Which sPvP game mode should be supported the most in the future? — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home PVP

Which sPvP game mode should be supported the most in the future?

Lonami.2987Lonami.2987 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited December 29, 2020 in PVP

Pretty straightforward question, let's see what people thinks.


Standard game modes

These game modes are based on respawns and a final score goal, the match won by whoever reaches the final score first:

  • Conquest: The original sPvP game mode, with a total of 9 maps. Capture points and kill players, includes secondary objectives unique to each map.
  • Murderball: Formerly known as 5v5 Team Deathmatch, only 1 map. Exclusively focused on player kills.
  • Stronghold: Only 1 map. Summon NPCs (including legendary heroes), assault the enemy base, and kill the enemy guild lord.

Arena game modes

These game modes are based on rounds, the match won by whoever wins more rounds:

  • Team Deathmatch: Total of 4 maps. Exclusively focused on player kills.

List of maps


New game modes?

ArenaNet said they were working on a new 10v10/15v15 game mode. Reworks for the existing modes (redesign Stronghold into a 10v10 game mode?) could be possible as well.


Cast your votes!

Which sPvP game mode should be supported the most in the future? 70 votes

Conquest (5v5 Standard)
60%
Grimjack.8130Aktium.9506Trevor Boyer.6524Marxx.5021Robban.1256Liewec.2896Weerus.3701Anna.7845choovanski.5462zinkz.7045Raiden The Beast.3016otto.5684Emapudapus.1307Ragnar.4257Brokensunday.4098TallBarr.2184jsp.6912Sarlan.7682Cynz.9437Nightcore.5621 42 votes
Murderball (5v5 Standard)
5%
Neil.3825ZeroSkitzo.5403Tron.7639Astraeus.4982 4 votes
Stronghold (5v5 Standard)
11%
Curunen.8729Axl.8924TheQuickFox.3826DoomNexus.5324Bailios.7518Virdo.1540SexyMofo.8923razaelll.8324 8 votes
Team Deathmatch (2v2 Arena)
8%
Susy.7529ellesee.8297White Kitsunee.4620Azure The Heartless.3261Fearless.3569moony.5780 6 votes
Team Deathmatch (3v3 Arena)
8%
Lonami.2987Jables.4659Clipzy.9483lare.5129Toguro.7641kamikharzeeh.8016 6 votes
New game mode (explain in comments)
5%
Loboling.5293thundermarch.5643avey.4201Firebeard.1746 4 votes

Comments

  • Trevor Boyer.6524Trevor Boyer.6524 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 29, 2020
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    Tbh, just make more conquest maps with newer interesting objectives.

    I'd like to see a shot at a new game mode, but historically people always like conquest better in the end.

    They could also do the 2v2 and 3v3 arenas well by redesigning auric and hall. Those maps need to be opened up a bit more. They're too small.

  • Dantheman.3589Dantheman.3589 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Fact check- they already created new big maps for 10x and 15x. That was done years ago, they just don’t plan on making them public.

  • Fueki.4753Fueki.4753 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    Conquest is the primary PvP mode in GW2.
    Of course it should be supported "most".

  • Tycura.1982Tycura.1982 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    Tower Verticle Map
    4 Point Map
    Mid Hazard Map

    In my dreams qqqq

  • Quadox.7834Quadox.7834 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 30, 2020
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    suspend all work on the expansion and focus 100% of dev efforts on bringing back raid on the capricorn

    // Yanim

  • Lonami.2987Lonami.2987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Team Deathmatch (3v3 Arena)

    @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:
    Tbh, just make more conquest maps with newer interesting objectives.

    I'd like to see a shot at a new game mode, but historically people always like conquest better in the end.

    They could also do the 2v2 and 3v3 arenas well by redesigning auric and hall. Those maps need to be opened up a bit more. They're too small.

    I'm fine with Conquest, but the problem is that people play it wrong. It's been 8 years and many veterans don't even bother doing basic stuff such as decapping, rotating, and defending. Most of the players just want to kill each other and ignore the side objectives. I've lost track of the matches thrown at 450+ score by this kind of players, and the problem is the same across silver, gold, and platinum.

    That's why I prefer Team Deathmatch, since it's pretty straightforward, and the fights are the only thing that matter. The reduced space is great too, since it forces people to stay together, and it's harder for selfish lone players to run away from danger while selling out the rest of the team. It's not a superior game mode by any means, but it works far better with GW2's playerbase, and the end result is far more satisfying too. I also think 3v3 is better than 2v2, since team composition has far more depth, and after the first kill the losing team can still win, since 2v3 can come back easier than 1v2.

    Personally, I'm torn between Team Deathmatch (3v3) and a new game mode, but voted for the first just because I didn't want to turn the discussion into new game modes right from the beginning.

    @Quadox.7834 said:
    suspend all work on the expansion and focus 100% of dev efforts on bringing back raid on the capricorn

    I think that ship sailed a long time ago, irony not intended.

  • Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    Conquest and TDM. Could count Courtyard in TDM really.

    They're the main modes and have the most maps and sport the only two Ranked gamemodes.

    New content would be neat, but being realistic I don't think there's much on the horizon before EoD.

    Ranked DuoQ 😡👉🚪
    Nerfs should be reserved for extreme cases and only done in creative ways that make the game more interesting to play and watch.
    "You cannot learn a thing you think you know..."

  • Firebeard.1746Firebeard.1746 Member ✭✭✭✭
    New game mode (explain in comments)

    Tbh botting in WoW is actually more effective than coordinated players, for this reason, no 5v5 versions are something I support. It's only a matter of time before someone with a brain gets good at 5 bot super coordinated burns that a normal human can't react to.

    I think we should get 3v3 versions of conquest and/or stronghold.

