Jump to content
  • Sign Up

1v1 mini season


Tayga.3192

Recommended Posts

Mini seasons are one of the best ideas Anet had for PvP. If they focus on improving the variety of game modes, PvP will definitely have more players.So, following on that, I propose: 1v1 mini season.

Since, according to my personal observations, nearly every PvP player has a "dueling" addiction, why not build on that more?

Features I have in mind (might add/delete according to feedback I recieve):

  • Played in 2v2 maps, just with 1 person on each team.
  • Time limit before mechanics start kicking in is shorter.
  • Any amulet/rune with healing power is disabled. Toughness is still countered with condition damage, so that's allowed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally speaking I feel this will get very dull very quickly but im sure some folks will like it if ever done. The issue is gw2 pvp is always designed around conquest and even though the 2v2 season was intersting at the start in the end it was pretty dull to and dominated by just 2-3 builds/professions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Poledra Val.1490 said:Personally speaking I feel this will get very dull very quickly but im sure some folks will like it if ever done. The issue is gw2 pvp is always designed around conquest and even though the 2v2 season was intersting at the start in the end it was pretty dull to and dominated by just 2-3 builds/professions.

@UNOwen.7132 said:That will be metagamed in less than a day, and you end up with only 2 or so viable builds, and most classes being entirely useless.

Thanks for the feedback.

It's easier to counter meta builds in 1v1, so even if it gets metagamed you could just take a hard counter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Builds are just way too tanky right now, even without Healing Power and the removed 1,2k Tough Amulets. Shit like Symbolguard or Bunkerev would still be insanely tanky on Demo or Paladin or Valk vs Condi. Same with some Condi Builds like Condi Rev on Rabid or w/e they play.

Also it would in many cases be build wars and people switching last sec for a favourable matchups. 1v1s are great for practice but they aren't really competitive, at least not ín this meta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a 1v1 mini season would be much more diverse than most people believe.

Players would very quickly figure out to have 3 or 4 different build templates preloaded so they could keep swapping for counter or swapping just to keep the opponent confused. I guarantee you that top 100 play or even top 250 play would NOT result in a 2 best build meta. We would actually probably see the most diverse meta yet from a 1v1 season. Anyone who has ever gotten deep in 1v1 dueling knows what I'm talking about here. Most classes have the ability to counter any build, for the most part, if the player is knowledgeable about their class as a whole and can see around "meta builds".

But for a 1v1 to work, there would need to be a very clear 60 second organize phase for both players in between each round. The heart of 1v1 is figuring out how to rock/paper/scissors your opponents with superior class knowledge. It's not about hard meta build vs hard meta build like in conquest. 1v1 meta play is a lot different than people in here are realizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Koen.1327 said:a big part of pvp is blaming your teammates for being gold rated, a 1v1 season would be devastating realityalso very unbalanced but that aside

For me I can 1v1 most people but I am pretty average or maybe even below average in conquest rotations, I did way better in 2v2 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:I think a 1v1 mini season would be much more diverse than most people believe.

Players would very quickly figure out to have 3 or 4 different build templates preloaded so they could keep swapping for counter or swapping just to keep the opponent confused. I guarantee you that top 100 play or even top 250 play would NOT result in a 2 best build meta. We would actually probably see the most diverse meta yet from a 1v1 season. Anyone who has ever gotten deep in 1v1 dueling knows what I'm talking about here. Most classes have the ability to counter any build, for the most part, if the player is knowledgeable about their class as a whole and can see around "meta builds".

But for a 1v1 to work, there would need to be a very clear 60 second organize phase for both players in between each round. The heart of 1v1 is figuring out how to rock/paper/scissors your opponents with superior class knowledge. It's not about hard meta build vs hard meta build like in conquest. 1v1 meta play is a lot different than people in here are realizing.

If you allow class switching, then you create a different problem. That being that the game is decided by "who was able to swap their build last". Thats equally bad. It would require build switching to be completely disabled. And then you get the least diverse meta yet from 1v1. By far. Though even with build switching, that would just mean you have 4 builds instead of 2 that you swap between, and most classes remain unplayable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:I think a 1v1 mini season would be much more diverse than most people believe.

Players would very quickly figure out to have 3 or 4 different build templates preloaded so they could keep swapping for counter or swapping just to keep the opponent confused. I guarantee you that top 100 play or even top 250 play would NOT result in a 2 best build meta. We would actually probably see the most diverse meta yet from a 1v1 season. Anyone who has ever gotten deep in 1v1 dueling knows what I'm talking about here. Most classes have the ability to counter any build, for the most part, if the player is knowledgeable about their class as a whole and can see around "meta builds".

