Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * - - 6 votes

cPvP: Coalescing for competitive PVP


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#1 eviator

eviator

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 447 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:12 AM

So many folks debate how sPvP is simply unfit for competitive play. Other topics simply trash the game saying why it cannot be competitive or e-sport worthy. Many arguments surround the RNG, but it also includes things like skill and profession balance. Let's take a step back and consider the solutions, not the problems.

In the FPS genre games are released to suit the general public, and afterward the competitive community coalesces to put together an agreed upon set of rules and requirements. These lead to an off-shoot of the original game that is more fit for competitive play, such as restricting weapons, classes, and changing mechanics like recoil, damage, and time to aim-down-sights. The off-shoot feels nothing like the original game, and that's how they prefer it because the differences emphasize skill. I'm not advocating that GW2 adopt similar rules and mechanics as FPS games, just that the competitive GW2 crowd follow the same path toward acheiving a competitive PvP environment, namely coming together to form an agreed upon set of rules and requirements.

If you are really serious about having a competitive PvP mode for Guild Wars 2, I strongly urge you to follow the FPS example, coalesce around the true requirements for competitive play to emphasize skill, draft up something official, and submit it to Arena Net with some big names to back it up.

Please feel free to use this topic as a place to constructively brainstorm ideas for the requirements and a course of action to get ArenaNet to give credence to your cPvP mode (assuming this topic isn't locked on a whim). Everyone keep in mind that I am advocating a completely new and separate PvP mode, so these ideas would have no impact on the existing sPvP and tPvP modes. If you don't have experience with or ability to compete in competitive PvP, this topic will probably not benefit from your input.

The rest of this post is a recap of the discussions below, hopefully to help keep the topics easy to reference. I will try to keep it up to date.

General:
  • Is there an appropriate governing body to oversee competitive PvP rulemaking? (Post 6, 43)
  • The term "Skill" should be well defined to guide discussion of requirements that emphasize skill. (Post 4, 7, 9)
  • There should be tPvP modes that allow teams to "scrim" using cPvP rules (Post 3, 7, 40)
  • E-sports need spectator mode (Post 36, 64)
  • The competitive community should develop rules that fit within the current sytem, not set out to convince AN to create a new PvP mode (Post 40)
  • GW2 may be very close to competitive as-is (Post 64)
  • Rented servers (Post 64)
Gameplay:
  • Should traits, gear, and skills be changeable during a round? (Post 3, 4, 5, 9-22, 24-25)
  • Elimination of the downed state (Post 23, 26-29)
  • RNG crit chance (Post 38, 46, 48, 50-57)
  • RNG chance to proc traits or gear (Post 38, 44, 46, 56-57)
  • RNG skill effects (Post 38, 46, 54-56, 64-65)
  • Visual indicators for upcoming procs (Post 58-62)
  • More interesting skills (Post 63, 66-67)
Scoring:
  • Implementing a variety of kill streak bonuses (Post 23, 26)
  • NPC sniping (Post 30-32, 51, 64)
Up to date as of post 67.

Edited by eviator, 07 July 2012 - 11:13 PM.


#2 Plutonsvea

Plutonsvea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • Curse Premium
  • 270 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:27 AM

I'm pretty disappointed that their is no competitiveness for PvP.
But hey, i get to train my tactics, and kill people.
Nothing to complain about. :D.

#3 eviator

eviator

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 447 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:56 AM

Let me get things started.

Rule Proposal 1: No trait changes during a round, even when in a spawn zone.

I've read how changing traits while out of combat in sPvP turns the game into "build wars", so cPvP would not allow this.

Concept Proposal 1: A separate tPvP mode that allows teams to "scrim" using cPvP rules.

Competitive teams need practice outside of e-sports, and this is how they can do it.

Edited by eviator, 05 July 2012 - 09:03 AM.


#4 Tomalak2

Tomalak2

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 181 posts
  • Guild Tag:[SFRJ]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:02 AM

View Posteviator, on 05 July 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Let me get things started.

Rule Proposal 1: No trait changes during a round, even when in a spawn zone.

I've read how changing traits while out of combat in sPvP turns the game into "build wars", so cPvP would not allow this.