  • choovanski.5462choovanski.5462 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 31, 2020
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    everyone who thinks TDM is actually good in GW2 obviously never played courtyard

    all AoE spam, no 1v1, no rotations. actual trash tier gameplay

    honestly tho, wouldn't hurt to revamp courtyard. a bit of a shame to see the effort go to waste

    It's coming for me through the trees
    Help me someone
    Help me please
    Take my shoes off and throw them in the lake

  • I think a fixed stronghold would be the most fun if we got rid of the pve and players had to pull seige to destroy the doors then you could maybe up numbers to 8 vs 8 in some cases.

    PVErs are already enjoying this gamemode more.I would hate to think its because watching skritt rats bring them joy. So maybe this would bring more players.

    seems like a better middle ground for wvw crossover also.

  • only conquest players are left and post on the forums. these kinds of polls are pointless.

    te lazla otstara.
    fingers crossed meta ~

  • Liewec.2896Liewec.2896 Member ✭✭✭
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    conquest maps, but keep them fairly simple.
    over-the-top side objectives are why maps like spritwatch and skyhammer were so hated,
    while simple maps like Coliseum and Foefire are so popular.

    and for the love of the six, no trebuchets, cannons or skyhammers!!

  • Megametzler.5729Megametzler.5729 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 31, 2020
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    only conquest players are left and post on the forums. these kinds of polls are pointless.

    Yes, that is the obvious reason and no other explanation makes sense. Deathmatch clearly is the superior gamemode and I just know everybody wants it!

  • @Megametzler.5729 said:

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    only conquest players are left and post on the forums. these kinds of polls are pointless.

    Yes, that is the obvious reason and no other explanation makes sense. Deathmatch clearly is the superior gamemode and I just know everybody wants it!

    i don't know whats going on at anet hq, but the problems with the other modes seem obvious. its really baffling to me why they don't balance and make changes more often.

    te lazla otstara.
    fingers crossed meta ~

  • Team Deathmatch (2v2 Arena)

    2v2s were the most fun I've had with the game in a very long time.

  • Aktium.9506Aktium.9506 Member ✭✭✭
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    I would like to see them revisit Stronghold and rebuild it as an even more MOBA-like game mode.

    Basically having everyone play as pre-set classes and builds bundled into Mist Champions you pick before the match starts. Complete with a standard ban and pick system.

    This is the only way to balance both Stronghold and Conquest.

  • @White Kitsunee.4620 said:
    2v2s were the most fun I've had with the game in a very long time.

    Not enough people are telling them to make it perma. We are going to have to wait like 4 months to get to play it again for 2 weeks... It's a ridiculous system.

  • Lonami.2987Lonami.2987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Team Deathmatch (3v3 Arena)

    @Multicolorhipster.9751 said:
    Conquest and TDM. Could count Courtyard in TDM really.

    They're the main modes and have the most maps and sport the only two Ranked gamemodes.

    New content would be neat, but being realistic I don't think there's much on the horizon before EoD.

    Courtyard is Murderball, not Team Deathmatch. The name of the game mode was changed a few years ago.

    No one bothered to update the wiki for 5+ years, so I don't blame you for not knowing lol.

    @Firebeard.1746 said:
    Tbh botting in WoW is actually more effective than coordinated players, for this reason, no 5v5 versions are something I support. It's only a matter of time before someone with a brain gets good at 5 bot super coordinated burns that a normal human can't react to.

    I think we should get 3v3 versions of conquest and/or stronghold.

    I love 3v3 TDM but there's no way the maps of those other two game modes would work in a 3v3 environment at all. You'd need to reduce capture points in conquest from 3 to 2, and remove a lot of the filler in Stronghold. Not worth the hassle when you can create new game modes instead.

    @choovanski.5462 said:
    everyone who thinks TDM is actually good in GW2 obviously never played courtyard

    all AoE spam, no 1v1, no rotations. actual trash tier gameplay

    honestly tho, wouldn't hurt to revamp courtyard. a bit of a shame to see the effort go to waste

    Courtyard was never part of the TDM ranked seasons, that's like saying hotjoin is representative of ranked conquest (it isn't).

    @TeqkOneStylez.8047 said:
    I think a fixed stronghold would be the most fun if we got rid of the pve and players had to pull seige to destroy the doors then you could maybe up numbers to 8 vs 8 in some cases.

    PVErs are already enjoying this gamemode more.I would hate to think its because watching skritt rats bring them joy. So maybe this would bring more players.

    seems like a better middle ground for wvw crossover also.

    Agree, I think Stronghold should have been designed with 10v10 in mind. Alternatively, just rip off DotA and LoL, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

    @Liewec.2896 said:
    conquest maps, but keep them fairly simple.
    over-the-top side objectives are why maps like spritwatch and skyhammer were so hated,
    while simple maps like Coliseum and Foefire are so popular.

    and for the love of the six, no trebuchets, cannons or skyhammers!!

    Temple of the Silent Storm has the best secondary mechanic imo. Wish that one was the baseline for all the other maps.

    @White Kitsunee.4620 said:
    2v2s were the most fun I've had with the game in a very long time.

    I prefer 3v3, but yeah, got bored of Conquest long ago, mostly because lot of people still can't rotate after 8 years. In Team Deathmatch it's all about the fights, so you won't getto facepalm as much as in Conquest. Matches being short and quick helps a lot too.

    Wish Team Deathmatch was available off-season, maybe remove Unranked and replace it with a TDM queue.

    @TeqkOneStylez.8047 said:

    @White Kitsunee.4620 said:
    2v2s were the most fun I've had with the game in a very long time.

    Not enough people are telling them to make it perma. We are going to have to wait like 4 months to get to play it again for 2 weeks... It's a ridiculous system.

    It's not even available in hotjoin, only through custom arenas :I.

  • Firebeard.1746Firebeard.1746 Member ✭✭✭✭
    New game mode (explain in comments)

    @Firebeard.1746 said:
    Tbh botting in WoW is actually more effective than coordinated players, for this reason, no 5v5 versions are something I support. It's only a matter of time before someone with a brain gets good at 5 bot super coordinated burns that a normal human can't react to.