But for a 1v1 to work, there would need to be a very clear 60 second organize phase for both players in between each round. The heart of 1v1 is figuring out how to rock/paper/scissors your opponents with superior class knowledge. It's not about hard meta build vs hard meta build like in conquest. 1v1 meta play is a lot different than people in here are realizing.

If you allow class switching, then you create a different problem. That being that the game is decided by "who was able to swap their build last". Thats equally bad. It would require build switching to be completely disabled. And then you get the
least
diverse meta yet from 1v1. By far. Though even with build switching, that would just mean you have 4 builds instead of 2 that you swap between, and most classes remain unplayable.

I don't know why you took the time to turn everything I said upside down.

The 1v1 community does things a certain way and you would too, if you became involved in 1v1s.

Locking class/character swapping is great. Locking build swapping after each round is dumb. Swapping builds in between rounds is what 1v1 is all about. And if you had seriously tried to aim for top 100 or even 250 title in the recent 2v2 season, you'd have realized that swapping builds in between rounds in 2v2 was also what it was all about. Build template swapping is like a necessary mechanic to keep the game mode fair.

I know you are for some reason weirdly disagreeing with me, but you wouldn't be if you had played the 2v2 season for even like a week with an actual duo partner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:I think a 1v1 mini season would be much more diverse than most people believe.

Players would very quickly figure out to have 3 or 4 different build templates preloaded so they could keep swapping for counter or swapping just to keep the opponent confused. I guarantee you that top 100 play or even top 250 play would NOT result in a 2 best build meta. We would actually probably see the most diverse meta yet from a 1v1 season. Anyone who has ever gotten deep in 1v1 dueling knows what I'm talking about here. Most classes have the ability to counter any build, for the most part, if the player is knowledgeable about their class as a whole and can see around "meta builds".

But for a 1v1 to work, there would need to be a very clear 60 second organize phase for both players in between each round. The heart of 1v1 is figuring out how to rock/paper/scissors your opponents with superior class knowledge. It's not about hard meta build vs hard meta build like in conquest. 1v1 meta play is a lot different than people in here are realizing.

If you allow class switching, then you create a different problem. That being that the game is decided by "who was able to swap their build last". Thats equally bad. It would require build switching to be completely disabled. And then you get the
least
diverse meta yet from 1v1. By far. Though even with build switching, that would just mean you have 4 builds instead of 2 that you swap between, and most classes remain unplayable.

I don't know why you took the time to turn everything I said upside down.

The 1v1 community does things a certain way and you would too, if you became involved in 1v1s.

Its been a while since I played, but Im pretty sure the 1v1 community uses a lot of restrictions. Because when they tried it without, exactly what I said happened.

Locking class/character swapping is great. Locking build swapping after each round is dumb. Swapping builds in between rounds is what 1v1 is all about. And if you had seriously tried to aim for top 100 or even 250 title in the recent 2v2 season, you'd have realized that swapping builds in between rounds in 2v2 was also what it was all about. Build template swapping is like a necessary mechanic to keep the game mode fair.

And that caused a lot of issues in 2v2. People going out to tag enemies so they cant buildswap. Having to swap at the last second and games at higher levels being decided not by the actual 2v2, but by who is the best spreadsheet warrior. It sucked, and it would suck again.

I know you are for some reason weirdly disagreeing with me, but you wouldn't be if you had played the 2v2 season for even like a week with an actual duo partner.

The reason being that I know it would degenerate into an undiverse meta. Because people tried it before, and it did. I did play 2v2 quite a lot, and I saw that both options (swapping builds, or locking it) were awful. 1v1 amplifies that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@UNOwen.7132 said:The reason being that I know it would degenerate into an undiverse meta. Because people tried it before, and it did. I did play 2v2 quite a lot, and I saw that both options (swapping builds, or locking it) were awful. 1v1 amplifies that.

Not sure what you aren't understanding about this.

First Example: A typical match flow while being able to build swap:

  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. The Thief loses round 1.
  2. The Thief swaps to P/D and beats the Soulbeast in round 2.
  3. The Soulbeast swaps to Druid to counter the P/D and wins round 3.
  4. Thief swaps to Deadeye to counter but the Druid anticipates and also swaps back to DPS Soulbeast. The Soulbeast wins a 3rd round and wins the match.