I really disagree with this. MMOs are not the same as FPSs and part of what's considered "skill" in this genre is and should be knowledge about your class, which includes choosing the right build. In my opinion competitive PvP has to include possibility of modifying your build (utilities/major traits) depending on the team composition of the opposing team.

If you cant, then instead of build wars, you have a simple lottery where team composition will give advantage to one side from the beginning.

MMOs are simply not the same as FPS and shouldn't be treated as such, IMO.

Edited by Tomalak2, 05 July 2012 - 09:03 AM.


#5 Leeto

Leeto

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 591 posts
  • Location:Lemarchand's box
  • Guild Tag:[BONE]
  • Server:Seafarer’s Rest

Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:05 AM

Weapon/Skill switching should be prohibited too in competetive matches. :mellow:

#6 eviator

eviator

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 447 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:14 AM

Already a disagreement on rule 1. No wonder ArenaNet has an uphill battle trying to make the competitive crowd happy.

Perhaps a governing body is needed to oversee the rulemaking. Who would that be? I'm not familiar enough with the competitive MMO genre to know.

View PostTomalak2, on 05 July 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

MMOs are simply not the same as FPS and shouldn't be treated as such, IMO.

Please understand that I'm not advocating that MMOs adopt similar rules as FPS games. I'm advocating that MMOs follow the same path toward acheiving a competitive environment, namely coalescing to determine a set of rules and requirements. I will try to clarify this in my OP.

Edited by eviator, 05 July 2012 - 09:15 AM.


#7 Tomalak2

Tomalak2

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 181 posts
  • Guild Tag:[SFRJ]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:20 AM

View Posteviator, on 05 July 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

Already a disagreement on rule 1. No wonder ArenaNet has an uphill battle trying to make the competitive crowd happy.

Perhaps a governing body is needed to oversee the rulemaking. Who would that be? I'm not familiar enough with the competitive MMO genre to know.

In any argument/discussion the first goal is always to properly define terminology, otherwise different sides won't be able to understand each other and come to an agreement.

In this particular case, it's important to define what exactly "skill" is, in the context of MMO competitive gameplay.

Perhaps the best way would be to have an ability to set certain conditions for individual tPvP servers/games, so that the organizer of a tournament can choose the setup he wants (number of players, build changing, weapon changing) instead of making a one size fits all model in the game.

Btw, this is a good initiative, I simply tried to demonstrate there are different views on the matter.

Edited by Tomalak2, 05 July 2012 - 09:20 AM.


#8 eviator

eviator

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 447 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:25 AM

View PostTomalak2, on 05 July 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

In any argument/discussion the first goal is always to properly define terminology, otherwise different sides won't be able to understand each other and come to an agreement.

In this particular case, it's important to define what exactly "skill" is, in the context of MMO competitive gameplay.

Perhaps the best way would be to have an ability to set certain conditions for individual tPvP servers/games, so that the organizer of a tournament can choose the setup he wants (number of players, build changing, weapon changing) instead of making a one size fits all model in the game.

Btw, this is a good initiative, I simply tried to demonstrate there are different views on the matter.

Interesting concepts. I know that different sanctioned tournaments have different rules and setups, so custom variables could really allow teams to specialize in the setups in which they excel.

#9 Radiea

Radiea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:25 AM

Keeping trait choices and weapon sets a constant through a matches is a precedent set by every other genre (you don't get to change masteries midgame in LoL, and of course the FPS references), and even GW1. Guild Wars 1 PvP locked your armor set and weapon sets while in a match. It posed too many problems otherwise, and it reduces interesting dilemmas (I want focus on my mesmer for skirmishes between points and running in general, but I want pistol or torch or something while fighting on-point. What should I pick?). In fact, I would say limiting weapons increases the need to know a weapon set in and out.

EDIT: It is true we need to define what types of 'skill' we want to encourage.

EDITEDIT: To further refine the 'skill' point - when designing a game, a developer often has essentially full reign as to what he wants to reward and achieve. Therefore, it's really quite a fluid thing and if ANet chooses to, can be changed.