    I think we should get 3v3 versions of conquest and/or stronghold.

    I love 3v3 TDM but there's no way the maps of those other two game modes would work in a 3v3 environment at all. You'd need to reduce capture points in conquest from 3 to 2, and remove a lot of the filler in Stronghold. Not worth the hassle when you can create new game modes instead.

    The reason I want to see 3v3 conquest is so there's a cost to coordinated ganging up (potential loss due to lost points), I feel like ganging up is one of the things that makes bots more powerful (in addition to faster reflexes with programs running at ghz now), at least in the WoW videos, the 1:1 of cap points to players is very intentional. I know people like the whole "capper" role in their conquest but I think in order to discourage high-end botting it needs to go away.

  • Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    Courtyard is Murderball, not Team Deathmatch. The name of the game mode was changed a few years ago.

    I mean using the Courtyard map for 3v3/2v2 TDM. Unless its already like that, Idunno. I don't even play Ranked anymore.

    Ranked DuoQ 😡👉🚪
    Nerfs should be reserved for extreme cases and only done in creative ways that make the game more interesting to play and watch.
    "You cannot learn a thing you think you know..."

  • Azure The Heartless.3261Azure The Heartless.3261 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 25, 2021
    Team Deathmatch (2v2 Arena)

    2v2 followed very closely by 5v5. It's easier to balance for large group interactions when you can monitor them small scale more easily. If a class is good at support but bad at being focused, or if a class is good at brief interactions but bad at sustained ones in general, that data should theoretically be highly visible when you compare what people play frequently in 2v2 vs what they play in 5v5.

    You also create more opportunities to find people you would be willing to Duo queue with by seeing how they perform in a spotlight.

    3v3 is basically 5v5. A cohesive, cherry picked 3 man team can pull the effort of a 5 man pug so use this sparingly. It is easier to get upsets in 2v2 vs premades than it is in 3v3.

    @Firebeard.1746 said:
    I think we should get 3v3 versions of conquest and/or stronghold.

    I'd also be willing to give the former the shot, but not the latter. Stronghold is a bit large for 3 players. Conquest is the perfect size for this.

    Never do murderball unless it is for some special event that gives progress for even participating. It exacerbates the issues in conquest and in class balance and offers no remedy to cover them with smart play.

    The "Balance" is a fantasy -- another mortal superstition.

  • Clipzy.9483Clipzy.9483 Member ✭✭
    edited January 26, 2021
    Team Deathmatch (3v3 Arena)

    3 words. Capture the flag. I voted for 3s deathmatch tho because they should balance the game around 3s. Would make balancing easier in my opinion.

  • DoomNexus.5324DoomNexus.5324 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 26, 2021
    Stronghold (5v5 Standard)

    No kitten, that's fun as hell nowadays. Nice quality matches without anyone going afk, crying about balance or about bad teammates or whatever..
    The only thing I'd love to have are the league rewards. But eh... I wouldn't be too mad if this never comes (at least if that means that league rewards remain tied to ranked - more below), I'd rather keep the positive experience and the added bonus of not losing rating. Idk why but I don't mind losing in Stronghold nearly as much as in Unranked Conquest..
    Maybe a new map or two would be extremely nice.

    That being said I also wouldn't mind any of the other options. Basically ANY attention to sPvP would be highly appreciated.

    In general I'd love to see some of the league rewards being either shifted into the reward track or redo the entire thing.. For WvW for example you can practically afk for 9min in your base then run out and cap a camp or something and you get maximum rewards. For sPvP I'm forced to do ranked clownfiesta, any other form of pvp excludes those rewards. Now don't get me wrong, please don't add new ones and I also don't think that stuff like Ascended Shards of glory should be moved.. But I'd appreciate getting at least the gold and maybe grandmaster marks.
    That way we could do full team queue without wasting time not getting anything done in the game.. I'm all for playing PvP because of fun and not for reward, it's just that if there's a really profitable sPvP mode around the corner with the exact same game mode, maps, etc it becomes a bit.. questionable.
    Now that I think about it, my only problem with unranked is that ranked is SO much more profitable.. It's virtually the same without the gold. I don't mind getting nothing out of a csgo match for example but in GW2, just because there's the alternative,.. idk, anyway.. a slight rework of the rewards would be nice.

    @edit:
    WAAAIT!...

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    ArenaNet said they were working on a new 10v10/15v15 game mode. Reworks for the existing modes (redesign Stronghold into a 10v10 game mode?) could be possible as well.

    When did they say that? And is this still relevant or just some 2015 stuff they abandoned long ago ever since but didn't tell anybody to keep some hope in the community?
    Now that you mention 10v10 and stuff... I'd also extremely highly appreciate Guild vs Guild.. I am currently not in any active guild but if sPvP or GvG became viable to play with friends again I'd definitely go out and join one again.

  • Cynz.9437Cynz.9437 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    Given their resources i would prefer they would stick to conquest. I can understand the appeal of 2v2 and 3v3 however they just can't balance all classes across all those modes - they can't even do it within conquest (not to mention pve and wvw).

    Meh~

  • thundermarch.5643thundermarch.5643 Member ✭✭
    edited January 26, 2021
    New game mode (explain in comments)

    Add some new game mod in player versus player , i'm bored in conquest game mod , we need diversity ! No more roaming ! No more decapping ! Let's give us some kind of new PvP objective maps !


    1) capture the flag game mod : flag in middle people need to bring back to their base. Player who hold the flag cannot fight (?) and need to be bumped to drop it

    5v5 game


    2) escort :
    (like the game ''team fortress 2''* )

    One team should be next to one caravan on order to make it move , enemy should push them back. If the caravan is in the opponent team they win ! 5v5 game

    *hat not included


    3 Siege mod :

    (like the game ''chivalry'' or ''mordhau'')

    In 3 point to hold.

    ennemy should take the strategic objectif against defender in order to attack their base and kill lord.

