Should Stronghold be given a second chance? — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home PVP

Should Stronghold be given a second chance?

Morvran.8265Morvran.8265 Member ✭✭

Right now Stronghold exists so we can tell new players to avoid it and.. that's about it.

It's a gamemode that wasn't received well by the PvP community and was quickly abandoned. Clearly a good amount of effort went into its creation though and the gamemode has some depth as is, and remains the only permanent alternative to Conquest in the queue system. There hasn't really been any attempts at improving the gamemode, and to be honest, I'm not sure if there was a demand for that in the first place.

But years have passed and Stronghold is still there in the UI, right above Conquest, staring us down each day. So my question is: does the community want Anet to dedicate some resources to it and attempt a rework, or are we fine with the current state of affairs and resources should be spent elsewhere?

Personally I wasn't the biggest fan of it at HoT launch, but I tried it again the other day and I kinda had fun. At least it was a nice change of pace from Conquest. If you have any suggestions for improvements or want to share anything regarding the future of the gamemode, I'd love to see your thoughts below!

Should Stronghold be given a second chance? 72 votes

Yes, Anet should attempt to rework Stronghold
59%
Aktium.9506Dahkeus.8243Stand The Wall.6987Jekkt.6045Lonami.2987Talek.6795Marxx.5021LucianTheAngelic.7054Anna.7845choovanski.5462Loboling.5293Raiden The Beast.3016Poelala.2830otto.5684Emapudapus.1307DanAlcedo.3281Thornwolf.9721viquing.8254TallBarr.2184zarcon.7820 43 votes
No, Anet should leave Stronghold behind and focus on other projects
29%
Buran.3796Hot Boy.7138Starbreaker.6507Exedore.6320AllNightPlayer.1286Lich King.1524CrimsonNeonite.1048Falan.1839ollbirtan.2915Ashkew.6584Spartacus.3192Math.5123Abyssisis.3971Weasel.9684Broady.2358Tharan.9085Gogdarth.6741mtnjkbm.7452Arklite.4013Brimstone Jack.3462 21 votes
Other (explain in the comments)
11%
Trevor Boyer.6524Ziggityzog.7389Ovark.2514Shao.7236Multicolorhipster.9751Dantheman.3589Luthan.5236Avatar.3568 8 votes

Comments

  • Ovark.2514Ovark.2514 Member ✭✭✭
    Other (explain in the comments)

    I think it's pretty good as-is. They just need to tone down how much the adds benefit from support classes.

  • Shao.7236Shao.7236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Other (explain in the comments)

    It's mostly fine, population don't care.

    Players care for conquest because it's overall more linear and less chaotic than Stronghold.

    Hold this and outnumber this, win. Bunkers builds also have a purpose, meanwhile only supports or DPS would actually work on Stronghold because you have to defend NPC's rather than nodes.

    Anet could improve on some things that makes it annoying such as "Lord is under attack!" Constant spamming or the gathering taking very long since most games that are well played run down the timer, there's a need for the ability to pressure teams more which having more mobs spawning could help.

    Willing to help with anything Revenant related.

  • Ovark.2514Ovark.2514 Member ✭✭✭
    Other (explain in the comments)

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    It doesn't need a rework. It needs a set of new maps to go with the original, and a method to encourage playing it.

    It's actually a functional game mode now in 2020. DPS is higher and that changes a lot. The only reason it was bluffed off on its release as a bad game mode was for 2x reasons:

    1. Damage in that meta-string was too low and the NPCs were way too hard to kill when Supports were following them. Back in those days, a single Tempest could follow a pack of rats and keep them alive all the way to first gate while 2x opponents DPSed them the entire way. Damage was too low back then.
    2. It was never set as a mainstream game mode. Of course no one is going to dedicate practice to a beta-test only 1 map game mode. Even if the mode was every bit the equal to conquest, it would still go empty when ranked seasons start and when ATs are live for that same reason.

    I haven't played it in a long time so I kinda assumed that the support thing is still a problem. . . mb

  • Virdo.1540Virdo.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Anet should attempt to rework Stronghold

    imo stronghold is more fun than normal 5v5 Point-capturing

  • Loboling.5293Loboling.5293 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, Anet should attempt to rework Stronghold

    Stronghold would be better if the npcs spawned periodically with side objectives that enhance them or summon heroes for your side. I don't like needing to grab supply to buy a unit to march across the map. Not a fan of the map, but it's close to being a fun mode imo. I'd like to see some effort made to make it work better. Not holding my breath though.

