23 replies to this topic

[magisterludi1st]

Hi , guys
What  do  you  think  about introducing the next modes IN PVP :
1 . Deathmatch/Free for All
2 . Team deathmatch
3 . King of the Hill
Map : Claw Island
I know they're FPS based , but I think would be great in GW 2
Thank you .

[SevereEpicz]

I'd be happy with any other game type, as long as there is another game type

[cookieeater1]

magisterludi1st, on 28 December 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Hi , guys
What  do  you  think  about introducing the next modes IN PVP :
1 . Deathmatch/Free for All
2 . Team deathmatch
3 . King of the Hill
Map : Claw Island
I know they're FPS based , but I think would be great in GW 2
Thank you .

1. More thieves probably
2. Same as above
3. Only if they change the way capping works otherwise even more bunkers

[Bond]

I would like some arena themed team games. I don't know what's it called in fps's. But something like, 2 teams, fighting each other till death, untill there is only 1 team left, that team wins a round. At the end, team with the most rounds, (Or set amount of rounds) wins..

Also, I'd like some objective based pvp.

If you've played it, kind of like that chivalry game. That did game modes pretty good.

[Perm Shadow Form]

WvWvW like game mode where everyone fights for himself.
Like the wilds in runescape in old times.

[Gilles VI]

magisterludi1st, on 28 December 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Hi , guys
What  do  you  think  about introducing the next modes IN PVP :
1 . Deathmatch/Free for All
2 . Team deathmatch
3 . King of the Hill
Map : Claw Island
I know they're FPS based , but I think would be great in GW 2
Thank you .

1. The game isn't balanced around 1v1, so it would be kinda boring seeing matches full of thieves/warriors.
2. I would like this, although I would like some extra stuff, maybe more like GvG/HA in GW1.
With catapults, guild lords, bridges, portals,... To ensure there is some tension because of splits, ganking,...
3. King of the hill sounds cool, but again with extra effects.

[Jump_N_Move]

Anything not Conquest.

I don't understand why they don't just throw in a pvp testing grounds and just roll out ideas en masse and see how people react. Don't give any glory or anything, just a separate browsing menu for game types under development, and see what happens. What do they have to lose? There is no downside to providing more content. You can't make the pvp worse by attempting to add in game types.

Capture the flag: Already done with wintersday. Change the present to a flag, Done. This format is basically the same for neutral flag, 1 flag, neutral bomb, and 1 bomb, just more tweaking in the initial setup.
TDM: Pretty simple, Even has several variations: Respawn (with/out priest rez) and no-respawn. For both, you'll likely need some shrines that gives health/off/def/boons to reduce degenerate gameplay like pure defense and running and to provide tactical map points.
King of the Hill: Also done. Just remove two capture points from every map available. Though short map versions would be better. KoH Is best when its a small map of frenzy.

You can pretty much replicate ANY FPS game type in this game with ease. Hell, Halo 4 is just one step away from being an MMO. Guns=weapons, Abilities=support/utility spells, grenades=aoe, Ability effects=runes/traits, Rank=level. I take that back. Halo4 is an MMO. Its just first person, and GW2 is Third Person. The only things lacking are boon/conditions and some differences in armor stats (light,med,heavy).

--Rant section
If you're going to make the release game be a beta-testing ground, at least don't be afraid to go all in and try new things. Since sPvp is already in its own instance, and has its own server browser, the only things you have to change are the maps and game type rules. If you guys didn't screw up and hardcode the single game type in, it should be as simple as generating a new game type case, changing the timer to a team kill counter, and adding in items to interact with on the map (ie: flags, flag stands, shrines, etc etc) All those pieces already exist in some form. It shouldn't take you a week to crap out some game types to let us play and test and give feedback, considering in 1 month you managed to make, 1 jumping puzzle map, at least 1 pvp map, and 1 dungeon map all with new rules,events and associated art for each holiday. And That doesn't even include the addition of the fractals maps. Here you don't even have to create new items or new maps or new ideas. You just need to apply existing game models to the sPvP game. At this point its your ego only holding this game back in whatever delusional fantasies you have about this game becoming a eSport.