Second Example: The same match while not being able to build swap:

  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. GG the match is over. The Soulbeast will win all 3 rounds.

Now you tell me which ruleset would promote more build diversity and which ruleset would be more fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@"UNOwen.7132" said:The reason being that I know it would degenerate into an undiverse meta. Because people tried it before, and it did. I did play 2v2 quite a lot, and I saw that both options (swapping builds, or locking it) were awful. 1v1 amplifies that.

Not sure what you aren't understanding about this.

First Example: A typical match flow while being able to build swap:
  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. The Thief loses round 1.
  2. The Thief swaps to P/D and beats the Soulbeast in round 2.
  3. The Soulbeast swaps to Druid to counter the P/D and wins round 3.
  4. Thief swaps to Deadeye to counter but the Druid anticipates and also swaps back to DPS Soulbeast. The Soulbeast wins a 3rd round and wins the match.

First of all, this isnt what happened. What happened is "A D/P thief loads in vs a Berserker Sic Em Soulbeast. He walks closer, sees that he is a sic em soulbeast, then swaps to P/D. The Soulbeast sees the same and swaps to Druid. This back and forth continues until the last second. And whoever swaps last, wins". Or, depending on the map, what happened is "The thief swaps to P/D, then rapidly teleports to the enemy base to tag him for damage so he cant swap to druid". These sucked. A lot. In both cases, it wasnt the 2v2 that decided the outcome. It was the spreadsheet warrior matchup before it started.

Second Example: The same match while not being able to build swap:

  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. GG the match is over. The Soulbeast will win all 3 rounds.

Now you tell me which ruleset would promote more build diversity and which ruleset would be more fair.

Both suck equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"UNOwen.7132" said:Or, depending on the map, what happened is "The thief swaps to P/D, then rapidly teleports to the enemy base to tag him for damage so he cant swap to druid". These sucked.

I think this can easily be fixed with locking players in spawn, as it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:The reason being that I know it would degenerate into an undiverse meta. Because people tried it before, and it did. I did play 2v2 quite a lot, and I saw that both options (swapping builds, or locking it) were awful. 1v1 amplifies that.

Not sure what you aren't understanding about this.

First Example: A typical match flow while being able to build swap:
  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. The Thief loses round 1.
  2. The Thief swaps to P/D and beats the Soulbeast in round 2.
  3. The Soulbeast swaps to Druid to counter the P/D and wins round 3.
  4. Thief swaps to Deadeye to counter but the Druid anticipates and also swaps back to DPS Soulbeast. The Soulbeast wins a 3rd round and wins the match.

First of all, this isnt what happened. What happened is "A D/P thief loads in vs a Berserker Sic Em Soulbeast. He walks closer, sees that he is a sic em soulbeast, then swaps to P/D. The Soulbeast sees the same and swaps to Druid. This back and forth continues until the last second. And whoever swaps last, wins". Or, depending on the map, what happened is "The thief swaps to P/D, then rapidly teleports to the enemy base to tag him for damage so he cant swap to druid". These sucked. A lot. In both cases, it wasnt the 2v2 that decided the outcome. It was the spreadsheet warrior matchup before it started.

Second Example: The same match while not being able to build swap:
  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. GG the match is over. The Soulbeast will win all 3 rounds.

Now you tell me which ruleset would promote more build diversity and which ruleset would be more fair.

Both suck equally.

Except that your entire explanation is the exact same effect of if two players simply loaded in against each other, not knowing what each other were playing at all. Same effect. Someone is going to instantly lose and someone is going to instantly win that first round during rock/paper/scissors type match ups, regardless of if build swap is allowed or not.

The difference between the two methods is that allowing build swapping allows a player to adjust for round 2, which is fair, and much less mind numbing to have to play and lose 3 rounds in a row to a class that you know counters you. And even if your scenario were happening "two players waiting for the last second to swap" it just has to be that way. At least you get 3 rounds to be able to psyche out the other player for a counter, rather than being forced to play 3 rounds against a counter in a boring match that you already know you'll lose. But truth be told, even during 2v2 which I played A LOT of, I never once saw your hypothetical scenario occur. And even if it did, good players would be ready and anticipate that motion anyway.