  • Dantheman.3589Dantheman.3589 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Other (explain in the comments)

    I’d say yes we should give stronghold a chance, but I don’t think it needs much of a rework at all, maybe just more maps. Also not sure how much effort I would personally wanna put into the game since 1.) I’m getting bored of it 2.) becuz of general toxicity level of a lot of players

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    2. It was never set as a mainstream game mode. Of course no one is going to dedicate practice to a beta-test only 1 map game mode. Even if the mode was every bit the equal to conquest, it would still go empty when ranked seasons start and when ATs are live for that same reason.

    It was a mode that you could do for ranked when it was first released.

  • Jekkt.6045Jekkt.6045 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, Anet should attempt to rework Stronghold

    i would honestly do away with the skritt and supply mechanic. make the gates like foefire gates. add strong npcs that protect your base that need to be taken out and add mechanics that encourage splitting without making you feel like a wvw yak caravan. add a flag stand in the middle and obviously 2 flags in each base and make it more like GvG, because that's basically what it was supposed to be in some way.. also, the hero mechanic where you have to channel for what feels like 10 seconds is stupid too.

  • Ziggityzog.7389Ziggityzog.7389 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 4, 2020
    Other (explain in the comments)

    Please don't ruin a good game mode by changing it. The model is fine and fun enough. This coming from a stronghold only PvP player since I have up the wintrade wars season 6. Came back just for 2v2 and 3v3 but I've played thousands of stronghold games. Probably 7,000+

    Tho having a mini stronghold season would be epic fun. Bring back the gold old days of seasons 1-4.

  • Other (explain in the comments)

    It's not that bad as it is really. It's fun to drop a few games into. Some more content would be good for it.
    I just wouldn't want it in the Ranked rotation

    Ranked DuoQ 😡👉🚪
    Patch-culture is awful
    Nerfs should be reserved for extreme cases and only done in creative ways that make the game more interesting to play and watch.

  • Luthan.5236Luthan.5236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Other (explain in the comments)

    Personally I like game modes where there is more to just combat. Where secondary mechanis play a huge role. Therefore I like the conquest maps with secondary mechanics that have a bigger impact.

    Stronghold was a nice idea. But it was too much focused on copying DotA-style game modes (MOBA). There are already dedicated MOBA-games that fail because they try to get easy profit there (cause lots of players like this) but then aren't good enough to compete with the big games. (I mean ... there is LoL already.)

    GW2 and the combat system has it's own strenghts. (Jumping and blocking/dodging was pretty new back then.) Imo it could make sense to have bigger maps and similar mechanics with the doors and lord ... but with players only. (Bomb carried by a player and others protecting him - to attack the door.) Maybe more like a 10 vs. 10 and bigger maps. (With forward spawn possible to capture which you also could just bypass. Fighting the enemy there if they capped it while trying to sneak some bombs. Bomb carrier of course should not be visible on the mini map. Players should need to scout and communicate.)

    Something in between 5 vs. 5 and WvW with it's big zerging.

  • CroTiger.7819CroTiger.7819 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 4, 2020
    Yes, Anet should attempt to rework Stronghold

    I think they should make it 8 vs 8 and keep same. It feels like 5 players are just too predictive outcome since you have 2 lanes and supply center while you also need to get those npc and waste more time on that. More players would bring better feel of coordination and more fun overall since you won t be stacked on lane alone whole match.
    More players also mean more dmg or more defense but if result is draw the team with more dmg dealt on lord would win so stacking defenses won t be rewarded on long run. More players would be able to stack more supply. There should also be some penalty when you dye if its 8 vs 8 like health reduction from gw1. There is currently too much objectives for 5 vs 5 in my opinion and not much of coordination you can achieve. Still better than 2 vs 2 and 3 vs 3 which bring nothing new except more lazy aproach to win and to game overall.

  • Liewec.2896Liewec.2896 Member ✭✭✭

    they should make it more like Fort Aspenwood, especially since Cantha is now confirmed!

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Anet should attempt to rework Stronghold

    I would remove the supply mechanic. Just make mobs regularly spawn and attack enemy gates.

  • Spartacus.3192Spartacus.3192 Member ✭✭✭
    No, Anet should leave Stronghold behind and focus on other projects

    I voted no. I mean seriously if they added some hearts and vistas i would think i was somewhere in Tyria. Its pvp for God's sake. I unchecked stronghold the first day they allowed us.

  • KeoLegend.5132KeoLegend.5132 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, Anet should attempt to rework Stronghold

    PvP needs to be given a second chance

  • Lonami.2987Lonami.2987 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes, Anet should attempt to rework Stronghold

    Well, the game needs a new PvP mode, so they could use the opportunity to rework Stronghold into a 10v10 game mode. The heroes were a cool feature that had a lot of room for expansion and monetization, it's so sad it went down like that.

    Also, everyone is talking about Stronghold, but what about Murderball and Team Deathmatch? Those aren't even available in unranked!