Edited by Jump_N_Move, 28 December 2012 - 09:52 PM.

[omar316]

Gilles VI, on 28 December 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

1. The game isn't balanced around 1v1, so it would be kinda boring seeing matches full of thieves/warriors.

The game is balanced around 1v1.

[Atticus]

Gilles VI, on 28 December 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

1. The game isn't balanced around 1v1, so it would be kinda boring seeing matches full of thieves.

Fixed, warriors suck and I am one.

[omar316]

Atticus, on 31 December 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

Fixed, warriors suck and I am one.

I understand your frustration. But the game is indeed balanced around a 1v1 system. The problem is because it is, Thieves are better solo suited for solo play due to the amount of stealth they have. While Warriors need to be on their toes.

Usually if I meet a burst thief while I am soloing I can try to ignore pain and live off his bursts. If he is dumb, 50% chance, he'll try to finish off the fight while I'll shout regen and kill him off in a few hits. If he isn't dumb, 50% chance, he'll stealth and wait for a chance, during that time I'll be smart and run: off combat/regen + CD. In this way we are back to beginning.

But 75% of the time there will be another asshole who interrupts the fight and it'll be 3 on 1 or something.

[Wifflebottom]

omar316, on 31 December 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

The game is balanced around 1v1.

omar316, on 31 December 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

I understand your frustration. But the game is indeed balanced around a 1v1 system. The problem is because it is, Thieves are better solo suited for solo play due to the amount of stealth they have. While Warriors need to be on their toes.

Usually if I meet a burst thief while I am soloing I can try to ignore pain and live off his bursts. If he is dumb, 50% chance, he'll try to finish off the fight while I'll shout regen and kill him off in a few hits. If he isn't dumb, 50% chance, he'll stealth and wait for a chance, during that time I'll be smart and run: off combat/regen + CD. In this way we are back to beginning.

But 75% of the time there will be another asshole who interrupts the fight and it'll be 3 on 1 or something.

No, I'm pretty sure Arenanet's said that they balance 5v5. You're claiming that it's balanced 1v1 but you go on to say that "Thieves are better suited to solo play" if that is the case then the game is NOT balanced 1v1 if thieves have an obvious advantage in that area.

[Rouzeki]

Jump_N_Move, on 28 December 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

Anything not Conquest.

I don't understand why they don't just throw in a pvp testing grounds and just roll out ideas en masse and see how people react. Don't give any glory or anything, just a separate browsing menu for game types under development, and see what happens. What do they have to lose? There is no downside to providing more content. You can't make the pvp worse by attempting to add in game types.

Capture the flag: Already done with wintersday. Change the present to a flag, Done. This format is basically the same for neutral flag, 1 flag, neutral bomb, and 1 bomb, just more tweaking in the initial setup.
TDM: Pretty simple, Even has several variations: Respawn (with/out priest rez) and no-respawn. For both, you'll likely need some shrines that gives health/off/def/boons to reduce degenerate gameplay like pure defense and running and to provide tactical map points.
King of the Hill: Also done. Just remove two capture points from every map available. Though short map versions would be better. KoH Is best when its a small map of frenzy.

You can pretty much replicate ANY FPS game type in this game with ease. Hell, Halo 4 is just one step away from being an MMO. Guns=weapons, Abilities=support/utility spells, grenades=aoe, Ability effects=runes/traits, Rank=level. I take that back. Halo4 is an MMO. Its just first person, and GW2 is Third Person. The only things lacking are boon/conditions and some differences in armor stats (light,med,heavy).