Let me stress this: 1v1s are about rock/paper/scissors and it cannot be avoided in Guild Wars 2. The idea of conquering an opponent in Guild Wars 2 1v1 is not by clashing meta conquest build against meta conquest build <- This is what conquest is for. This is why you always hear people saying "Conquest builds are different than 1v1 builds" because it's completely different. In 1v1s in Guild Wars 2, two players need to be able to swap builds or you're going to end up with a stale game mode. The only thing that would allow a feasible 1v1 season, would be allowing build swapping for diverse game play. ~ End of story.

I think you're imagining that people would be joining these no build swap matches with conquest builds or something, which is not only naïve and showing a complete lack of experience, but it couldn't be further from the truth. You're going to be seeing super metas for 1v1 and it will result in 2 or 3 builds being king play in 1v1 with absolutely no diversity at all. The only way to maintain diverse gameplay is to allow build swapping so people can run weird setups that actually counter those king metas. This is how it works in 1v1 now, and that is how it would work in a 1v1 season. If you seriously believe otherwise, you really don't know Guild Wars 2 spvp very well. No offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:The reason being that I know it would degenerate into an undiverse meta. Because people tried it before, and it did. I did play 2v2 quite a lot, and I saw that both options (swapping builds, or locking it) were awful. 1v1 amplifies that.

Not sure what you aren't understanding about this.

First Example: A typical match flow while being able to build swap:
  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. The Thief loses round 1.
  2. The Thief swaps to P/D and beats the Soulbeast in round 2.
  3. The Soulbeast swaps to Druid to counter the P/D and wins round 3.
  4. Thief swaps to Deadeye to counter but the Druid anticipates and also swaps back to DPS Soulbeast. The Soulbeast wins a 3rd round and wins the match.

First of all, this isnt what happened. What happened is "A D/P thief loads in vs a Berserker Sic Em Soulbeast. He walks closer, sees that he is a sic em soulbeast, then swaps to P/D. The Soulbeast sees the same and swaps to Druid. This back and forth continues until the last second. And whoever swaps last, wins". Or, depending on the map, what happened is "The thief swaps to P/D, then rapidly teleports to the enemy base to tag him for damage so he cant swap to druid". These sucked. A lot. In both cases, it wasnt the 2v2 that decided the outcome. It was the spreadsheet warrior matchup before it started.

Second Example: The same match while not being able to build swap:
  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. GG the match is over. The Soulbeast will win all 3 rounds.

Now you tell me which ruleset would promote more build diversity and which ruleset would be more fair.

Both suck equally.

Except that your entire explanation is the exact same effect of if two players simply loaded in against each other, not knowing what each other were playing at all. Same effect. Someone is going to instantly lose and someone is going to instantly win that first round during rock/paper/scissors type match ups, regardless of if build swap is allowed or not.

Correct. My point wasnt that not having swaps is better. Its that both suck the same amount.

The difference between the two methods is that allowing build swapping allows a player to adjust for round 2, which is fair, and much less mind numbing to have to play and lose 3 rounds in a row to a class that you know counters you. And even if your scenario were happening "two players waiting for the last second to swap" it just has to be that way. At least you get 3 rounds to be able to psyche out the other player for a counter, rather than being forced to play 3 rounds against a counter in a boring match that you already know you'll lose. But truth be told, even during 2v2 which I played A LOT of, I never once saw your hypothetical scenario occur. And even if it did, good players would be ready and anticipate that motion anyway.

Except thats not how it works out. How it works out is that its a matchup of spreadsheet warriors. Its a quick-draw kind of thing. It essentially reduces the game to the element that isnt actually gameplay. That is bad. This happened during 2v2 a lot. And when it did, being ready or not didnt help. You had to be the quicker draw on the build swapping.

Let me stress this: 1v1s are about rock/paper/scissors and it cannot be avoided in Guild Wars 2. The idea of conquering an opponent in Guild Wars 2 1v1 is not by clashing meta conquest build against meta conquest build <- This is what conquest is for. This is why you always hear people saying "Conquest builds are different than 1v1 builds" because it's completely different. In 1v1s in Guild Wars 2, two players need to be able to swap builds or you're going to end up with a stale game mode. The only thing that would allow a feasible 1v1 season, would be allowing build swapping for diverse game play. ~ End of story.

Youre going to end up with a stale game mode either way. Thats the issue. Build swapping doesnt lead to diverse gameplay. It leads to the exact same of stagnated meta, just with the difference that its 4 builds instead of 2, and that the game is decided by the players level of skill not in the game, but in the buildswapping.