Edited by Radiea, 05 July 2012 - 09:46 AM.


#10 Elemental Gearbolt

Elemental Gearbolt

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1756 posts
  • Guild Tag:[SoW]
  • Server:Anvil Rock

Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:56 AM

Against people who say changing traits or skills should be proihibited during a match, I'd like to remind that in a normal sport a team is allowed to change tactics and players and is up to you to adapt to the new changes, after all a new set of skills won't transform a bad player in a good one hence any complaint is unjustified and only fueled by the old rock-paper-scissor mentality, the time spent arguing against the system should be spent training the mind to adapt more quickly to the ever changing dynamic environment

#11 Radiea

Radiea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:08 AM

View PostElemental Gearbolt, on 05 July 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Against people who say changing traits or skills should be proihibited during a match, I'd like to remind that in a normal sport a team is allowed to change tactics and players and is up to you to adapt to the new changes, after all a new set of skills won't transform a bad player in a good one hence any complaint is unjustified and only fueled by the old rock-paper-scissor mentality, the time spent arguing against the system should be spent training the mind to adapt more quickly to the ever changing dynamic environment

The issue here is not that being able to inventory-swap is inherently bad, it is that - because limiting options actually creates more real choices and dilemmas, and thus promotes more interesting, dynamic gameplay - it seems to be worse than not restricting inventory swaps. Not only this - you get to see when a player gets swapped out in sports. You don't get to see this in sPvP. This might be remedied if everybody's traits and skills are known to everybody else beforehand, you could call a limited amount of timeouts where everyone is allowed to switch traits and skills (and then these changed traits and skills are again shown to all players). I would still be leery of it, but it is not unthinkable.

Rock-paper-scissors has no place in this discussion. It is a shame that RPGs are so behind the curve when it comes to competition, and framing the other side as 'lol nubs can't l2p' hurts your cause.

#12 The Eggman

The Eggman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1159 posts
  • Location:TARDIS
  • Guild Tag:[MBDf]

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:08 AM

View PostRadiea, on 05 July 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

Keeping trait choices and weapon sets a constant through a matches is a precedent set by every other genre (you don't get to change masteries midgame in LoL, and of course the FPS references), and even GW1. Guild Wars 1 PvP locked your armor set and weapon sets while in a match. It posed too many problems otherwise, and it reduces interesting dilemmas (I want focus on my mesmer for skirmishes between points and running in general, but I want pistol or torch or something while fighting on-point. What should I pick?). In fact, I would say limiting weapons increases the need to know a weapon set in and out.


I would say changing major traits would be close to masteries in LoL... but changing utilities? Again using LoL as an comparison, I think changing utilities skill mid-match would be closer to selling an item and buying a new one. While the LoL version does come with a drawback (loss in gold), I still feel this is a better comparison. The drawback in GW2 would be you might not be able to buff said utility with a trait.

#13 Radiea

Radiea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:18 AM

View PostThe Eggman, on 05 July 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

I would say changing major traits would be close to masteries in LoL... but changing utilities? Again using LoL as an comparison, I think changing utilities skill mid-match would be closer to selling an item and buying a new one. While the LoL version does come with a drawback (loss in gold), I still feel this is a better comparison. The drawback in GW2 would be you might not be able to buff said utility with a trait.

While I see your point, I think it's simply unnecessary. Changing weapons and elites is far bigger of a thing, though. Keeping the same utilities keeps player interactions consistent and makes the tools players can have relatively predictable. If the tools are interesting enough, there should be no need to swap them mid-match, and allowing for swaps decreases skill cap because often we can simply bring the best of both worlds.

Like, what if you compare them to summoner spells? Being able to change them midgame would reduce complexity of strategy.

Edited by Radiea, 05 July 2012 - 10:22 AM.


#14 Claduseiji

Claduseiji

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:22 AM

View PostTomalak2, on 05 July 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

I really disagree with this. MMOs are not the same as FPSs and part of what's considered "skill" in this genre is and should be knowledge about your class, which includes choosing the right build. In my opinion competitive PvP has to include possibility of modifying your build (utilities/major traits) depending on the team composition of the opposing team.