    For reference, see this thread: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/113724/forgotten-maps-the-pvp-game-browser-and-team-deathmatch-need-a-bit-of-love

    I would love to have ranked seasons of Stronghold and the other game modes more often, lot of people just don't even know they exist.

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    It doesn't need a rework. It needs a set of new maps to go with the original, and a method to encourage playing it.

    It's actually a functional game mode now in 2020. DPS is higher and that changes a lot. The only reason it was bluffed off on its release as a bad game mode was for 2x reasons:

    1. Damage in that meta-string was too low and the NPCs were way too hard to kill when Supports were following them. Back in those days, a single Tempest could follow a pack of rats and keep them alive all the way to first gate while 2x opponents DPSed them the entire way. Damage was too low back then.
    2. It was never set as a mainstream game mode. Of course no one is going to dedicate practice to a beta-test only 1 map game mode. Even if the mode was every bit the equal to conquest, it would still go empty when ranked seasons start and when ATs are live for that same reason.

    The problem with Stronghold is that people play wrong, and aren't punished for it. This happens at Conquest too, where people never defend, fight offpoint, and make many other mistakes because they just want to kill other players and don't pay any attention to anything else.

    Maybe start by removing points for player kills, that could be a good start.

    @Loboling.5293 said:
    Stronghold would be better if the npcs spawned periodically with side objectives that enhance them or summon heroes for your side. I don't like needing to grab supply to buy a unit to march across the map. Not a fan of the map, but it's close to being a fun mode imo. I'd like to see some effort made to make it work better. Not holding my breath though.

    There could be a bonus mechanic where you can spawn extra mobs, but yeah, most of them should spawn normally, with no player interaction.

    @otto.5684 said:
    I would remove the supply mechanic. Just make mobs regularly spawn and attack enemy gates.

    And increase the variety of mobs too.

  • Gogdarth.6741Gogdarth.6741 Member ✭✭✭
    No, Anet should leave Stronghold behind and focus on other projects

    Imo, it's a poor man's MOBA born out of success of this genre in an attempt to get similar results in GW2. Rather than emphasising on game's actual great combat and possible build diversity within every class, it emphases annoying mob herding as if I'm doing hearts or playing lanes in LoL/DOTA and restrictive meta that only allows two types of builds to exist. The emphasis on individual characters within the game mechanic's itself and a vastly different meta that outcasts a number of functional builds in favor of black and white "dps or sup" is what ultimately makes it boring to play, at least for me. I don't know whether I should feel thrilled about mostly interacting with AI running back and forth for the whole match while LORD UNDER ATTACK message nags at me for like five minutes.

    I think Guild Wars is simply not built for this type of gamemode as it misses the mark on why we even play this game's PvP in the first place. Also, hero mechanic is weird and for some reason requires grinding reward tracks.

    I say, scrap the mechanics, make it a 10v10 map that emulates some of WvW experience (make us carry supplies, put down sieges) and give it a 30-45 minutes timer - and you'd have a far better gamemode that somewhat blends the two together and which would likely find more success with general population, since it's different, but not unfamiliar. Think of it as "small scale WvW in a shorter time span".

  • Swagg.9236Swagg.9236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 8, 2020

    Don't "rework" it; just re-use the map assets more or less as they are, and then turn it into a GW2 version of TF2's Powerhouse map. Put the "spawn location" capture points for each side right beneath their respective Guild Lords (or whatever that NPC is called in Stronghold). Lower respawn timer to something like 10s. Make the map a little smaller across its span. Easy.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 8, 2020
    Yes, Anet should attempt to rework Stronghold

    my 2 cents

    • running supply back and forth is garbage un-interactive gameplay
    • archers + bombers die from a sneeze, the entire system needs a rework (truth be told haven't played it post damage nerf so might be better, but there are still high damage builds out there so i doubt it)
    • support can keep lord alive indefinitely
    • some of the hero skills are borken beyond belief

    Te lazla otstara.

  • Dahkeus.8243Dahkeus.8243 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Anet should attempt to rework Stronghold

    Definitely. The game mode has potential, but they fell behind in the balance and when the healer/turtle/zerg strat to lord started to work too well, it just went to hell.

  • @Liewec.2896 said:
    they should make it more like Fort Aspenwood, especially since Cantha is now confirmed!

    Didn't know I wanted this until now. They totally could add FA as a Stronghold map if they made a few minor changes to the gamemode. Would be hype.

  • Trevor Boyer.6524Trevor Boyer.6524 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 17, 2020
    Other (explain in the comments)

    Stronghold ATs ended up being really fun actually.

    When Stronghold was only played in unranked and full of casuals, no one ever really developed competitive ways to play it. This went on for years and made the game mode look bad. During the Stronghold ATs however, some good teams began to figure out how to really work that map, and then it made sense and it was fun.