I think you're imagining that people would be joining these no build swap matches with conquest builds or something, which is not only naïve and showing a complete lack of experience, but it couldn't be further from the truth. You're going to be seeing super metas for 1v1 and it will result in 2 or 3 builds being king play in 1v1 with absolutely no diversity at all. The only way to maintain diverse gameplay is to allow build swapping so people can run weird setups that actually counter those king metas. This is how it works in 1v1 now, and that is how it would work in a 1v1 season. If you seriously believe otherwise, you really don't know Guild Wars 2 spvp very well. No offense.

Again, my point isnt "no build swapping 1v1 is more diverse". Its "1v1 is not going to be diverse, no matter if you have build swaps, or not". The only way to maintain diverse gameplay is to not have a 1v1 miniseason. As soon as you do, diversity goes out, buildswapping or not. Those "weird setup" just mean its 4 builds instead of 2. Or 6 instead of 3. And the swapping becomes the gamemode. But diverse it is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:The reason being that I know it would degenerate into an undiverse meta. Because people tried it before, and it did. I did play 2v2 quite a lot, and I saw that both options (swapping builds, or locking it) were awful. 1v1 amplifies that.

Not sure what you aren't understanding about this.

First Example: A typical match flow while being able to build swap:
  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. The Thief loses round 1.
  2. The Thief swaps to P/D and beats the Soulbeast in round 2.
  3. The Soulbeast swaps to Druid to counter the P/D and wins round 3.
  4. Thief swaps to Deadeye to counter but the Druid anticipates and also swaps back to DPS Soulbeast. The Soulbeast wins a 3rd round and wins the match.

First of all, this isnt what happened. What happened is "A D/P thief loads in vs a Berserker Sic Em Soulbeast. He walks closer, sees that he is a sic em soulbeast, then swaps to P/D. The Soulbeast sees the same and swaps to Druid. This back and forth continues until the last second. And whoever swaps last, wins". Or, depending on the map, what happened is "The thief swaps to P/D, then rapidly teleports to the enemy base to tag him for damage so he cant swap to druid". These sucked. A lot. In both cases, it wasnt the 2v2 that decided the outcome. It was the spreadsheet warrior matchup before it started.

Second Example: The same match while not being able to build swap:
  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. GG the match is over. The Soulbeast will win all 3 rounds.

Now you tell me which ruleset would promote more build diversity and which ruleset would be more fair.

Both suck equally.

Except that your entire explanation is the exact same effect of if two players simply loaded in against each other, not knowing what each other were playing at all. Same effect. Someone is going to instantly lose and someone is going to instantly win that first round during rock/paper/scissors type match ups, regardless of if build swap is allowed or not.

Correct. My point wasnt that not having swaps is better. Its that both suck the same amount.

That's not what you said originally. Originally you stated that somehow build swapping would actually be less diverse than no build swapping.

The difference between the two methods is that allowing build swapping allows a player to adjust for round 2, which is fair, and much less mind numbing to have to play and lose 3 rounds in a row to a class that you know counters you. And even if your scenario were happening "two players waiting for the last second to swap" it just has to be that way. At least you get 3 rounds to be able to psyche out the other player for a counter, rather than being forced to play 3 rounds against a counter in a boring match that you already know you'll lose. But truth be told, even during 2v2 which I played A LOT of, I never once saw your hypothetical scenario occur. And even if it did, good players would be ready and anticipate that motion anyway.

Except thats not how it works out. How it works out is that its a matchup of spreadsheet warriors. Its a quick-draw kind of thing. It essentially reduces the game to the element that isnt actually gameplay. That is bad. This happened during 2v2 a lot. And when it did, being ready or not didnt help. You had to be the quicker draw on the build swapping.

Nothing that you said here is true. I'm not sure if you're just trying to argue with me or if you haven't played the game much.

Let me stress this: 1v1s are about rock/paper/scissors and it cannot be avoided in Guild Wars 2. The idea of conquering an opponent in Guild Wars 2 1v1 is not by clashing meta conquest build against meta conquest build <- This is what conquest is for. This is why you always hear people saying "Conquest builds are different than 1v1 builds" because it's completely different. In 1v1s in Guild Wars 2, two players need to be able to swap builds or you're going to end up with a stale game mode. The only thing that would allow a feasible 1v1 season, would be allowing build swapping for diverse game play. ~ End of story.

Youre going to end up with a stale game mode either way. Thats the issue. Build swapping doesnt lead to diverse gameplay. It leads to the exact same of stagnated meta, just with the difference that its 4 builds instead of 2, and that the game is decided by the players level of skill not in the game, but in the buildswapping.