If you cant, then instead of build wars, you have a simple lottery where team composition will give advantage to one side from the beginning.

MMOs are simply not the same as FPS and shouldn't be treated as such, IMO.

Completely agree with this. Choosing the right build for the situation also reflects the amount of skill a player has, why take it away?

#15 The Eggman

The Eggman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1159 posts
  • Location:TARDIS
  • Guild Tag:[MBDf]

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:28 AM

View PostRadiea, on 05 July 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

While I see your point, I think it's simply unnecessary. Changing weapons and elites is far bigger of a thing, though. Keeping the same utilities keeps player interactions consistent and makes the tools players can have relatively predictable. If the tools are interesting enough, there should be no need to swap them mid-match, and allowing for swaps decreases skill cap because often we can simply bring the best of both worlds.

Like, what if you compare them to summoner spells? Being able to change them midgame would reduce complexity of strategy.

Ah, ya I guess you are right with that. For some reason summoner skills had slipped my mind, that is a better comparison. Consider my opinion changed on the matter.

My question for you, and others, then would be, are you against being able to change these things in the before match time or just after the match as begun? (where everyone has to hit "i am ready" before it begins and you can see what classes are on the other team.)

Edited by The Eggman, 05 July 2012 - 10:28 AM.


#16 Radiea

Radiea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:31 AM

View PostCladuseiji, on 05 July 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

Completely agree with this. Choosing the right build for the situation also reflects the amount of skill a player has, why take it away?

The issue is - if we actually get a competitive game where buildwars is not a real issue, where individual builds are flexible and not obviously superior to any other, where each build is not anywhere near a hard counter to another - then restricting players by locking builds in actually fosters more interesting play.

If it is a game where buildwars is an issue and individual builds are inflexible, then yes, switching builds might be needed for balance. But it would not be a good competitive game anyway.


View PostThe Eggman, on 05 July 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

My question for you, and others, then would be, are you against being able to change these things in the before match time or just after the match as begun? (where everyone has to hit "i am ready" before it begins and you can see what classes are on the other team.)

I'm all for changing it before the match starts. In fact, I think it is best you should know beforehand what professions you might be facing, similar to how all tournaments in LoL would have both teams draft champions, to how RTS players know what race their opponents play.

#17 Timid

Timid

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:32 AM

It seems like the question of trait switching comes down to whether the community considers it a skill in itself. This doesn't seem entirely clear cut to me, since an argument could be made that it is functionally no different than weapon swapping. While weapon swapping is a mechanic more neatly integrated into gameplay (trait and utility swapping is fairly clunky by comparison), I'm not sure it's anything but an arbitrary line to draw, i.e. this is intended complexity and that is not. If the game allows it, surely that places it in-bounds to some degree.

It may be helpful to consider whether it really adds anything of value to the competitors and the viewers. It definitely increases the complexity, but I'm tempted to conclude that it does not do so in any way that's particularly graceful at the moment. This is, however, a limitation imposed by the mechanics of trait and utility swapping, such that anyone who wanted to take advantage of a respec would have to fumble with the UI to do so. If, in the future, trait/utility presets could be made, how would that change the dynamic?

I think it could make games hopeless complex (e.g. rather than going up against a particular spec, you are potentially going up against every possible spec), but also introduce a strategic element that could deepen gameplay for the highest level of competition. That highest tier would probably be able to capitalize on their expansive knowledge of the game to make snap respec decisions that could lead to some interesting matches, but as a consequence, I think it could widen the gap between the best and the second best.

Afterthought: it occurs to me that the most compelling argument against allowing it mid-game is that it seems to devalue decisions made pregame. In other words, if you can just respec on-the-fly, your initial build seems to matter less. That said, respec could/should/does carry some opportunity cost, so that laziness in the pregame could not be simply made up for during the game without some loss of efficiency or efficacy.

Edited by Timid, 05 July 2012 - 10:36 AM.


#18 Radiea

Radiea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:35 AM

View PostTimid, on 05 July 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

I think it could make games hopeless complex (e.g. rather than going up against a particular spec, you are potentially going up against every possible spec), but also introduce a strategic element that could deepen gameplay for the highest level of competition. That highest tier would probably be able to capitalize on their expansive knowledge of the game to make snap respec decisions that could lead to some interesting matches, but as a consequence, I think it could widen the gap between the best and the second best.