--Rant section
If you're going to make the release game be a beta-testing ground, at least don't be afraid to go all in and try new things. Since sPvp is already in its own instance, and has its own server browser, the only things you have to change are the maps and game type rules. If you guys didn't screw up and hardcode the single game type in, it should be as simple as generating a new game type case, changing the timer to a team kill counter, and adding in items to interact with on the map (ie: flags, flag stands, shrines, etc etc) All those pieces already exist in some form. It shouldn't take you a week to crap out some game types to let us play and test and give feedback, considering in 1 month you managed to make, 1 jumping puzzle map, at least 1 pvp map, and 1 dungeon map all with new rules,events and associated art for each holiday. And That doesn't even include the addition of the fractals maps. Here you don't even have to create new items or new maps or new ideas. You just need to apply existing game models to the sPvP game. At this point its your ego only holding this game back in whatever delusional fantasies you have about this game becoming a eSport.

This.  But why not give glory?  Just make it exclusive to hot-joins and not tourneys which is what they do currently anyway.

I've realized lately that I miss WoWs PvP games.  Not the system...I like the insta-80, equal gear so that it's more about skill than progression but CTF, Arathi Basin, and Alterac Valley were awesome and GW2 needs more variety in the sPvP department.

[Jump_N_Move]

I was only suggesting they don't give glory until they upgrade it from testing mode. Just throw it and let us make the changes and adjustments and recommendations. If its terrible they can release hot patch and block it off until it fixed and not worry about glory farming abuse or something.

That way we can give feedback and they can see how well it's welcomed without them having to put much design into. Just literally give us PvP beta, so while the rest of dev team spends a month on exploit tweaks no one sees or cares about we can be testing and giving feedback. if the January patch doesn't bring something big to the this table, i predict that it'll the no-turning back point for this game. Its survived the first hardcore/24/7 player exodus, but i just don't think the casual 1-2hour a day crowd can keep it afloat to keep the game relevant. They make their money off the casual, but the hardcore/dedicated players are what drives the playbase. And they've straight up abandoned them so far.

[omar316]

Wifflebottom, on 31 December 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

No, I'm pretty sure Arenanet's said that they balance 5v5. You're claiming that it's balanced 1v1 but you go on to say that "Thieves are better suited to solo play" if that is the case then the game is NOT balanced 1v1 if thieves have an obvious advantage in that area.

Nope I think you misunderstood. Or I might not have been clear.

1v1 it is equal.

If there is an additional player thrown in the thief has a better chance to survive, because he can choose to disengage and escape while the warrior would be unfortunately be at a disadvantage.

So if it is limited to 10 abilities, 2 dodges the game would be equal.
If it becomes 20 abilities and 4 dodges then the game is better suited to the thief who can choose to escape faster due to stealth mechanics.

This is provided, they do fight smart like in my earlier post. If the warrior survives the bursts and the thief will be a sitting duck until his CD/init refreshes. They drop really fast.

[matsif]

HA, GvG, and 5v5 Random Arena.

[Gilles VI]

Atticus, on 31 December 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

Fixed, warriors suck and I am one.

What?
My main is a guardian, other professions at 80, are a thief (150h played) and an ele (200h played)..

omar316, on 31 December 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

The game is balanced around 1v1.

Yea we clearly see that in tournaments.

Please tell me how a ranger can ever win from a guardian?
Or a warrior from a engineer?
Or a ranger from a thief?
Or a thief from a necro?

[Chibii]

I want to see FA, JQ and GvG come back.

[omar316]

Gilles VI, on 31 December 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

What?
My main is a guardian, other professions at 80, are a thief (150h played) and an ele (200h played)..



Yea we clearly see that in tournaments.

Please tell me how a ranger can ever win from a guardian?
Or a warrior from a engineer?
Or a ranger from a thief?
Or a thief from a necro?

You can build specifically to counter each and every class.
Like how a shout warrior can be traited and keep perm heals up. You do no need to specifically tank and kill an engy who might abuse the terrain.

Wait I think your definition of balance is you need to kill the other class and come out on top?