    It will be a bit like stronghold but with only one side and ennemy should hold point enough time in order to go forward

    10v10 game


    4 soccer death match

    One ball in the middle of the ring that can only be controled by cc. Should be pushed in the other goal. When the score reach 7 goal the team win

    A 5v5 game in team deathmatch


    I think this could adds a lot of fun and a lot of new build

  • Axl.8924Axl.8924 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Stronghold (5v5 Standard)

    I voted stronghold just to see what it is, it sounds interesting.

    Having more variety could help keep the game alive

    Here is my list of characters i got so far:

    Elementalist 80 with tempest:Talman nul
    Necromancer 80 with reaper:Zex vokar
    Mesmer level 80 no chrono yet:Klanga voosh.
    Level 80 Ranger with druid spec Jedkhan.

  • avey.4201avey.4201 Member ✭✭✭
    New game mode (explain in comments)

    do balance, then all modes are supported.

  • I hope they bring back Jade Quarry in the cantha expansion! That game mode was always packed in Gw1.

  • DoomNexus.5324DoomNexus.5324 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 27, 2021
    Stronghold (5v5 Standard)

    @Axl.8924 said:
    I voted stronghold just to see what it is, it sounds interesting.

    Having more variety could help keep the game alive

    "Just to see what it is" - do you mean what the improvements would be? Or do you mean the mode in general? If the latter then just checkout Unranked, there's a game mode preference somewhere beneath the ranked queue button if I'm not mistaken.. you can switch between "Stronghold, Conquest, Both" and I think by default it's Conquest only. Stronghold is actually a lot of fun :)
    Always has been but coming from conquest only the majority of the playerbase didn't really know how to play it and went for a team deathmatch style of play. It was forced into ranked when it came out which probably really hurt its reputation due to being a huge clownfiesta.. nobody was playing the objective or seem to understand what to do. However the players queueing for the mode today are deliberately chosing it over conquest and it really shows because I have yet to come across a guy who goes afk, doesn't play the objective, is toxic, ... whatever.. It's just PvP as it should be tbh.

    @Cynz.9437 said:
    Given their resources i would prefer they would stick to conquest. I can understand the appeal of 2v2 and 3v3 however they just can't balance all classes across all those modes - they can't even do it within conquest (not to mention pve and wvw).

    Imo people should stop expecting a perfect balance across all classes across all modes within any game mode. This is just in general not really feasible and even less so if they keep changing the balance.. which they have to do, otherwise it would become stale after a while. We will always some flavor of the month.

    I'm not saying you are but a majority of players in GW2 seem pretty obsessed with playing only meta builds. I can't fully agree, in some metas I had most fun by playing builds that were not even considered viable.. I comfortably sat in plat2 with those builds mind you.
    P/P Deadeye for example.. I've played this and quit gw2 way before it got hyped af just to come back to gw2 and see Unload getting nerfed into irrelevance in pvp. Kind of reminds me of cs:go where the AUG (a ct rifle) just sat there for years infront of everyone's eyes unchanged.. When Valve dropped the price, pro-players started buying it and it became meta FAST getting adopted by the entire community. After Valve then brought it up to its original price people started hating because "this price increase is not enough - it's op".. yea.. Or loadouts in rainbow six siege.. Because one pro guy decided to use a shield (I think it was, not sure) it became meta super quick.. You see, metas can be super volatile even without devs changing anything.. people will experiment and discover new broken synergies which may affect entire team compositions if adopted by the community.
    What kind of annoys me every time some new balance discussion is coming up that doesn't adress one of the fotm-builds is that a lot of people also seem to confuse "presence of X in mAT/winning mAT with X comp" with "being meta". But I guess my two examples above really underlines that this is not unique to gw2.. If "pro-players" use it then it must be good, right? I just don't think gw2 works like a shooter in this regard..
    Small anecdote following my p/p deadeye story: I had a couple matches - this were in fact pretty much the only ones I've lost while playing the build - where at least one player in my team would go straight afk after noticing that I'm playing p/p and not a meta build.. Because it was so "not viable" they flat out refused to play even tho I usually stomped with it.

    I don't like the current meta either btw, just a little story and my opinion idk.

    @Kyraios.8954 said:
    I hope they bring back Jade Quarry in the cantha expansion! That game mode was always packed in Gw1.

    Anything from Factions really :D Fort Aspenwood and the Alliance Battles <3 Really shows how great Guild Wars 1 when it comes to competitive content ^^
    If you are interested there are communities for GW1 pvp queues btw.. they usually all login in on saturday evening or whenever there are enough people for a queue pop and just play gw1 pvp. I myself was in a discord server dedicated to Fort Aspenwood but I know that they also have a Jade Quarry discord.

  • Cynz.9437Cynz.9437 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 27, 2021
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    @DoomNexus.5324 said:

    @Axl.8924 said:
    I voted stronghold just to see what it is, it sounds interesting.

    Having more variety could help keep the game alive

    "Just to see what it is" - do you mean what the improvements would be? Or do you mean the mode in general? If the latter then just checkout Unranked, there's a game mode preference somewhere beneath the ranked queue button if I'm not mistaken.. you can switch between "Stronghold, Conquest, Both" and I think by default it's Conquest only. Stronghold is actually a lot of fun :)
    Always has been but coming from conquest only the majority of the playerbase didn't really know how to play it and went for a team deathmatch style of play. It was forced into ranked when it came out which probably really hurt its reputation due to being a huge clownfiesta.. nobody was playing the objective or seem to understand what to do. However the players queueing for the mode today are deliberately chosing it over conquest and it really shows because I have yet to come across a guy who goes afk, doesn't play the objective, is toxic, ... whatever.. It's just PvP as it should be tbh.

    @Cynz.9437 said:
    Given their resources i would prefer they would stick to conquest. I can understand the appeal of 2v2 and 3v3 however they just can't balance all classes across all those modes - they can't even do it within conquest (not to mention pve and wvw).