    Gonna sum this up in a nutshell, because knowing this makes Stronghold feel completely different:

    • Stronghold is no different than Conquest believe it or not. It still operates on a home/mid/far styled play progression. Your home is your lord room. Mid is the supply area. Far is the enemy lord room.
    • Obviously your home lord room needs to be defended when necessary. Only stay long enough to kill NPCs and then leave to go assist mid supply.
    • Mid supply is the most important objective in the match. Winning team fights at the mid supply or at least having a bunker stall at mid supply, prevents the opponents from being able to channel supplies which means they can't do anything to progress their assault on your gates. Whichever team controls mid supply is the team who gets to send endless amounts of NPCs towards their opponents gate, and this creates snowball vs. the opponents. It forces them to continuously defend their lord rather than vie for supply to be able to push a lord. Mid supply is the most important objective in Stronghold. Even if a team holds it and never pushes the opponent lord, they will still win with sheer point value simply by farming the other team who must try and take the supply to get anything done. Holding mid supply is like a chokepoint in terms of limiting what your opponents even have options to do in the match.
    • Far opponent's lord room is believe it or not, the least important objective. Killing it indeed grants an immediate win, and this is preferable to achieve when situation are advantageous. However, when two very competitive teams are going head to head in Stronghold, it isn't so easy to do. When you're talking good teams rather than casuals, pushing the lord room becomes a very high risk high reward styled situation. Having even 2 or 3 guys leave the supply mid to do this, opens up the map for a huge momentum shift where the opponents will reclaim the supply area and summon their own massive snowball of NPCs. And when that happens, if the lord push fails from your 2 or 3 sent or more, the team mates must respawn knowing they contributed a large mount of points to the opponents from a failed push, and now they are on the receiving end to defend your lord against a snowball of NPCs, which is difficult to stop after it starts. So just like lord in legacy, when competitive players are involved, a lord push needs to be very coordinated and done correctly or a failed push can result in a massive momentum shift that could swiftly cost your team the game. During the Stronghold ATs, I noticed that many situations where a good team is vs. a good team, they stopped taking lord push risks and would focus winning team fights at supply to chokepoint their opponents from being able to do anything at all, and from there they would make sure to win hero shrines while controlling mid supply.
    • Fighting away from home/mid/far in Stronghold is as good as fighting off node in Conquest maps. Just know why you're doing it and if it is actually advantageous or not.
    • Then of course you have the objectives, Hero Shrines & Trebs. The Hero Shrines are mainly important for the point gain to be honest. The heroes do help a push but this is really only because a significant amount of manpower is required to make sure they get downed before they ebb away at a gate slowly but surely. Due to this, Tybalt tends to be the most effective hero because he is tanky and he also tosses team support around him. Due to that latent tankiness, he also benefits the most from support. The trebs are sort of meh. The only time I've ever seen them worked in such a way that they were actually threatening, was during this AT event. There was a Deadeye on a particular team who was running every possible mobility enhancing selection, including shadow portal. He would tunnel vision 1 job and 1 job only for his team. He'd quickly move back and forth between the supply, summon a ton of npcs, go up to his treb and down enemy npcs, go back to supply and summon a ton of his own npcs again, so on and so forth. And because he was a DE, this was unusually annoying to deal with because he could just stealth and go away if you chased him. And then when you went to channel supply he'd just interfere long enough to stop you from doing it and vanish again. This player had figured out that he didn't need to actually kill anyone to be a bunker deadeye at mid supply in Stronghold, who could single handedly prevent opponents from channeling supply, while he endlessly ran supply to summon his team npcs, while single handedly removing enemy npcs with the treb from across the map. He could move fast enough to where he made the treb look broken. I have no idea who this player was, never seen him before. What he lacked in mechanical combat experience, he completely made up for by figuring out how to make Deadeye broken in Stronghold. He was the #1 single strongest stronghold presence that I've ever seen.

    But after the Stronghold AT event, I'd say the Stronghold meta would look like this easily:

    1. Tempest = for winning team fights at supply & keeping rats/heroes alive
    2. Scrapper = support assist with good dps that does wonders for giving super sped & stealth to npcs
    3. Holo = for the team fight but also super speeds & stealths npcs
    4. Some Thief build with maximum mobility invested so he can do what that DE was doing
    5. w/e you want to add for special team flavor
  • Exedore.6320Exedore.6320 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No, Anet should leave Stronghold behind and focus on other projects

    Stronghold is salvageable and could be made into a decent mode with significant changes. However, the developers ignored feedback about the major flaws during public beta and during early HoT. So I have no confidence in the developers having the time or dedication to fix it properly.