Everything you said here is a complete contradiction that doesn't make sense.

From your ideology, only having 1 build that is viable is somehow just as diverse as having a reason to play 4 or 6 different builds.

This is weird propaganda man. This will probably be my last post discussing this with you. It's ok, you can win.

I think you're imagining that people would be joining these no build swap matches with conquest builds or something, which is not only naïve and showing a complete lack of experience, but it couldn't be further from the truth. You're going to be seeing super metas for 1v1 and it will result in 2 or 3 builds being king play in 1v1 with absolutely no diversity at all. The only way to maintain diverse gameplay is to allow build swapping so people can run weird setups that actually counter those king metas. This is how it works in 1v1 now, and that is how it would work in a 1v1 season. If you seriously believe otherwise, you really don't know Guild Wars 2 spvp very well. No offense.

Again, my point isnt "no build swapping 1v1 is more diverse". Its "1v1 is not going to be diverse, no matter if you have build swaps, or not". The only way to maintain diverse gameplay is to not have a 1v1 miniseason. As soon as you do, diversity goes out, buildswapping or not. Those "weird setup" just mean its 4 builds instead of 2. Or 6 instead of 3. And the swapping becomes the gamemode. But diverse it is not.

Have you never pressed B and watched how many people swap builds or classes before a match starts in 5v5s, especially during ATs?

It's like.. what happens when people are actually playing competitively. And that function needs to remain intact for all games, to keep them competitive.

I agree with no CHARACTER swapping. But build swapping always need to be present before a match or round starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:The reason being that I know it would degenerate into an undiverse meta. Because people tried it before, and it did. I did play 2v2 quite a lot, and I saw that both options (swapping builds, or locking it) were awful. 1v1 amplifies that.

Not sure what you aren't understanding about this.

First Example: A typical match flow while being able to build swap:
  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. The Thief loses round 1.
  2. The Thief swaps to P/D and beats the Soulbeast in round 2.
  3. The Soulbeast swaps to Druid to counter the P/D and wins round 3.
  4. Thief swaps to Deadeye to counter but the Druid anticipates and also swaps back to DPS Soulbeast. The Soulbeast wins a 3rd round and wins the match.

First of all, this isnt what happened. What happened is "A D/P thief loads in vs a Berserker Sic Em Soulbeast. He walks closer, sees that he is a sic em soulbeast, then swaps to P/D. The Soulbeast sees the same and swaps to Druid. This back and forth continues until the last second. And whoever swaps last, wins". Or, depending on the map, what happened is "The thief swaps to P/D, then rapidly teleports to the enemy base to tag him for damage so he cant swap to druid". These sucked. A lot. In both cases, it wasnt the 2v2 that decided the outcome. It was the spreadsheet warrior matchup before it started.

Second Example: The same match while not being able to build swap:
  1. A D/P Thief loads in vs. a Berserker Sic Em One Wolf Pack Soulbeast. GG the match is over. The Soulbeast will win all 3 rounds.

Now you tell me which ruleset would promote more build diversity and which ruleset would be more fair.

Both suck equally.

Except that your entire explanation is the exact same effect of if two players simply loaded in against each other, not knowing what each other were playing at all. Same effect. Someone is going to instantly lose and someone is going to instantly win that first round during rock/paper/scissors type match ups, regardless of if build swap is allowed or not.

Correct. My point wasnt that not having swaps is better. Its that both suck the same amount.

That's not what you said originally. Originally you stated that somehow build swapping would actually be less diverse than no build swapping.

No, that is exactly what I said originally. I said that you need to disable build swapping for the other issues it causes. And when you do, thats when yo uget the least diverse meta.

The difference between the two methods is that allowing build swapping allows a player to adjust for round 2, which is fair, and much less mind numbing to have to play and lose 3 rounds in a row to a class that you know counters you. And even if your scenario were happening "two players waiting for the last second to swap" it just has to be that way. At least you get 3 rounds to be able to psyche out the other player for a counter, rather than being forced to play 3 rounds against a counter in a boring match that you already know you'll lose. But truth be told, even during 2v2 which I played A LOT of, I never once saw your hypothetical scenario occur. And even if it did, good players would be ready and anticipate that motion anyway.

Except thats not how it works out. How it works out is that its a matchup of spreadsheet warriors. Its a quick-draw kind of thing. It essentially reduces the game to the element that isnt actually gameplay. That is bad. This happened during 2v2 a lot. And when it did, being ready or not didnt help. You had to be the quicker draw on the build swapping.