On the contrary, I think it simplifies the game. Every spec has strengths and weaknesses, and differs in how they are executed and how they are countered. Letting players change to any spec mid-match actually homogenizes strategies because you now have access to every tool, rather than a chosen subset of tools.

#19 Timid

Timid

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:49 AM

View PostRadiea, on 05 July 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

On the contrary, I think it simplifies the game. Every spec has strengths and weaknesses, and differs in how they are executed and how they are countered. Letting players change to any spec mid-match actually homogenizes strategies because you now have access to every tool, rather than a chosen subset of tools.

I'm tempted to agree, but when I think about the highest level of play, I wonder how easily one could simply respec to counter one's opponent. If we're talking about one trait/utility here or there, it's probably simple enough, but doing a full respec mid-match seems like a dangerous proposition. Any player who can assess their opposition and respec to counter it during the game is clearly using something akin to skill. To make a clumsy parallel, it's like a build switch in StarCraft 2; there are opportunity costs, but it creates depth in the game by requiring players to adapt at the macro (in GW2's case, the strategic) level.

For on-the-fly respecs to work, there would need to be an opportunity cost involved, and I wonder if the fast-paced nature of the game doesn't already impose this. I'm less worried about the simplification of the game as a result of something like this, and more worried about the inevitable arm's race it could trigger: they are running X, so we swap to Y, so they swap to Z. At some point all this trait/utility swapping is going to lose its competitive advantage, i.e. the swapping will end up imposing a higher opportunity cost than the advantage gained by the swap itself, but until then it would just be messy.

Just to clarify: I'm wondering whether the ability to assess what tools are needed on-the-fly could constitute a type of macro skill. If it does, and the opportunity cost for swapping is high enough, the mechanic could end up rewarding those with deep knowledge of the game and introduce a new dimension of play.

Edited by Timid, 05 July 2012 - 10:56 AM.


#20 Radiea

Radiea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:00 AM

View PostTimid, on 05 July 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

I'm tempted to agree, but when I think about the highest level of play, I wonder how easily one could simply respec to counter one's opponent. If we're talking about one trait/utility here or there, it's probably simple enough, but doing a full respec mid-match seems like a dangerous proposition. Any player who can assess their opposition and respec to counter it during the game is clearly using something akin to skill. To make a clumsy parallel, it's like a build switch in StarCraft 2; there are opportunity costs, but it creates depth in the game by requiring players to adapt at the macro (in GW2's case, the strategic) level.

For on-the-fly respecs to work, there would need to be an opportunity cost involved, and I wonder if the fast-paced nature of the game doesn't already impose this. I'm less worried about the simplification of the game as a result of something like this, and more worried about the inevitable arm's race it could trigger: they are running X, so we swap to Y, so they swap to Z. At some point all this trait/utility swapping is going to lose its competitive advantage, i.e. the swapping will end up imposing a higher opportunity cost than the advantage gained by the swap itself, but until then it would just be messy.

Just to clarify: I'm wondering whether the ability to assess what tools are needed on-the-fly could constitute a type of macro skill. If it does, and the opportunity cost for swapping is high enough, the mechanic could end up rewarding those with deep knowledge of the game and introduce a new dimension of play.

I think it would be a respectable solution to the problem that build wars exists.

If build wars doesn't exist, then this should not need to take place. I do think it would constitute a macro skill if it were in the game, but I am inclined to say that the increased variety and complexity from restriction is perhaps superior to this macro skill. Of course, this is only the case if build wars is not a significant issue...which it is, at the moment. But I think moving towards a metagame where build wars is not a significant issue should be one of the goals of PvP development anyway.

#21 Timid

Timid

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:13 AM

I agree. If micro and macro are balanced properly (build wars being a heavy weighting of macro), trait/utility swapping becomes less attractive.

