. Running ahead of zergs and stalling their caps/draining their resources is one of my favorite things. I'm not assuming that you aren't familiar with this tactic or doubting you when you say that you are. I acknowledge that being familiar with LoS, skill wrapping and the like can improve your survivability on the walls. However, just like being quick on your feet can help you avoid a truck driving on the sidewalk, that doesn't mean that trucks on the sidewalk are ok. It is possible to survive on walls better with experience, but the current condition of surviving on walls is not ideal.

[Taylan.2187]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> @"Taylan.2187"

> To tell you the truth i have no idea what kind of magic they use to keep the servers running when all the conditions and boons fly around in the matter of seconds in small spaces.

 

Oh, servers are amazing creatures. Think 32 CPU cores and 128 GB of RAM or something... Anet probably uses racks full of those. :P

 

Here in Germany you can rent a virtual server with 16 cores and 32 GB of RAM for 25 Euro/month.

[XenesisII.1540]

I'm pretty happy with wvw these days.

Awesome mount that you can mind meld with!

You can now pick and choose what fights you want to be in anywhere anytime!

You can just mount and stand in circles for credits all day!

Massive stealth that puts mesmer group stealth to shame!

Finally another underdog gets their chance!

Ubermongous new wvw lobby with another gigantic arena!

Wonderful high damage builds for both solo and groups!

Radical high sustain builds that solo and small groups can use while also doing good damage or outrunning chicken chasers!

Fantastic boon reapplication that comes faster than rain falling from the sky! condi bad!

And zergs? well they get to benefit from all of the above!

More than a week since the mount and event came in and we're still getting queues during reset night!

WvW has never been more fun than it is today!

It's not dying or devolved it's doing awesome! it feels awesome!

[subversiontwo.7501]

> @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > > @"subversiontwo.7501" said:

> > > > > @"Sviel.7493" said:

> > > > > @"subversiontwo.7501"

> > > > >

> > > > > Obviously, being alone isn't ideal, but that's clearly not what he was talking about. The problem was specifically the ease of attacking over the top of the wall compared to attacking people at the base of it. You can manage to do some things in the current system, but there's no argument that this basic inequality exists.

> > > > I beg to differ, I'd say that's exactly what's being talked about here. The argument was for immunity on walls. That would enable classes to stand and fire with impunity as opposed to having to be adaptive, smart and organised about it. The only inequality with regards to walls is that it is better to have them than not. What is being asked for is making that inequality more favourable to defenders to which my response was that it is already quite favourable and people in general are just not good at taking advantage of it anymore because dedicated defenders are as rare as most other dedicated subgroups of players these days. I'm not saying the mode is entirely made up of tag-followers and solo players these days but it has certainly gravitated alot in that direction. That is also why we see these kinds of suggestions.

> > > >

> > > > At the end of the day, a single Soulbeast on a wall should be far less successful than four Weavers and a spririt Druid (or a Scrapper, a Spellbreaker and three staff Daredevils) etc. That dedicated defenders are rare doesn't make it any less appealing, competetive or effective, rather the opposite. It isn't expected anymore and competition is low. The same goes for commanding or havocing around commanders. The available content is ripe for it if you do it right. Most of these issues have nothing to do with new, bad, casual or PvE, they have to do laziness and consumption - and the developer taking that direction over instigation and creativity when it comes to most things in the game (-mode).

> > > >

> > >

> > > He doesn't mention immunity at all. He just said that he hates that you can't defend from on top of a wall. He didn't ask for or make any suggestion. The whole bit about standing and firing with impunity is entirely your creation.

> > >

> > > But you surely can't be acting in good faith if you're saying that the only inequality with walls is that is better to have them than not. They are certainly useful in a certain sense, but that doesn't change the way AoE wraps in this game engine. Or how LoS works.

> >

> > It was suggested by Kylden after s/he quoted Static, if that came across as misrepresenting Static (who had more sweeping arguements) that was my mistake, however, I find it to be relevant to the thread. The argument was made. What I said was that it was being talked about here and clearly it was. There is nothing dishonest about it. Static said that you can't stand on walls to defend, but clearly, you can do that too.

> >

> > That goes for you too, Sviel, as you made the argument that there is an inequality between being on a wall and the base of it. I highly doubt that you implied that it was favourable to be on the wall as opposed to the base. However, that is exactly what is true. The only inequality that actually exists is that opposite, that it is more favourable to be inside an objective than at the base of it.