[Gilles VI]

omar316, on 31 December 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

You can build specifically to counter each and every class.
Like how a shout warrior can be traited and keep perm heals up. You do no need to specifically tank and kill an engy who might abuse the terrain.

Wait I think your definition of balance is you need to kill the other class and come out on top?

1v1 balance is that when a x profession comes against y profession, they both have a chance to win.

Which at the moment is not true.

Edited by Gilles VI, 31 December 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[omar316]

Gilles VI, on 31 December 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

1v1 balance is that when a x profession comes against y profession, they both have a chance to win.

Which at the moment is not true.

Erm it is.

[Gilles VI]

omar316, on 31 December 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Erm it is.

Again, roll any ranger build and try to win from a thief (we're supposing equal skill level of players here)
Or roll a thief and try to win from a guardian.
Or roll a ranger and try to win from and elementalist.

[omar316]

Gilles VI, on 31 December 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Again, roll any ranger build and try to win from a thief (we're supposing equal skill level of players here)
Or roll a thief and try to win from a guardian.
Or roll a ranger and try to win from and elementalist.

I have a ranger but I hate the pet system. And no I do not like this game so I am not going to waste my time with a ranger.

I did roll a thief though and I have won bunker guardians solo multiple times. Also got a mesmer.

You cannot half ass a crit build with a thief and face roll against all opponents. Just kite his ass into infinity with SB and condition his ass off.

Again, it'd take a long time but it is not impossible to win against a bunker guardian. If the guardian is a dps nub then burst his ass off with a BS d/d HS combo.

This is a rock paper scissors game.The problem is the game is balanced 1v1. Which means you are only going to be effective against 1 build at anytime. If you're lucky you get to own paper builds with scissors. Again I mentioned it in the earlier post, this never works out because most of the time its 2on1 or more on less.

You cannot compare 2 classes downright due to the epic stupidity of the rigid builds/CDs differences.
I have said this many times, this game has got no flexibility and it is stale. You cannot adapt a build to meet many different situations. You are unable to do so because you need to specialise to kill/counter different builds. And thats where GW2 fails horribly. You do not get a safe middle ground to have an opportunity. It is completely extreme.

For example just because you get a shield does not automatically mean you are sturdier. Like wise just because you get a SB does not mean you can kite infinitely. If its a Banner/shout Hammer Warrior and try maintain mobility thief. Lol. He's gonna own your ass like no tomorrow.

But does have the most amount of resources to disengage from a fight and run away. You will not be able to kill the warrior but you can still escape.

PS: I apologise. Thread has derailed much. My last post for this thread. I apologise again OP.

Edited by omar316, 31 December 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[Lythuun]

Honestly, the only one of these that seems like it could possibly work is King of the Hill, can't say I see TDM or variations of that working well. Everyone would just roll Thieves and buttonmash people to death.

As much as I agree that more game modes are really needed, even if it isn't for tPvP, alot wouldn't be easily possible because of how the game is structured. CtF wouldn't work because of the lack of direct healing and odd numbers of combat slows, also some classes have severe advantages mobility wise.

As is stands now, things like the Wintersday present event work purely because of the forced weapons, if everyone actually got to play their class there would be huge disadvantages.

[Vence]

TDM would not work well because this implies that the only way to win is to kill of your opponents before opponent kills you. From a glass cannon's perspective, this is great as long as the opposition isn't a heavy/tanky guard with retaliation and aoe dmg. Therefore, the outcome of the match will be decided from the start based on the team composition. A team full of tanky guardians will not die as much against a team full of glass cannons because the guards will outlive the glass cannons to win the game. However, if there was a deathmatch that also included a secondary way to win the match, then the system could work well. If it turns out that a team of glass cannons can't score fast kills against a team of guards, then they can choose to focus on the secondary way to win. For instance, Legacy of the Foefire has the guild lord as secondary objective. All in all, a death match can be both competive and fun as long as it has 2 ways to win.