ROR without war

[bloodi]

The 9 target cap has proven already as neither to high nor to low for WAR. I don't know why players start to question that without any reason and evidence/examples (videos, maybe tests with actual data/numbers; but no fairytales/feelings).

I remember the GW2 AOE discussion as the following: The playerbase consisted mainly of people who have been either for or against AOE caps. I can't remember any serious discussion about an AOE cap with a max. value that could fit to the game (maybe that changed though, i don't watch this actively).
Btw: the GW2 AOE cap for player abilities is afaik still 5, which makes a very big difference.

Well, its not players but Aza the one stating the bombing aoe meta going on is going to get nerfed, i think aoe is not at a bad place right now and refer Gw2 as a game where the aoe was heavily neutered and that only benefitted zerging and blobs, because aoe is the only thing that keeps those massive groups in check.

Aoe needs to be strong so zerg busting can exists, at least as long as we have aoe CC being so lackluster the choices for zergbusting are somewhat limited to raw damage morale dumps.

[Azarael]

Well, its not players but Aza the one stating the bombing aoe meta going on is going to get nerfed, i think aoe is not at a bad place right now and refer Gw2 as a game where the aoe was heavily neutered and that only benefitted zerging and blobs, because aoe is the only thing that keeps those massive groups in check.

Aoe needs to be strong so zerg busting can exists, at least as long as we have aoe CC being so lackluster the choices for zergbusting are somewhat limited to raw damage morale dumps.

I actually explicitly stated that anything we do against bombing will not involve nerfing the act of bombing directly, but will involve changing battlefield mechanics and conditions to devalue this linear game style.

[Scrilian]

So, ladies and gentlemen, in the OP we were visited by the holy ghost of russian destro right from 2009 EA-Russia fantasy land, that told us the story of the evil and clueless Order-biased admin who's always up for no good with overpowered order classes and obvious destro hate, while his trusted 6man-peasants are here to nerf the beloved aoe, just because they are too lazy and stupid to form the warband.
Knowing my comrades well, I'd say these are the stories they often tell themselves why some things didn't go the way they wanted

[footpatrol2]

So I guess the AoE nerf back in the day wasn't good enough? Btw I didn't read this entire thread only the first like page.

[th3gatekeeper]

Well, its not players but Aza the one stating the bombing aoe meta going on is going to get nerfed, i think aoe is not at a bad place right now and refer Gw2 as a game where the aoe was heavily neutered and that only benefitted zerging and blobs, because aoe is the only thing that keeps those massive groups in check.

Aoe needs to be strong so zerg busting can exists, at least as long as we have aoe CC being so lackluster the choices for zergbusting are somewhat limited to raw damage morale dumps.

I actually explicitly stated that anything we do against bombing will not involve nerfing the act of bombing directly, but will involve changing battlefield mechanics and conditions to devalue this linear game style.

Dang Az, you beat me to posting this! Reading the post and was about to say what you said HAHA!

I am 100% behind you guys as I think MOST of the population are, with the exception of a handful of "LIVE" guys who SEEM TO ME to just want to relive glory days and changes from live are "bad".

Ive been trying to follow what youve been posting about changes (and even adding suggestions in various threads about this) and I REALLY hop you guys come up with something good. I HATE the "zerg" mentality and that seems to be a huge focus of the game.

Me and my friends actively try to seek out AAO with our small party because thats more fun for us, but SO many people seem to just want to zerg BOs all the time.

I would LOVE a system that forces a warband to try and hold points, split up their forces, and play with strategy. I think you have probably already formulated an opinion/plan around this so just for sheer sake of getting it off my chest ill add some stuff that has come up in other threads discussing this.


RvR often starts with a small group, capping a BO or two before things grow from there. We are seeing the negative impact of NOT having RvR lately, I used to think making RvR less frequent and requiring more organization to start was a good thing, after seeing the loss of population and discussions with others, I dont know if I hold that anymore.

So I dont think it makes sense to remove rewards for the small WB/group that "gets RvR going" if this makes sense, but there does need to be a change that forces players to not zerg one BO, sit for 3 minutes nearly AFK or alt tabbed out of the game, to then zerg to another BO.

However, I dont know if its wise to allow ZERO "locking" otherwise its too easy to defend and too hard to "attack a keep".

We also have the liability of not offering good enough rewards for small groups who do try and defend against a big WB (this is where I think AAOs benefits should apply to BO takes).

So those are some of the issues that I think need to be looked at to avoid zerging. YOu need to give incentive for defense, without requiring to defend an ENTIRE zone because it would be too hard.... Needs to deter the big zerg somehow, give benefits for coordiated small groups to cap things, and I think one of the CORE factors to all of this, would be rewards need to be provided to anyone in the zone, regardless of location. Otherwise those defending a BO across the map wont get the benefit of kills when attacking the keep or vice versa.

Just a few thoughts.

[Marsares]

The 9 target cap has proven already as neither to high nor to low for WAR. I don't know why players start to question that without any reason and evidence/examples (videos, maybe tests with actual data/numbers; but no fairytales/feelings).

I remember the GW2 AOE discussion as the following: The playerbase consisted mainly of people who have been either for or against AOE caps. I can't remember any serious discussion about an AOE cap with a max. value that could fit to the game (maybe that changed though, i don't watch this actively).
Btw: the GW2 AOE cap for player abilities is afaik still 5, which makes a very big difference.