    Imo people should stop expecting a perfect balance across all classes across all modes within any game mode. This is just in general not really feasible and even less so if they keep changing the balance.. which they have to do, otherwise it would become stale after a while. We will always some flavor of the month.

    I'm not saying you are but a majority of players in GW2 seem pretty obsessed with playing only meta builds. I can't fully agree, in some metas I had most fun by playing builds that were not even considered viable.. I comfortably sat in plat2 with those builds mind you.
    P/P Deadeye for example.. I've played this and quit gw2 way before it got hyped af just to come back to gw2 and see Unload getting nerfed into irrelevance in pvp. Kind of reminds me of cs:go where the AUG (a ct rifle) just sat there for years infront of everyone's eyes unchanged.. When Valve dropped the price, pro-players started buying it and it became meta FAST getting adopted by the entire community. After Valve then brought it up to its original price people started hating because "this price increase is not enough - it's op".. yea.. Or loadouts in rainbow six siege.. Because one pro guy decided to use a shield (I think it was, not sure) it became meta super quick.. You see, metas can be super volatile even without devs changing anything.. people will experiment and discover new broken synergies which may affect entire team compositions if adopted by the community.
    What kind of annoys me every time some new balance discussion is coming up that doesn't adress one of the fotm-builds is that a lot of people also seem to confuse "presence of X in mAT/winning mAT with X comp" with "being meta". But I guess my two examples above really underlines that this is not unique to gw2.. If "pro-players" use it then it must be good, right? I just don't think gw2 works like a shooter in this regard..
    Small anecdote following my p/p deadeye story: I had a couple matches - this were in fact pretty much the only ones I've lost while playing the build - where at least one player in my team would go straight afk after noticing that I'm playing p/p and not a meta build.. Because it was so "not viable" they flat out refused to play even tho I usually stomped with it.

    I don't like the current meta either btw, just a little story and my opinion idk.

    @Kyraios.8954 said:
    I hope they bring back Jade Quarry in the cantha expansion! That game mode was always packed in Gw1.

    Anything from Factions really :D Fort Aspenwood and the Alliance Battles <3 Really shows how great Guild Wars 1 when it comes to competitive content ^^
    If you are interested there are communities for GW1 pvp queues btw.. they usually all login in on saturday evening or whenever there are enough people for a queue pop and just play gw1 pvp. I myself was in a discord server dedicated to Fort Aspenwood but I know that they also have a Jade Quarry discord.

    Ok. Let's stay by thief: til now the class was balanced around decapping/+1 (althrough given recent nerf rather debatable). Due to that "idea" thief wasn't allowed for most part to be a bruiser/high damage, bunker or a support (any build that could be somehow used as such have been removed pretty quickly). Now if Anet "supported" different kind of mode they would have make the class (and other as well) somehow viable in those game modes which would lead to rather unintended and probably really "unfun" consequences. Let's take 2v2: thief is a joke there. You can argue about it but it is just not the best class for such small party death match given players have same levels of skill. Theoretically the balance team would have to up survivability and damage from thief to be viable in that mode, maybe even support. Take a wild guess how it will affect conquest. Thief would probably turn into shiro rev right after HoT-release if someone remembers it. As far as i recall community hated it. With passion. The nerfs that followed were so hefty that there was no rev for really long time in pvp. Not sure it is great idea to force other classes into that same kind of dynamic.

    Meh~

  • Axl.8924Axl.8924 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Stronghold (5v5 Standard)

    @Cynz.9437 said:

    @DoomNexus.5324 said:

    @Axl.8924 said:
    I voted stronghold just to see what it is, it sounds interesting.

    Having more variety could help keep the game alive

    "Just to see what it is" - do you mean what the improvements would be? Or do you mean the mode in general? If the latter then just checkout Unranked, there's a game mode preference somewhere beneath the ranked queue button if I'm not mistaken.. you can switch between "Stronghold, Conquest, Both" and I think by default it's Conquest only. Stronghold is actually a lot of fun :)
    Always has been but coming from conquest only the majority of the playerbase didn't really know how to play it and went for a team deathmatch style of play. It was forced into ranked when it came out which probably really hurt its reputation due to being a huge clownfiesta.. nobody was playing the objective or seem to understand what to do. However the players queueing for the mode today are deliberately chosing it over conquest and it really shows because I have yet to come across a guy who goes afk, doesn't play the objective, is toxic, ... whatever.. It's just PvP as it should be tbh.

    @Cynz.9437 said:
    Given their resources i would prefer they would stick to conquest. I can understand the appeal of 2v2 and 3v3 however they just can't balance all classes across all those modes - they can't even do it within conquest (not to mention pve and wvw).

    Imo people should stop expecting a perfect balance across all classes across all modes within any game mode. This is just in general not really feasible and even less so if they keep changing the balance.. which they have to do, otherwise it would become stale after a while. We will always some flavor of the month.

    I'm not saying you are but a majority of players in GW2 seem pretty obsessed with playing only meta builds. I can't fully agree, in some metas I had most fun by playing builds that were not even considered viable.. I comfortably sat in plat2 with those builds mind you.
    P/P Deadeye for example.. I've played this and quit gw2 way before it got hyped af just to come back to gw2 and see Unload getting nerfed into irrelevance in pvp. Kind of reminds me of cs:go where the AUG (a ct rifle) just sat there for years infront of everyone's eyes unchanged.. When Valve dropped the price, pro-players started buying it and it became meta FAST getting adopted by the entire community. After Valve then brought it up to its original price people started hating because "this price increase is not enough - it's op".. yea.. Or loadouts in rainbow six siege.. Because one pro guy decided to use a shield (I think it was, not sure) it became meta super quick.. You see, metas can be super volatile even without devs changing anything.. people will experiment and discover new broken synergies which may affect entire team compositions if adopted by the community.
    What kind of annoys me every time some new balance discussion is coming up that doesn't adress one of the fotm-builds is that a lot of people also seem to confuse "presence of X in mAT/winning mAT with X comp" with "being meta". But I guess my two examples above really underlines that this is not unique to gw2.. If "pro-players" use it then it must be good, right? I just don't think gw2 works like a shooter in this regard..
    Small anecdote following my p/p deadeye story: I had a couple matches - this were in fact pretty much the only ones I've lost while playing the build - where at least one player in my team would go straight afk after noticing that I'm playing p/p and not a meta build.. Because it was so "not viable" they flat out refused to play even tho I usually stomped with it.