> >

> > The only arguments I see from you people in this thread is that it isn't good enough and that there should be even more advantages to it, beyond the advantages that already exists. My argument is simply that it is useful enough if you know how to make it count, without needing equal numbers because the advantage is a force multiplier. I make that argument because I know the ways AoE wraps and LoS works, for a multitude of classes, and that is why I can't identify with what is being said here. I also make that argument because I have experience with fighting undermanned or busting zergs (and specifically trolling zergs with parties around forward objectives, even being in guilds formed for that purpose). Players who complain about dying on walls "all the time" clearly do not know how those things work or they wouldn't making such arguments.

> >

> > So on one hand we ask that people do not just throw an L2P statement in our face, but when someone comes along to honestly discuss the topic he is just being called dishonest and there seems to be little interest in discussing the topic openmindedly. Given the mindset a crude L2P would have been in order.

>

> This sleight of hand is not going to fly. I'm saying that walls have problem A. You're saying that walls have unrelated advantage Z and, for some reason, that negates the existence of problem A. I acknowledged that unrelated advantage Z exists but explain that it is unrelated to problem A. I say that both things are true, but it was problem A that was being discussed and unrelated advantage Z is unrelated. You respond that problem A is a L2P issue and that you wish I wouldn't tell you to L2P (something I never did).

>

> I'm not saying that players can't use what exists to great effect. Running ahead of zergs and stalling their caps/draining their resources is one of my favorite things. I'm not assuming that you aren't familiar with this tactic or doubting you when you say that you are. I acknowledge that being familiar with LoS, skill wrapping and the like can improve your survivability on the walls. However, just like being quick on your feet can help you avoid a truck driving on the sidewalk, that doesn't mean that trucks on the sidewalk are ok. It is possible to survive on walls better with experience, but the current condition of surviving on walls is not ideal.

 

This is getting somewhat circular. Indeed, I am saying that walls have no (balance-) problem A and provide other advantages Z (etc.) that does not involve ranged battlement combat. It is a stretch to call them unrelated because they still appear within the concept of what a wall does. The fact that marks, pulls and big AoE exist is fun and keeps you on your toes when on a wall.

 

No, I am not referring to stalling caps or draining resources. I am referring to the ability to fight next to objectives/walls to inflate your numbers in different ways. One of them being that you do not have to commit. That affords you the ability to kill 20+ average players with 5 good players. What stops you from doing that in open field fights most of the time is that you run out of cooldowns as you are forced to commit or you lose to attrition because you can not commit even if you have successful openings. An objective and its walls bridges those problems. So what I and my friends would habitually do was to take eg., spawn towers and then proceed to kill far more sizable groups as they attempted to reclaim the tower, up until a point of critical mass given opponents size and organisation. So we would attack 20+ opponents with a party and dying on walls is also exceedingly rare to me - even against full squads with marks, pulls and concerted AoE bombs. The relation between them being that if you can survive outside the wall you can obviously more easily do it on it.

 

My point here is not to gloat or give you a cold-hand L2P retort, or, at least it wasn't to begin with. It was trying to point out that these things exist and to put them in reference to the claim that was made. Objectives and their walls are very strong and useful tools when used right and if you have the organisation and ability to use them properly. The "not talking about L2P" is an allusion to Static's initial reply and had nothing to do with you (again, other points of reference exist in the thread).

[Substance E.4852]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > 2. What we have is a product of no player collision. Everyone can just walk through each other. I don't think I need to explain to anyone here what an absolute nightmare of trolling and body block cheesing player collision would be in WvW.

>

> If collision was a function they could turn on and off I wouldn't mind a week of it in WvW actually. Collision does force anti-stacking and to me that's a good thing. Tank walls aren't a thing in this game but in other games that had collison and WvW style of play your positioning was important. Collision was also a big counter to larger force wins logic that at times we see here. Again if it was an off/on setting that would be a test I would like to see run in WvW, IMO. But agree for those that have not tried a collision WvW game mode it could be rough. As far as trolling, wasn't that big of an issue in other games, would there people, sadly probably but wouldn't call that out as a reason to not to have the function.

 

Larger force wins will always be a thing when ranged is more powerful than melee. The most damaging classes all do so via ranged aoe attacks. It;s not even that these skills affect the most players, they also do insane damage per player. A rev just spamming CoR does more damage to a group of people than a thief or ranger does to a single target in the same situation. Without a major rework to the balance of single target (yes I know cleave is a thing) melee vs ranged combat is addressed, we'll still have blob pirate ships, it will just be that much more obnoxious when you can't move where you want to avoid red rings of death.

