Jump to content
  • Sign Up

What Makes A New Game Mode Good Or Bad?


Recommended Posts

Been thinking a lot about this recently. For whatever reason I've been running into these types of discussions somewhat frequently within the past month, in the forums, in various discords, and even in-game. There are a lot of suggestions and requests for new game modes. Of the most frequently discussed, it seems to be: 8v8 GW1 styled GvG, Capture The Flag, and various new forms of Death Match "1v1s, 2v2s, 3v3s". The players who are making these suggestions/requests are absolutely right in the fact that we need something new. But are they right in their suggestions of new game modes? Have they stopped to consider the details and dynamics of new game modes, why old game modes failed, why conquest persists to be the preferred game mode, and most importantly - how will their game mode suggestion be judged in comparison to conquest when it arrives? Will people just go back to conquest and virtually ignore the new game mode, just like they did with Courtyard and Stronghold? The fact of the matter is that conquest will be the community's basin for the comparison & judgement of any new game mode that we receive. If a new game mode does not draw at least an equal amount of player attention/preference as conquest does, players will inevitably begin to ignore the new game mode and all migrate right back to conquest. This is a disappointment for the community and a waste of time for the developers.

So what is it really that is making or breaking the new game modes that we have received? And what will be making or breaking any new games modes that we may receive in the future? Well, I am not entirely too sure about that, which is why I posted this thread for discussion. I can however, open this discussion with my own initial analysis.

These Pros & Cons of these game modes are in comparison to each other, and not in comparison with theorized game modes that could exist in the future:

CONQUEST - The dominant game mode thus far

  • PROS: It by far offers the greatest amount of dynamic concerning functional and essential job roles within a team "Bruisers, Roamers, Supports, Bunkers", which enables more options for different classes to use different types of builds. This is because the 3 node cap system demands more complex strategy beyond simply killing opponents. It also offers interesting and for the most part, well designed secondary objectives that can allow a losing team a momentum shift. All of this combined dynamic makes for more interesting and not as predictable match ups, than the following game mode examples. It also has many pre-existing maps that matches can be ran in.
  • CONS: It's 6 years old and players want something new.

COURTYARD 5v5 DEATHMATCH - The deathmatch that everyone asks for, that already happened

  • PROS: It's deathmatch! No secondary objectives or nodes to hold caps on. Matches are 100% combat kill focused.
  • CONS: The match style ended up resulting in 3 problems. First, the optimal team comps for deathmatch inevitably began to look like zergy comps in wvw, due to there being no further dynamic than "ball up, survive and roll over the other team". This created a situation where there were less options to utilize in terms of job roles/class & builds that were viable. Simply put, if a Courtyard tournament were to be held now, how would a team approach an opposing team of 2x Firebrands and 3x Scourges who have no reason not to be standing directly on top of each other at all times? There is no reason for a Bunker or a +1. It's just about OP Bruisers & Supports for maximum stack-on-me benefits. Secondly, players became aggravated when having to play the map because there was no "save/load build template", so every time courtyard popped, they had to switch their build or character. Then when that game ended, switch back to the old build or other character. Thirdly, unless a match was so greatly balanced in terms of team comp vs team comp and player skill on each team, it was quite obvious who would win the match usually within the first 30s. This effect was greater than even that feeling we get after witnessing a bad initial mid fight in a conquest match. At least in a conquest match, players can assess "Why did we lose mid? Maybe we should have swapped our playing positions. Maybe we should stop engaging them in team fights and cap/+ around them with superior mobility." In courtyard, none of that mattered. The dynamic of ways to play & win Deathmatch was a straight and narrow path towards the same exact builds that one would choose to use in wvw zerging, but without all of the other circumstances and stipulations that wvw offers, to keep things interesting. In the long run, it looked to me that players began avoiding play in courtyard because the matches "weren't as fun" as conquest. I believe this is directly linked to the lack of play dynamic that courtyard offered. There just weren't enough viable options of how to play & win, in comparison to conquest.

STRONGHOLD - A good game mode, that everyone forgot about?