    I don't like the current meta either btw, just a little story and my opinion idk.

    @Kyraios.8954 said:
    I hope they bring back Jade Quarry in the cantha expansion! That game mode was always packed in Gw1.

    Anything from Factions really :D Fort Aspenwood and the Alliance Battles <3 Really shows how great Guild Wars 1 when it comes to competitive content ^^
    If you are interested there are communities for GW1 pvp queues btw.. they usually all login in on saturday evening or whenever there are enough people for a queue pop and just play gw1 pvp. I myself was in a discord server dedicated to Fort Aspenwood but I know that they also have a Jade Quarry discord.

    Ok. Let's stay by thief: til now the class was balanced around decapping/+1 (althrough given recent nerf rather debatable). Due to that "idea" thief wasn't allowed for most part to be a bruiser/high damage, bunker or a support (any build that could be somehow used as such have been removed pretty quickly). Now if Anet "supported" different kind of mode they would have make the class (and other as well) somehow viable in those game modes which would lead to rather unintended and probably really "unfun" consequences. Let's take 2v2: thief is a joke there. You can argue about it but it is just not the best class for such small party death match given players have same levels of skill. Theoretically the balance team would have to up survivability and damage from thief to be viable in that mode, maybe even support. Take a wild guess how it will affect conquest. Thief would probably turn into shiro rev right after HoT-release if someone remembers it. As far as i recall community hated it. With passion. The nerfs that followed were so hefty that there was no rev for really long time in pvp. Not sure it is great idea to force other classes into that same kind of dynamic.

    Personally and i'm not a thief main but still i think they shouldn't have touched thief in some of the ways they did.

    Touching damage so much and all that broke them. Thats just my opinion though, since thiev should have some extra roles for 2v2 5v5 and so on.

    Here is my list of characters i got so far:

    Elementalist 80 with tempest:Talman nul
    Necromancer 80 with reaper:Zex vokar
    Mesmer level 80 no chrono yet:Klanga voosh.
    Level 80 Ranger with druid spec Jedkhan.

  • DoomNexus.5324DoomNexus.5324 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 27, 2021
    Stronghold (5v5 Standard)

    @Cynz.9437 said:
    Ok. Let's stay by thief: (...) Let's take 2v2: thief is a joke there. (...)Theoretically the balance team would have to up survivability and damage from thief to be viable in that mode, maybe even support. Take a wild guess how it will affect conquest.

    That's exactly what I meant with my original statement (or rather one part to my idea):

    @DoomNexus.5324 said:
    Imo people should stop expecting a perfect balance across all classes across all modes within any game mode. This is just in general not really feasible and even less so if they keep changing the balance.. which they have to do, otherwise it would become stale after a while. We will always some flavor of the month.

    I wouldn't force every class or even spec to be viable for every game mode and every mode within that game mode an so on.. That's just unrealistic and never going to happen. I know from personal experience that thief is at least "viable" in 2v2 and 3v3 with some builds and I think that's more than I would ask for a class. I mean like I said, I've played builds that were not even considered viable in the slightest, let alone a meta build and I 1) performed really well and 2) had a lot of fun playing it.
    I've also suggested in another post that anet could categorize classes/e-specs so they can balance them accordingly and justify everything instead of "We feel like this is too stronk so Nerf-Hammer".
    If they put daredevil in a Roamer-category then they have no obligations to make daredevil work for a team deathmatch kind of game mode and recent mobility nerfs would be unjustified where we as players also get some form of base to argue from too. However if they'd decide that Daredevil is supposed to be a Brawler then the mobility nerfs were appropriate and nobody could really argue against that.. Something like that.. If Anet just set specific roles a spec is meant for then everybody (community AND devs) would have a better guideline for judgement instead of just personal opinion. They don't need to be super one-dimensional and a roamer is not allowed to take part in team fights or bring anything else to the table but it allows everyone to put everything into perspective.. If a tank excels in mobility in such a way that they replace roamers then there's definitely something going on..

    It would also open some possibilities for match making.. Instead of avoiding duplicate classes they could avoid duplicate roles or make them more unlikely or match two equally set up teams and stuff.. Like only match a team with support with another team with support, or something like that.
    Completely different approach to how Anet handles sPvP at the moment (and everything else basically since you could also extend that to PvE lfgs and stuff) but I think this could change and improve a lot.. just a couple constructive thoughts instead of the usual Q_Q in the forums.

  • Cynz.9437Cynz.9437 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Conquest (5v5 Standard)

    @DoomNexus.5324 said:

    @Cynz.9437 said:
    Ok. Let's stay by thief: (...) Let's take 2v2: thief is a joke there. (...)Theoretically the balance team would have to up survivability and damage from thief to be viable in that mode, maybe even support. Take a wild guess how it will affect conquest.

    That's exactly what I meant with my original statement (or rather one part to my idea):

    @DoomNexus.5324 said:
    Imo people should stop expecting a perfect balance across all classes across all modes within any game mode. This is just in general not really feasible and even less so if they keep changing the balance.. which they have to do, otherwise it would become stale after a while. We will always some flavor of the month.