 

Trolling is hard to gauge but WvW has plenty of problems with people pulling tactivators or wasting supply.

 

A guy "just afk" in front of a portal would absolutely be a thing that will happen. I can also easily see a person who's upset with the way a commander is doing things just running around in a group and impeding peoples' ability to maneuver. Neither of these things are directly reportable via the in game UI and it's hard hard to prove malicious intent anyway which means they will happen.

[Vancho.8750]

In other games AOE either have low damage/heal to single target but the damage/heal over time on large groups is better than someone killing stuff 1 by 1 or they have large CD for medium amount of damage but they never are able to match single target dps on one target, here we have cleave damage on almost everything but it the cleave seems to be balanced somewhat, the outlier professions with large circles or lines with big dps break it for the rest.

PS: I blame raids for that.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> In other games AOE either have low damage/heal to single target but the damage/heal over time on large groups is better than someone killing stuff 1 by 1 or they have large CD for medium amount of damage but they never are able to match single target dps on one target, here we have cleave damage on almost everything but it the cleave seems to be balanced somewhat, the outlier professions with large circles or lines with big dps break it for the rest.

> PS: I blame raids for that.

WvW and the AoE meta existed before raids did though (or fractals for that matter).

 

[Kylden Ar.3724]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Vancho.8750" said:

> > In other games AOE either have low damage/heal to single target but the damage/heal over time on large groups is better than someone killing stuff 1 by 1 or they have large CD for medium amount of damage but they never are able to match single target dps on one target, here we have cleave damage on almost everything but it the cleave seems to be balanced somewhat, the outlier professions with large circles or lines with big dps break it for the rest.

> > PS: I blame raids for that.

> WvW and the AoE meta existed before raids did though (or fractals for that matter).

>

 

Yeah, but what he's saying is that GW2 is one of the few RPGs that break the trope of AoE < Cleave < Single Target DPS, and he doesn't seem to be wrong. That is a large reason WHY AoE is so dominant in WvW/PvP metas.

 

Frankly, I think it's time that all the AoE in WvW/PvP learned from the Warclaw Nerf and also got limted to 3 targets.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Kylden Ar.3724" said:

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"Vancho.8750" said:

> > > In other games AOE either have low damage/heal to single target but the damage/heal over time on large groups is better than someone killing stuff 1 by 1 or they have large CD for medium amount of damage but they never are able to match single target dps on one target, here we have cleave damage on almost everything but it the cleave seems to be balanced somewhat, the outlier professions with large circles or lines with big dps break it for the rest.

> > > PS: I blame raids for that.

> > WvW and the AoE meta existed before raids did though (or fractals for that matter).

> >

>

> Yeah, but what he's saying is that GW2 is one of the few RPGs that break the trope of AoE < Cleave < Single Target DPS, and he doesn't seem to be wrong. That is a large reason WHY AoE is so dominant in WvW/PvP metas.

>

> Frankly, I think it's time that all the AoE in WvW/PvP learned from the Warclaw Nerf and also got limted to 3 targets.

 

But as long as that damage to each player stays as high as it is, you will only find more players on AOE ranged classes.

 

Until you hit the potential for actual damage to any one target to being less than a melee skill 2, 3, or 4, you are going to have this issue. That, or, increase the cooldowns of some of the bigger AOE skills.

 

Of course, doing so will anger the raid people on single target foes, unless the change is WvW specific. And if I am correct, they have noted those types of ‘skill splits’ are not likely because of other problems it would create.

 

I’d actually like to see the cooldowns increased, targets increased and the actual damage from each hit decreased... So, you could truly punish a stacked ball more if they are going to stack,

[Vancho.8750]

I like your idea, something along the lines hit X amount of foes, do a combination of skills or if the target has this and that on them you get to do large amount of damage and that to be put into traits for specific weapons like for example ele staff, so if you are smacking less targets you don't get the bonus, they have something like that in the rework for the Warrior hammer but it still feels off.

[shiri.4257]

> @"Duckota.4769" said:

> > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > Well zerg vs zerg is what the mode is built for; however, it's not often zerg vs zerg but zerg vs much smaller group.

>

> Show me where it is said the game mode is designed specifically for zerg vs zerg, Please and ty.

 

Show me where it said the game mode is designed specifically NOT for zerg vs zerg, please and try.

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

> @"shiri.4257" said:

> > @"Duckota.4769" said:

> > > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > > Well zerg vs zerg is what the mode is built for; however, it's not often zerg vs zerg but zerg vs much smaller group.