The only compromise that I can think of that balances the relevant interests would be to impose template swapping much like they have done with weapon swapping. A player may swap between two predetermined trait/utility sets, out of combat, and with a significant cooldown. This would not have to be extended to weapons, since a mechanic like that already exists for some profession. This, I think, preserves the importance of pre-game builds, while rewarding players who can adapt to their opponents strategically.

#22 Radiea

Radiea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:16 AM

View PostTimid, on 05 July 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I agree. If micro and macro are balanced properly (build wars being a heavy weighting of macro), trait/utility swapping becomes less attractive.

The only compromise that I can think of that balances the relevant interests would be to impose template swapping much like they have done with weapon swapping. A player may swap between two predetermined trait/utility sets, out of combat, and with a significant cooldown. This would not have to be extended to weapons, since a mechanic like that already exists for some profession. This, I think, preserves the importance of pre-game builds, while rewarding players who can adapt to their opponents strategically.

That sounds quite good, actually, given that we are likely to see reasonably hard counters.

#23 Tikal

Tikal

    Vanguard Scout

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 258 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 12:37 PM

- No gear/weapon/trait/skill switching during a battle, but between battles is oké. In a tournament, you may change your builds between 2 matches, but not during a match. (Ofcourse you still have your switch between weaponsets, except engineers and elementalists ofcourse). It's about making a team with builds with synergie and make the best out of it with play skill... instead of making a counterteam and roflstomp your opponent

- No boring and frustrating downed state that destroys the fast pace of playing (this is actualy my biggest concern as a PvP player)

- Impementation of "killing spree" (killing multiple guys without dying yourself), "shutdown" (kill someone who is on a killing spree), "multi kill" (kill multiple guys in a very short period.. like 2-3sec) and maybe others. It could give extra points for winning the battle. This makes watching e-sports more fun and exciting. I love it while watching League of Legends matches to see a "Penta kill" and then a "Shutdown" .... it makes the spectators wild :D

Edited by Tikal, 05 July 2012 - 12:41 PM.


#24 Draecor

Draecor

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 606 posts
  • Server:Stormbluff Isle

Posted 05 July 2012 - 01:19 PM

View PostCladuseiji, on 05 July 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

Completely agree with this. Choosing the right build for the situation also reflects the amount of skill a player has, why take it away?

Because then everyone can counter everyone, not very intuitive.

#25 Radiea

Radiea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 01:28 PM

View PostTikal, on 05 July 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

- No gear/weapon/trait/skill switching during a battle, but between battles is oké. In a tournament, you may change your builds between 2 matches, but not during a match. (Ofcourse you still have your switch between weaponsets, except engineers and elementalists ofcourse). It's about making a team with builds with synergie and make the best out of it with play skill... instead of making a counterteam and roflstomp your opponent

This is definitely the way to go if they can eliminate buildwars. GW1 had a horrible amount of this, actually. It's more debatable if they aren't going to try to balance out builds.

EDIT: GW1 had unintuitive and clunky shield/helm swapping until devs decided they didn't want it. GW1 also did not have a very good track record on buildwars.

Quote

- No boring and frustrating downed state that destroys the fast pace of playing (this is actualy my biggest concern as a PvP player)

- Impementation of "killing spree" (killing multiple guys without dying yourself), "shutdown" (kill someone who is on a killing spree), "multi kill" (kill multiple guys in a very short period.. like 2-3sec) and maybe others. It could give extra points for winning the battle. This makes watching e-sports more fun and exciting. I love it while watching League of Legends matches to see a "Penta kill" and then a "Shutdown" .... it makes the spectators wild :D

-- We should not award extra points for pulling these off. Maybe a shoutout, but it should not count towards winning. It detracts towards playing around the objective.

View PostDraecor, on 05 July 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Because then everyone can counter everyone, not very intuitive.

That's potentially a very good thing. There are stronger arguments for not allowing build swapping midgame.

Edited by Radiea, 05 July 2012 - 01:34 PM.