    I wouldn't force every class or even spec to be viable for every game mode and every mode within that game mode an so on.. That's just unrealistic and never going to happen. I know from personal experience that thief is at least "viable" in 2v2 and 3v3 with some builds and I think that's more than I would ask for a class. I mean like I said, I've played builds that were not even considered viable in the slightest, let alone a meta build and I 1) performed really well and 2) had a lot of fun playing it.
    I've also suggested in another post that anet could categorize classes/e-specs so they can balance them accordingly and justify everything instead of "We feel like this is too stronk so Nerf-Hammer".
    If they put daredevil in a Roamer-category then they have no obligations to make daredevil work for a team deathmatch kind of game mode and recent mobility nerfs would be unjustified where we as players also get some form of base to argue from too. However if they'd decide that Daredevil is supposed to be a Brawler then the mobility nerfs were appropriate and nobody could really argue against that.. Something like that.. If Anet just set specific roles a spec is meant for then everybody (community AND devs) would have a better guideline for judgement instead of just personal opinion. They don't need to be super one-dimensional and a roamer is not allowed to take part in team fights or bring anything else to the table but it allows everyone to put everything into perspective.. If a tank excels in mobility in such a way that they replace roamers then there's definitely something going on..

    It would also open some possibilities for match making.. Instead of avoiding duplicate classes they could avoid duplicate roles or make them more unlikely or match two equally set up teams and stuff.. Like only match a team with support with another team with support, or something like that.
    Completely different approach to how Anet handles sPvP at the moment (and everything else basically since you could also extend that to PvE lfgs and stuff) but I think this could change and improve a lot.. just a couple constructive thoughts instead of the usual Q_Q in the forums.

    I think i disagree because i have played this for too long and have seen too much from Anet. I just have no reasons to be optimistic enough for the suggestions you make.

    Meh~

  • DoomNexus.5324DoomNexus.5324 Member ✭✭✭
    Stronghold (5v5 Standard)

    @Cynz.9437 said:

    @DoomNexus.5324 said:

    @Cynz.9437 said:
    Ok. Let's stay by thief: (...) Let's take 2v2: thief is a joke there. (...)Theoretically the balance team would have to up survivability and damage from thief to be viable in that mode, maybe even support. Take a wild guess how it will affect conquest.

    That's exactly what I meant with my original statement (or rather one part to my idea):

    @DoomNexus.5324 said:
    Imo people should stop expecting a perfect balance across all classes across all modes within any game mode. This is just in general not really feasible and even less so if they keep changing the balance.. which they have to do, otherwise it would become stale after a while. We will always some flavor of the month.

    I wouldn't force every class or even spec to be viable for every game mode and every mode within that game mode an so on.. That's just unrealistic and never going to happen. I know from personal experience that thief is at least "viable" in 2v2 and 3v3 with some builds and I think that's more than I would ask for a class. I mean like I said, I've played builds that were not even considered viable in the slightest, let alone a meta build and I 1) performed really well and 2) had a lot of fun playing it.
    I've also suggested in another post that anet could categorize classes/e-specs so they can balance them accordingly and justify everything instead of "We feel like this is too stronk so Nerf-Hammer".
    If they put daredevil in a Roamer-category then they have no obligations to make daredevil work for a team deathmatch kind of game mode and recent mobility nerfs would be unjustified where we as players also get some form of base to argue from too. However if they'd decide that Daredevil is supposed to be a Brawler then the mobility nerfs were appropriate and nobody could really argue against that.. Something like that.. If Anet just set specific roles a spec is meant for then everybody (community AND devs) would have a better guideline for judgement instead of just personal opinion. They don't need to be super one-dimensional and a roamer is not allowed to take part in team fights or bring anything else to the table but it allows everyone to put everything into perspective.. If a tank excels in mobility in such a way that they replace roamers then there's definitely something going on..

    It would also open some possibilities for match making.. Instead of avoiding duplicate classes they could avoid duplicate roles or make them more unlikely or match two equally set up teams and stuff.. Like only match a team with support with another team with support, or something like that.
    Completely different approach to how Anet handles sPvP at the moment (and everything else basically since you could also extend that to PvE lfgs and stuff) but I think this could change and improve a lot.. just a couple constructive thoughts instead of the usual Q_Q in the forums.

    I think i disagree because i have played this for too long and have seen too much from Anet. I just have no reasons to be optimistic enough for the suggestions you make.

    Well, same.. I've been here since release and waiting for anything substantial since HoT ruined everything. I don't have much hope left for sPvP and GW2 in general tbh but.. I mean this thread is all about suggestions to sPvP so I try and provide some useful input, maybe someone at Anet will read it and it has some influence on future decision making or something. I highly doubt that too, but if I don't give any input then there's not even a small chance my opinion could have some influence.

  • Lonami.2987Lonami.2987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Team Deathmatch (3v3 Arena)

    @Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    Courtyard is Murderball, not Team Deathmatch. The name of the game mode was changed a few years ago.

    I mean using the Courtyard map for 3v3/2v2 TDM. Unless its already like that, Idunno. I don't even play Ranked anymore.

    Courtyard has two versions, one for Murderball (the original) and one for Team Deathmatch (introduced later).

    None of them are available through either ranked, unranked, or public arenas; they can only be played through custom arenas purchased by players.

    @Clipzy.9483 said:
    3 words. Capture the flag. I voted for 3s deathmatch tho because they should balance the game around 3s. Would make balancing easier in my opinion.

    I completely agree. When you start balance at the lower levels, the higher levels (5v5, 10v10) will become easier to balance.

    @DoomNexus.5324 said:
    In general I'd love to see some of the league rewards being either shifted into the reward track or redo the entire thing.. For WvW for example you can practically afk for 9min in your base then run out and cap a camp or something and you get maximum rewards. For sPvP I'm forced to do ranked clownfiesta, any other form of pvp excludes those rewards. Now don't get me wrong, please don't add new ones and I also don't think that stuff like Ascended Shards of glory should be moved.. But I'd appreciate getting at least the gold and maybe grandmaster marks.
    That way we could do full team queue without wasting time not getting anything done in the game.. I'm all for playing PvP because of fun and not for reward, it's just that if there's a really profitable sPvP mode around the corner with the exact same game mode, maps, etc it becomes a bit.. questionable.
    Now that I think about it, my only problem with unranked is that ranked is SO much more profitable.. It's virtually the same without the gold. I don't mind getting nothing out of a csgo match for example but in GW2, just because there's the alternative,.. idk, anyway.. a slight rework of the rewards would be nice.