Nothing that you said here is true. I'm not sure if you're just trying to argue with me or if you haven't played the game much.

Everything I said is true. You even admitted it yourself. You just said "If that happens, so be it". Cold disregard however doesnt make it better.

Let me stress this: 1v1s are about rock/paper/scissors and it cannot be avoided in Guild Wars 2. The idea of conquering an opponent in Guild Wars 2 1v1 is not by clashing meta conquest build against meta conquest build <- This is what conquest is for. This is why you always hear people saying "Conquest builds are different than 1v1 builds" because it's completely different. In 1v1s in Guild Wars 2, two players need to be able to swap builds or you're going to end up with a stale game mode. The only thing that would allow a feasible 1v1 season, would be allowing build swapping for diverse game play. ~ End of story.

Youre going to end up with a stale game mode either way. Thats the issue. Build swapping doesnt lead to diverse gameplay. It leads to the exact same of stagnated meta, just with the difference that its 4 builds instead of 2, and that the game is decided by the players level of skill not in the game, but in the buildswapping.

Everything you said here is a complete contradiction that doesn't make sense.

From your ideology, only having 1 build that is viable is somehow just as diverse as having a reason to play 4 or 6 different builds.

Having 2-3 builds, or 4-6 doesnt make much of a difference. It makes less of a difference when its just 2 variations of the same class, specifically built to counter 2 variations of the other class. Imagine if instead of core necro, firebrand and condi rev, you had core power/condi necro, bunker/condi firebrand, and power/condi rev. Everyone would still be playing the same thing. They would just have 2 builds they swap between instead of 1. Every matchup would still be the same. Diversity would not exist.

This is weird propaganda man. This will probably be my last post discussing this with you. It's ok, you can win.

I think you're imagining that people would be joining these no build swap matches with conquest builds or something, which is not only naïve and showing a complete lack of experience, but it couldn't be further from the truth. You're going to be seeing super metas for 1v1 and it will result in 2 or 3 builds being king play in 1v1 with absolutely no diversity at all. The only way to maintain diverse gameplay is to allow build swapping so people can run weird setups that actually counter those king metas. This is how it works in 1v1 now, and that is how it would work in a 1v1 season. If you seriously believe otherwise, you really don't know Guild Wars 2 spvp very well. No offense.

Again, my point isnt "no build swapping 1v1 is more diverse". Its "1v1 is not going to be diverse, no matter if you have build swaps, or not". The only way to maintain diverse gameplay is to not have a 1v1 miniseason. As soon as you do, diversity goes out, buildswapping or not. Those "weird setup" just mean its 4 builds instead of 2. Or 6 instead of 3. And the swapping becomes the gamemode. But diverse it is not.

Have you never pressed B and watched how many people swap builds or classes before a match starts in 5v5s, especially during ATs?

Conquest is inherently diverse. Buildswapping doesnt cause issues there. Its also not a situation where people swap at the last second to try and counter.

It's like.. what happens when people are actually playing competitively.

Its fine when it builds on the actual gameplay. Its not fine when it replaces it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@UNOwen.7132 said:Conquest is inherently diverse. Buildswapping doesnt cause issues there. Its also not a situation where people swap at the last second to try and counter.

This never happens btw. Source? I played 2v2. Changed build only once and still lost that one anyway.

How do you know what your opponent's build is if you can't select them? How do you know if they changed their build?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tayga.3192 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:Conquest is inherently diverse. Buildswapping doesnt cause issues there. Its also not a situation where people swap at the last second to try and counter.

This never happens btw. Source? I played 2v2. Changed build only once and still lost that one anyway.

I also played 2v2. I saw it happen quite a few times. I didnt do it much myself because I didnt want to play Holo.

How do you know what your opponent's build is if you can't select them? How do you know if they changed their build?

For one you could select them. Both through caling target, and through getting close enough to the gate when they are. Second, you typically knew through them swapping classes. Its hard to counter 2 different types of build with the same class. So people swapped back and forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@UNOwen.7132 said:No, that is exactly what I said originally. I said that you need to disable build swapping for the other issues it causes. And when you do, thats when yo uget the least diverse meta.

lol that is not what you said. You said this:

@UNOwen.7132 said:If you allow class switching, then you create a different problem. That being that the game is decided by "who was able to swap their build last". Thats equally bad. It would require build switching to be completely disabled. And then you get the least diverse meta yet from 1v1. By far. Though even with build switching, that would just mean you have 4 builds instead of 2 that you swap between, and most classes remain unplayable.