> >

> > Show me where it is said the game mode is designed specifically for zerg vs zerg, Please and ty.

>

> Show me where it said the game mode is designed specifically NOT for zerg vs zerg, please and try.

 

This reminds me of DnD rulings...RAW (Rules as Written) vs RAI (Rules as Intended). Iirc there was a post in the old forums that a dev (maybe it was a twitch conference video thingy) that It was meant for any # of forces vs any other # of forces, whether its 1v1, 2v1, 7v9, 20v30.....etc. Theres nothing that states its NOT meant for ZvZ, nor is there anything written that states otherwise. If there was an issue, dev's would limit party sizes an dno one would be able to go solo.

 

Taking structures and fights ranging from 1v1 to 50v50, imo, is the intention of WvW as a whole. How you take them and how you fight is up to the players, else there would be more restrictions.

 

Just my2 cents

[Vancho.8750]

If there was incentive that people would split in smaller groups then converge at something in a big battle that would be interesting, as it is now its no better then PVE farm train, flip a castle fight the enemy zerg in a pirate ship, one folds at some point, repeat pve farm. When they released the warclaw in all the chaos people actually tried to defend objectives, there was actual fights between people and now that everyone got their warclaw we are back to the same old pve train. You can't deny that WvW has a lot of down time between fights with the mount you get more then before, but it is still not enough. In SPVP when you get stomped in teamfight, cause the other team is better suited for it, you go for sides where you push the other team to split up but in WvW i don't seem to see any of that. I think that with the warclaw the devs added the pull ability so smaller groups can take objectives easier, but its hard to change the status quo. Also there is no much incentive to win.

[shiri.4257]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> If there was incentive that people would split in smaller groups then converge at something in a big battle that would be interesting, as it is now its no better then PVE farm train, flip a castle fight the enemy zerg in a pirate ship, one folds at some point, repeat pve farm. When they released the warclaw in all the chaos people actually tried to defend objectives, there was actual fights between people and now that everyone got their warclaw we are back to the same old pve train. You can't deny that WvW has a lot of down time between fights with the mount you get more then before, but it is still not enough. In SPVP when you get stomped in teamfight, cause the other team is better suited for it, you go for sides where you push the other team to split up but in WvW i don't seem to see any of that. I think that with the warclaw the devs added the pull ability so smaller groups can take objectives easier, but its hard to change the status quo. Also there is no much incentive to win.

 

it is actually more effective to run 2 guild groups vs 1 omniblob. nuthugging is the actual meta, not omniblob. the issue is finding 2 guild groups that are competent fighters and not just 2 rando groups.

[trueanimus.4085]

I love it... if you are in world vs world.. you should be fighting WORLD vs WORLD.. not single player vs a group of gank roamers.

 

The fact that a single player can actually run back to a big fight without being downed by a few burst roamers (or a single power burst player) that pops out of stealth and suddenly kills you in 1 or two shots before you can react, make the game actually playable again.

 

I never understood how a tank, could be downed almost instantly by someone from stealth....

 

If you have stealth you should NOT be allowed to have that much burst damage... no class should be able to instantly down a tank build... since the stealther ALREADY has an advantage and can instantly disengage and run away.

 

Kudos on the mounts Anet.. nicely done... HOWEVER... i would like to see more variations... for example.. i would love to see a giant spider mount... or actual cat mounts or anything besides the cat in the Kabuki looking armor.. btw.. the new skins are a good start... but there needs to be more to add diversity.

[Duckota.4769]

> @"shiri.4257" said:

> > @"Duckota.4769" said:

> > > @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > > Well zerg vs zerg is what the mode is built for; however, it's not often zerg vs zerg but zerg vs much smaller group.

> >

> > Show me where it is said the game mode is designed specifically for zerg vs zerg, Please and ty.

>

> Show me where it said the game mode is designed specifically NOT for zerg vs zerg, please and try.

 

?????????????????????????????????? Lmao what. I don't think you understand how this works.

[trixantea.1230]

WvW is More like zergling(s) vs zeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerg. Even the server population isn't balanced.

[tobin.6754]

> @"trueanimus.4085" said:

> I love it... if you are in world vs world.. you should be fighting WORLD vs WORLD.. not single player vs a group of gank roamers.

>

> The fact that a single player can actually run back to a big fight without being downed by a few burst roamers (or a single power burst player) that pops out of stealth and suddenly kills you in 1 or two shots before you can react, make the game actually playable again.

>

> I never understood how a tank, could be downed almost instantly by someone from stealth....