    I think unranked is a waste of time, since ranked gives you far more money. Unless you really care about your rank, I'd never do unranked.

    In fact, I wish unranked was replaced with a 3v3 Team Deathmatch ranked queue. I wouldn't touch Conquest ever again if I could 3v3 all day long.

    @Lonami.2987 said:
    ArenaNet said they were working on a new 10v10/15v15 game mode. Reworks for the existing modes (redesign Stronghold into a 10v10 game mode?) could be possible as well.

    When did they say that? And is this still relevant or just some 2015 stuff they abandoned long ago ever since but didn't tell anybody to keep some hope in the community?
    Now that you mention 10v10 and stuff... I'd also extremely highly appreciate Guild vs Guild.. I am currently not in any active guild but if sPvP or GvG became viable to play with friends again I'd definitely go out and join one again.

    I don't even remember, but they mentioned they were having problems with the UI. Few PvP map prototypes were datamined as well.

    My guess is that we'll see something with the third expansion, but no idea what to expect.

    @thundermarch.5643 said:
    Add some new game mod in player versus player , i'm bored in conquest game mod , we need diversity ! No more roaming ! No more decapping ! Let's give us some kind of new PvP objective maps !


    1) capture the flag game mod : flag in middle people need to bring back to their base. Player who hold the flag cannot fight (?) and need to be bumped to drop it

    5v5 game

    Spirit Watch already works that way, too bad it was abandoned and removed from ranked. Hope they rework it some day :anguished:.

    @Axl.8924 said:
    I voted stronghold just to see what it is, it sounds interesting.

    Having more variety could help keep the game alive

    It's already in the game, since 2015 to be precise lol. Only available through public and unranked arenas.

    @DoomNexus.5324 said:

    @Cynz.9437 said:
    Ok. Let's stay by thief: (...) Let's take 2v2: thief is a joke there. (...)Theoretically the balance team would have to up survivability and damage from thief to be viable in that mode, maybe even support. Take a wild guess how it will affect conquest.

    That's exactly what I meant with my original statement (or rather one part to my idea):

    @DoomNexus.5324 said:
    Imo people should stop expecting a perfect balance across all classes across all modes within any game mode. This is just in general not really feasible and even less so if they keep changing the balance.. which they have to do, otherwise it would become stale after a while. We will always some flavor of the month.

    I wouldn't force every class or even spec to be viable for every game mode and every mode within that game mode an so on.. That's just unrealistic and never going to happen. I know from personal experience that thief is at least "viable" in 2v2 and 3v3 with some builds and I think that's more than I would ask for a class. I mean like I said, I've played builds that were not even considered viable in the slightest, let alone a meta build and I 1) performed really well and 2) had a lot of fun playing it.
    I've also suggested in another post that anet could categorize classes/e-specs so they can balance them accordingly and justify everything instead of "We feel like this is too stronk so Nerf-Hammer".
    If they put daredevil in a Roamer-category then they have no obligations to make daredevil work for a team deathmatch kind of game mode and recent mobility nerfs would be unjustified where we as players also get some form of base to argue from too. However if they'd decide that Daredevil is supposed to be a Brawler then the mobility nerfs were appropriate and nobody could really argue against that.. Something like that.. If Anet just set specific roles a spec is meant for then everybody (community AND devs) would have a better guideline for judgement instead of just personal opinion. They don't need to be super one-dimensional and a roamer is not allowed to take part in team fights or bring anything else to the table but it allows everyone to put everything into perspective.. If a tank excels in mobility in such a way that they replace roamers then there's definitely something going on..

    It would also open some possibilities for match making.. Instead of avoiding duplicate classes they could avoid duplicate roles or make them more unlikely or match two equally set up teams and stuff.. Like only match a team with support with another team with support, or something like that.
    Completely different approach to how Anet handles sPvP at the moment (and everything else basically since you could also extend that to PvE lfgs and stuff) but I think this could change and improve a lot.. just a couple constructive thoughts instead of the usual Q_Q in the forums.

    I loathe the nerf mentality. In many cases, the solution for imbalance is to introduce counters, not to nerf everything into the ground.

    And let's face it, most people doesn't know how to rotate properly (and many don't even care). It's more of a Conquest problem rather than a thief problem.

  • ellesee.8297ellesee.8297 Member ✭✭✭
    Team Deathmatch (2v2 Arena)

    If you didnt vote 2v2 or 3v3 arenas you are wrong. Nobody cares about conquest

  • TheQuickFox.3826TheQuickFox.3826 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Stronghold (5v5 Standard)

    I would love a full remake of Fort Aspenwood as Stronghold map and the ability to play / choose stronghold in ranked. (Because many rewards and achievements are only granted in ranked.)

    Ascalon Will Prevail!

    GW Wiki user page | GW2 Wiki user page

  • Loboling.5293Loboling.5293 Member ✭✭✭
    New game mode (explain in comments)

    I think Conquest is great in itself, and besides adding a few new maps with some interesting mechanics. I'm not for abandonning conquest, since it's the only thing keeping this game mode afloat.

    And because of that, I think it would be great if ANET could make new engaging gamemodes for pvp. Stronghold mostly sucks, although I would love to see a revamp there too, since as it is now, it's virtually pointless to exist at all. They really just needed to copy the MOBA formula, towers that kill creeps, continuous creep spawns. Battles to push lanes, with special bonuses you can pick up mid for cool effects. Like bloodlust for your creeps for 30 seconds, or a buff that makes your damage to creeps x5 for 1 minute, etc.

    I lose faith at times they have it in them to develop an engaging new mode, but if I could have my wish, they would either make a new one or redo Stronghold into something fun.