Well, its not players but Aza the one stating the bombing aoe meta going on is going to get nerfed, i think aoe is not at a bad place right now and refer Gw2 as a game where the aoe was heavily neutered and that only benefitted zerging and blobs, because aoe is the only thing that keeps those massive groups in check.

Aoe needs to be strong so zerg busting can exists, at least as long as we have aoe CC being so lackluster the choices for zergbusting are somewhat limited to raw damage morale dumps.

When will people learn to read? He never said such a thing, quite the opposite actually. Plus AOE is not the "only thing" that keeps massive groups in check. Think outside of the box, please.

There is such a lot of fear, hear'say, myth and lack of reading comprehension... the mind boggles. Can people please make an effort to read and get up to speed with what the Devs are saying before they put words into their mouths and spread a lot of misinformation?

[Faef]

Well, its not players but Aza the one stating the bombing aoe meta going on is going to get nerfed, i think aoe is not at a bad place right now and refer Gw2 as a game where the aoe was heavily neutered and that only benefitted zerging and blobs, because aoe is the only thing that keeps those massive groups in check.

Aoe needs to be strong so zerg busting can exists, at least as long as we have aoe CC being so lackluster the choices for zergbusting are somewhat limited to raw damage morale dumps.

I actually explicitly stated that anything we do against bombing will not involve nerfing the act of bombing directly, but will involve changing battlefield mechanics and conditions to devalue this linear game style.

Dang Az, you beat me to posting this! Reading the post and was about to say what you said HAHA!

I am 100% behind you guys as I think MOST of the population are, with the exception of a handful of "LIVE" guys who SEEM TO ME to just want to relive glory days and changes from live are "bad".

Ive been trying to follow what youve been posting about changes (and even adding suggestions in various threads about this) and I REALLY hop you guys come up with something good. I HATE the "zerg" mentality and that seems to be a huge focus of the game.

Me and my friends actively try to seek out AAO with our small party because thats more fun for us, but SO many people seem to just want to zerg BOs all the time.

I would LOVE a system that forces a warband to try and hold points, split up their forces, and play with strategy. I think you have probably already formulated an opinion/plan around this so just for sheer sake of getting it off my chest ill add some stuff that has come up in other threads discussing this.


RvR often starts with a small group, capping a BO or two before things grow from there. We are seeing the negative impact of NOT having RvR lately, I used to think making RvR less frequent and requiring more organization to start was a good thing, after seeing the loss of population and discussions with others, I dont know if I hold that anymore.

So I dont think it makes sense to remove rewards for the small WB/group that "gets RvR going" if this makes sense, but there does need to be a change that forces players to not zerg one BO, sit for 3 minutes nearly AFK or alt tabbed out of the game, to then zerg to another BO.

However, I dont know if its wise to allow ZERO "locking" otherwise its too easy to defend and too hard to "attack a keep".

We also have the liability of not offering good enough rewards for small groups who do try and defend against a big WB (this is where I think AAOs benefits should apply to BO takes).

So those are some of the issues that I think need to be looked at to avoid zerging. YOu need to give incentive for defense, without requiring to defend an ENTIRE zone because it would be too hard.... Needs to deter the big zerg somehow, give benefits for coordiated small groups to cap things, and I think one of the CORE factors to all of this, would be rewards need to be provided to anyone in the zone, regardless of location. Otherwise those defending a BO across the map wont get the benefit of kills when attacking the keep or vice versa.

Just a few thoughts.

I think a change to the zone locking mechanic could work. Have victory points accumulate over time by capturing and holding a bo. Encourages an active continous defence of all areas, leading to more tactics. Maybe get to a certain VP level unlocks a keep for a period of tim

[Qwack]

Porn Factory..."But bombsquads always were the core and the kings of open realm war."

One of the most powerful groups I ever ran with also took the least skill. In the very early days of Badlands we used to run 2 BWs, 2 IBs, 2 WPS. This Bomb group would easily wipe entire WBs over and over and over... all day long. It wiped WBs much faster than any group I ever ran with, even faster than double slayer groups. This was of course in the days when BW bombers were extreme and IBs had rotating Grom Plating. Pushing 1 or 2 keys to kill 20+ people is LAME.

Single target killing takes coordination both in communicating and everyone hitting a multitude of keys in synch. Hence, it takes skill to do it effectively.

Players that want to kill entire WBs at the push of a button are feeble.

[footpatrol2]

Single target killing takes coordination both in communicating and everyone hitting a multitude of keys in synch. Hence, it takes skill to do it effectively.

It just takes a little bit of practice and also isn't that hard to do either.

The problem is your fighting oppositions that don't have a lot of coordination/organization/lack of comms/nor thought in their group compositions while you do, Bombing or single target assist. Thats the thing that makes the biggest difference.

[peterthepan3]

Single target killing takes coordination both in communicating and everyone hitting a multitude of keys in synch. Hence, it takes skill to do it effectively.

It just takes a little bit of practice and also isn't that hard to do either.

The problem is your fighting oppositions that don't have a lot of coordination/organization/lack of comms/nor thought in their group compositions while you do, Bombing or single target assist. Thats the thing that makes the biggest difference.

It isn't that hard, but it is still harder than mindlessly spamming abilities without having to target anyone - yet still maintaining a high degree of effectiveness.