>

> If you have stealth you should NOT be allowed to have that much burst damage... no class should be able to instantly down a tank build... since the stealther ALREADY has an advantage and can instantly disengage and run away.

>

> Kudos on the mounts Anet.. nicely done... HOWEVER... i would like to see more variations... for example.. i would love to see a giant spider mount... or actual cat mounts or anything besides the cat in the Kabuki looking armor.. btw.. the new skins are a good start... but there needs to be more to add diversity.

 

If you get caught alone on your meta zerg class, you deserved to die to a duelist build. Also, please show me a build that can 1 shot a minstrel guard from stealth.

 

Learn to play the game, WvW includes duelers, gankers, roamers, havoc group, not just zergs. It's open world pvp, people get to play whatever they want, not just your prefer style.

 

I don't even know why i bother, all these people seem to care about is how to "efficiently" getting back to donating bags for the other side.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> Ok the why not have multiple 15 to 20 man squads battling over the whole map instead of the mega blob vs mega blob server crash galore on 3 meters of dirt.

 

Because the game design allows players to do whatever they want to do. Also, map caps allow (probably close to) 100 players per side, per map, to duke it out in a mode made primarily for MASSIVE battles... Please familiarize yourself with the following...

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World

 

"The inspiration for World versus World came from Dark Age of Camelot's realm vs. realm battles."

 

 

 

Honestly, your complaint that "zergs are ruining WvW" would be like me playing something like EvE Online and complaining on the forums that enemy ships are flying around trying to kill me and steal my loot...

[Trajan.4953]

Okay I got to say, I drove tonight and I haven't in a while. With or without war claw things felt pretty much the same. The tactics haven't changed you pirate ship for a bit you bait the bomb sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. It's just a little bit faster and a bit easier to get back to the fight. If you're complaining about this I don't know what to tell you.

[Vancho.8750]

Ok if you think that the mode is fine as is take in consideration why people don't enjoy the mode https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/71825/hey-non-wvwers-what-turns-you-off-about-wvw/p2 , there are some opinions that are subjective but most hit the right issues.

I have another suggestion about how castles work, lets say that the 5 minutes invulnerability of the boss is removed and instead the npc is scaled so much it destroys large groups for these 5 minutes, then its power is reduced and it is still strong enough to hold out but it has to be supported by the camps, so if the resources decline so the power of the castle and npcs inside.

[spectrito.8513]

> @"Trajan.4953" said:

> Okay I got to say, I drove tonight and I haven't in a while. With or without war claw things felt pretty much the same. The tactics haven't changed you pirate ship for a bit you bait the bomb sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. It's just a little bit faster and a bit easier to get back to the fight. If you're complaining about this I don't know what to tell you.

 

Zergs are pretty much the same.

Most of complaints comes from roamers, warclaw completely screws with roaming

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Vancho.8750" said:

> Zergs are the thing to do in WvW but it might be the thing that is destroying the mode.The main issue for me is that you can't counter giant blob of people for that you need a bigger blob and at the end it devolves into a PVE loot train of flipping castles instead of pvp. And another issue is that you dont get any advantage at defending a castle the walls there are a death trap, scourge just put shades on it and you cant step on them. So there isn't much point in defending you just start siege when they take it and you are in when the 5 minutes are up and you flip it. The siege mechanics the walls the doors the useless traps all feel week. The people whine that there is skill lag well the server probably can't handle 500 people on the same small spot spamming AOE people clutter on top of each other, maybe if they had collision 1 space 1 person it would strain the server less. People abandon the mode of boredom cause the zergs ruin it, 49 people follow one dorito to stoke its ego. The whole thing needs rework cause many games at the moment are being developed with the same mode in mind Mount and Blade, Kamelot unchained, Crowfall, Ashes of creation and what ever you could find with google, this could be the next BR craze or just a niche thing but the point is that Guild wars has so much potential to be so much more.

 

This has been the case since WvW existed, so it's not a problem now if it wasn't a problem before. Frankly, you don't have to run the zerg if you don't want to ... there are lots of openings left for roaming now that all the people that can't adapt to mounts have left.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Trajan.4953" said:

> Okay I got to say, I drove tonight and I haven't in a while. With or without war claw things felt pretty much the same. The tactics haven't changed you pirate ship for a bit you bait the bomb sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. It's just a little bit faster and a bit easier to get back to the fight. If you're complaining about this I don't know what to tell you.

 

Good to see this perspective. I may disagree about the mount, but I am glad it’s not negatively impacting larger scale.