#26 Timid

Timid

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 01:37 PM

View PostTikal, on 05 July 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

- No boring and frustrating downed state that destroys the fast pace of playing (this is actualy my biggest concern as a PvP player)

Down state probably isn't going anywhere for the forseeable future, although only ANet knows for certain. I hope it stays, but I won't be heartbroken if they remove it. I see a lot of complaints about it, but I suspect its novelty is largely to blame. I think it adds an additional element to PvP where the mechanics of "killing" another player aren't simply a function of bursting them down to zero. In almost every case where you have legitimately outplayed your opponent, defeating them (i.e. staking/stomping) should be no problem. The fustration seems to lie in the confusion between "downing" a player and "killing" a player; in GW2 they are not synonymous. I much prefer a scenario where people must account for finishing the job, rather than simply charging in, blowing up an opposing player and escaping.

That said, down state skills must be properly balance for the system to work.

View PostTikal, on 05 July 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

- Impementation of "killing spree" (killing multiple guys without dying yourself), "shutdown" (kill someone who is on a killing spree), "multi kill" (kill multiple guys in a very short period.. like 2-3sec) and maybe others. It could give extra points for winning the battle. This makes watching e-sports more fun and exciting. I love it while watching League of Legends matches to see a "Penta kill" and then a "Shutdown" .... it makes the spectators wild :D

With down state in place, this could be interesting provided it did not award points. Without down state, I would prefer not to see it implemented. Competitive PvP is at its best when it is strategic and tactical, and not simply a killing field. For that we have WvWvW. Without down state and with rewards for killing sprees, there could be a shift towards overly offensive builds built purely to mow down the opposing team. While games should be more offensive than defensive, killing an opposing player already carries sufficient incentive. As a viewer, I find the back and forth more interesting than the steamroll.

Edited by Timid, 05 July 2012 - 01:52 PM.


#27 Radiea

Radiea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 02:03 PM

View PostTimid, on 05 July 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Down state probably isn't going anywhere for the forseeable future, although only ANet knows for certain. I hope it stays, but I won't be heartbroken if they remove it. I see a lot of complaints about it, but I suspect its novelty is largely to blame. I think it adds an additional element to PvP where the mechanics of "killing" another player aren't simply a function of bursting them down to zero. In almost every case where you have legitimately outplayed your opponent, defeating them (i.e. staking/stomping) should be no problem. The fustration seems to lie in the confusion between "downing" a player and "killing" a player; in GW2 they are not synonymous. I much prefer a scenario where people must account for finishing the job, rather than simply charging in, blowing up an opposing player and escaping.

I think in fact the whole downed state is to account for no healers - it's a nifty way to solve one of the largest problems that occurs when there are no healers - how do you make it so that coordinated spikes aren't horribly overpowering?

#28 Timid

Timid

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 02:09 PM

View PostRadiea, on 05 July 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

I think in fact the whole downed state is to account for no healers - it's a nifty way to solve one of the largest problems that occurs when there are no healers - how do you make it so that coordinated spikes aren't horribly overpowering?

Exactly my thoughts. A clever solution to prevent burst from being king without encouraging turtling; burst is still good, but you won't be rewarded if you can't follow through.

#29 Radiea

Radiea

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 338 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 02:44 PM

In a way, a lot of the design concepts around sPvP is forced around no healing.

No healers and no energy means that long-term attrition a la flagstand battles in GW1 becomes fundamentally difficult to sustain. As such, we have conquest/domination, as this game mode encourages splitting up and threatening every location, forcing short fights that don't stay in one location long. The change from stationary casting to being able to move while casting encourages moving, which further reinforces this. The downed state, too, as mentioned above. I could probably think of more if given more time.

#30 eviator

eviator

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 447 posts

Posted 05 July 2012 - 05:53 PM

How about NPC sniping. Here are some different ways to handle it specifically for competitive PvP:
  • It's fine just the way it is.
  • NPCs should be removed.
  • Killing a NPC shouldn't give many points so that if "your" NPC is sniped it doesn't automatically translate to a win for the other team.
  • Points for killing a NPC should be fairly distrubuted to the teams based upon how much damage each team did to the NPC.
  • Changing the timing of the spawning of the NPCs will fix NPC sniping.
What do you think? How would competitive PvP handle NPC sniping so that skill is emphasized?

Edited by eviator, 05 July 2012 - 05:57 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users