Yeah, and then

@UNOwen.7132 said:Everything I said is true. You even admitted it yourself. You just said "If that happens, so be it". Cold disregard however doesnt make it better.

In no way is that anything like what I actually said, which was a complete disagreement with everything you've said lol:

@"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:And even if your scenario were happening "two players waiting for the last second to swap" it just has to be that way. At least you get 3 rounds to be able to psyche out the other player for a counter, rather than being forced to play 3 rounds against a counter in a boring match that you already know you'll lose. But truth be told, even during 2v2 which I played A LOT of, I never once saw your hypothetical scenario occur. And even if it did, good players would be ready and anticipate that motion anyway.

ok and then

@UNOwen.7132 said:Having 2-3 builds, or 4-6 doesnt make much of a difference. It makes less of a difference when its just 2 variations of the same class, specifically built to counter 2 variations of the other class. Imagine if instead of core necro, firebrand and condi rev, you had core power/condi necro, bunker/condi firebrand, and power/condi rev. Everyone would still be playing the same thing. They would just have 2 builds they swap between instead of 1. Every matchup would still be the same. Diversity would not exist.

What? This is actually the first post I've ever read where I am unable to even discern what it is that someone was trying to say. For real, none of that made sense.

@UNOwen.7132 said:Conquest is inherently diverse. Buildswapping doesnt cause issues there. Its also not a situation where people swap at the last second to try and counter.

And it was that moment when Luke Skywalker appeared, and he said:

q8W1Rgt.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:No, that is exactly what I said originally. I said that you need to disable build swapping for the other issues it causes. And when you do, thats when yo uget the least diverse meta.

lol that is not what you said. You said this:

@UNOwen.7132 said:If you allow class switching, then you create a different problem. That being that the game is decided by "who was able to swap their build last". Thats equally bad. It would require build switching to be completely disabled.
And then you get the least diverse meta yet from 1v1. By far.
Though even with build switching, that would just mean you have 4 builds instead of 2 that you swap between, and most classes remain unplayable.

Did ... you just miss the context? "It would require build switching to be completely disabled. And then you get the least diverse meta yet from 1v1. By far.". And then, in the english language, denotes that its a followup to the previous sentence. You might want to read more closely.

Yeah, and then

@UNOwen.7132 said:Everything I said is true. You even admitted it yourself. You just said "If that happens, so be it". Cold disregard however doesnt make it better.

In no way is that anything like what I actually said, which was a complete disagreement with everything you've said lol:

A quote from you: "And even if your scenario were happening "two players waiting for the last second to swap" it just has to be that way.". That is exactly what you said.

@Trevor Boyer.6524 said:And even if your scenario were happening "two players waiting for the last second to swap" it just has to be that way. At least you get 3 rounds to be able to psyche out the other player for a counter, rather than being forced to play 3 rounds against a counter in a boring match that you already know you'll lose. But truth be told, even during 2v2 which I played A LOT of, I never once saw your hypothetical scenario occur. And even if it did, good players would be ready and anticipate that motion anyway.

ok and then

Not the one I meant.

@UNOwen.7132 said:Having 2-3 builds, or 4-6 doesnt make much of a difference. It makes less of a difference when its just 2 variations of the same class, specifically built to counter 2 variations of the other class. Imagine if instead of core necro, firebrand and condi rev, you had core power/condi necro, bunker/condi firebrand, and power/condi rev. Everyone would still be playing the same thing. They would just have 2 builds they swap between instead of 1. Every matchup would still be the same. Diversity would not exist.

What? This is actually the first post I've ever read where I am unable to even discern what it is that someone was trying to say. For real, none of that made sense.

Then you have trouble understanding simple fact. Let me put even simpler. Imagine if the top 3 classes in 2v2, the ones that dominated the gamemode, had 2 variation. To put it simple, imagine they swapped one weapon, for another. That would be a different build. But noone would say that 2v2 had any build diversity. Its still the same 3 classes dominating the gamemode, and its still everyone playing the same thing. For that matter, we had build-swapping in 2v2. Diverse it was not.

@UNOwen.7132 said:Conquest is inherently diverse. Buildswapping doesnt cause issues there.
Its also not a situation where people swap at the last second to try and counter.

And it was that moment when Luke Skywalker appeared, and he said:

q8W1Rgt.jpg

Except everything I said was right. You however, everything you said indeed was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...