  • PROS: Something new and something different! Less focused on player combat, more focused on running map objectives and killing NPCs "similar to wvw", and not a bit focused on holding node caps. Theoretically this should have been the sweet spot between spvp players and wvw players. This game mode even made high DPS pve builds viable. How did this possibly fail?
  • CONS: Again, I believe it was a serious lack of play dynamic but not on the side of "viable builds". The lack of dynamic here comes in with "ways to play & win". The fastest and easiest way to example what I mean by this, is with a quick comparison of stronghold initial strategy before gate opens vs. conquest initial strategy before gate opens: In stronghold, (1) We must defend our gate and kill enemy NPCs. (2) We must push the enemy gate and defend our NPCs. (3) We must run "not optional objectives" but mandatory objectives to keep fueling 1 and 2. Unlike conquest, the match dynamic of stronghold forces an almost mandatory team split on the initial play, and for the rest of the match, to be able to run the mechanics. In this light, stronghold wasn't ENOUGH about killing players, it was too focused on killing the NPCs with the mechanics provided, those mechanics never changing and never creating surprise. In conquest: Players are looking for ways to launch a successful initial split against other human players, and then defend it. This is much more complex than going after objectives in stronghold that never surprise us, as humans can be unpredictable. They size up their team comp vs. enemy team comp, and have many options of how to launch their first play. 1/4/0? 1/3/1? 1/2/2? 1/1/3? or even in more desperate situations 0/5/0? 4/0/1? ect.. ect.. and this isn't even to mention during these splits, which classes are in which places. The conquest match continues on as such, with objectives spawning, that can entirely turn a match around. Every play launched by a team, in every rotation after the first, can be wildly and drastically different. This is why we can see many ups & downs in score, comebacks and fallouts, during a conquest match. In stronghold however, it is almost always one sided with comebacks being uber rare outside of someone DCing. Again, there are just more ways to play & win in conquest, than there is in stronghold. Players eventually begin noticing that the game mode is for some reason not as fun as conquest, and that it seems to get narrow and boring rather quickly. Even though they may not be able to explain why, they feel it. <- I believe it is simply feeling the lack of ways to play & win.

So.. I kind of feel like courtyard and stronghold didn't necessarily fall out because they were bad game modes, they fell out because they are compared to conquest. Furthermore, I feel that conquest is an underappreciated game mode, in the midst of so many players who are ready for something new. We all want to see something new! But we should consider the realities of what new game mode suggestions may result in, and we shouldn't forget about the solid game mode of conquest.

Let's take a look at theorized game modes. Pros & Cons being based of off ideal, rather than facts.

1v1, 2v2, 3v3 DEATHMATCHES:

  • PROS: Well, sometimes people want to 1v1, 2v2 or 3v3, but don't we get enough of this in wvw or custom arenas? It would be fun to be able to do.
  • CONS: Is this really a game mode that people would play continuously throughout the day in the same way they do unranked or ranked? How will it compare to conquest in the end, concerning "how much fun players are having while doing it?" And how will the success of this be any different than courtyard?

CAPTURE THE FLAG:

  • PROS: Sounds amazing, definitely something new. It has been a successful game mode in other games.
  • CONS: What is really going to happen here with this mode's dynamic when applied with the engine of Guild Wars 2 builds? When we suggest this we imagine an epic struggle between two teams, going back and forth taking turns defeating each other in combats, and taking turns grabbing the flag. But I believe this vision of capture the flag to be hopeful at best. I believe this game mode would be the most lacking in the dynamic of "ways to play & win", out of any other game mode. With the way things go down in Guild Wars 2 competitive modes, this match type will likely result in one team finding out they are dominant in the initial combat, taking the flag, and that's the game. We aren't talking about a shooter where 1 good player can carry hard vs. 5 others by himself or where even a complete novice can land a well placed rocket to wipe a team, we are talking about Guild Wars 2. When stopping to consider as much, is capture the flag going to be a mode that we could play all day and not get bored with, similar to unranked/ranked conquest? If it were to be so compelling, it would need serious alterations and added objectives to create more ways to play & win. It would need to be heavily altered from some traditional capture the flag game. This will be exceedingly difficult to do, considering the game revolves around that 1 flag.

8v8 GUILD WARS 1 STYLED GvG:

  • PROS: This is the classic match up. Everyone has been asking for it. Sounds like a great idea. The mere mention of this game mode evokes strong emotions & nostalgic memories of times long past. Players begin remembering epic scenes of elongated battles and all of the mechanics of Guild Wars 1 and why this mode worked for it. Buuuut..
  • CONS: Is Guild Wars 2's mechanics anything like Guild Wars 1? Well.. yes and no.. In Guild Wars 1 everything was slower, more accurate, and heavily based around the design of "I am toggling between multiple opponent's namebars and watching exactly what they do, right down to every skill used. I am a mesmer or ranger with interrupts, when I chose to use the interrupts that I have, they have to count for the usage. Oh! the enemy monk is using his elite right now! Should I interrupt him? Is he healing a target that is almost dead or is he feinting me into a rupt, so that his elementalist can cast his elite and land a powerful knockdown nuclear combo on my team's head?" <- Everything in Guild Wars 1 was like this and battles were drawn out and took much longer. Back then, we didn't have builds capable of killing a player in less than a second, while only pushing 2 or 3 buttons, and the few times that did slip through a patch, the builds were so ridiculous squishy that the reward was not worth the risk at all. Back then, healing/prot supports had to actually individually target their teammates and carefully watch EVERYONE'S health bar/status. While doing so, they took risk while not healing themselves. Nowadays, everything is different. The point being is: Will this 8v8 GvG be anything like it was in Guild Wars 1? Will it be that elongated and complex battle that we remember or will it result in a narrow dynamic where one team inevitably snowballs into dominance early in the match? Will it be a disappointment when it doesn't meet the expectations of Guild Wars 1 nostalgia? Will we once again, migrate back to conquest?

All of these kinds of things need to be considered when seriously sitting down and trying to devise suggestions for new game modes. In my simple opinion, there are 3 major things to be considered while devising an idea for a game mode, that can at least be equal in dynamic to conquest, or possibly surpass it:

  1. The basic idea needs to be a cool theme "sure" but that isn't enough.
  2. The game mode needs to encourage if not demand many different types of build structures, so that people have more choices and more ways to play & win, rather than being pigeonholed into some narrow selection of ways to succeed. It needs to promote AT LEAST: Bruiser/Support/Roamer/Bunker dynamic, or possibly grant viability to the forgotten 5th that we haven't seen use for since GW1, the Point Nuke.
  3. The game mode needs comeback mechanics that are designed not for a winning team to easily snowball and win harder, but for a losing team an advantageous moment to position a possible comeback. Good examples of this are lords in foefire, tranq/still, beasts. Bad examples of this are artifact spawns in coliseum or orb in spiritwatch, both being snowball rather than comeback. It is important for objectives to offer comeback rather than snowball, so that players have an incentive to keep playing and to keep thinking strategically. If they do not do this, and it is obvious who is going to win after the first 30-60s, players get bored in the match, they stop trying, and they eventually stop playing the game mode because matches are too predictable.

Another thing to point out is that "if" a new game mode appeared, would it fit into a ranked que or be put into unranked map roulette? If not, it will require its own game mode entirely, which will divide player base. This means less players in unranked/ranked/ATs. Is that going to be healthy for the community? And if the new mode were to surpass conquest in favoritism, are we really willing to let conquest die when players migrate away from it? If there were new game modes, I think it would be best if they were able to nicely fit in with ranked conquest ques. At this point, I believe it would be the better idea to repair already existing game modes by adding more dynamic, so that they are fun & balanced enough competitively, to be viably considered for re-entering ranked ques. <- This wouldn't be too hard with the right suggestions and direction. I also believe it would be wise to keep focusing on conquest and maybe get a bit bold with new implementations. Say, a new beta map with 4 nodes instead of 3. I don't mean like Capricorn, I mean an actual solid 4th node. There are plenty of things that could be suggested for new conquest ideas, while keeping it conquest.

~ Just ideas and personal points of view. I don't know, you tell me what makes a game mode fun for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONQUESTAdditional PROS:

  • Some level of imbalance is acceptable. If you're not favored in a fight, you can avoid it for another, or team up to overwhelm someone temporarily. A single elite doesn't determine the outcome of the match.
  • GW2 combat works well for smaller fights. You can still see what's happening, there's a healthy trade-off between single target and AoE, many different approaches to combat are possible. The larger combat gets, the move like WvW blobs fights it becomes.

TEAM DEATHMATCHAdditional PROS:

  • The 3v3 size can allow for some variety, catering to GW2's combat style, while simultaneously avoiding the zerg deathball effect of 5v5.
  • Smaller size deathmatches make finding a team easier if you value the competitive aspect. You only need to have 1 or 2 friends available, as opposed to 4.

Additional CONS:

  • At medium and high skill levels, being the team which engages first usually puts you at a disadvantage. The team receiving the attack can adjust positions as you close and already has LoS advantages. This causes the start of a match to be a staring contest while each side waits for the other to make a move.
  • Long cooldown abilities - I'm looking at you Moa morph - typically decide the match. GW2 elites were designed to make you overpowered when used, with the trade-off being that you couldn't always use them and were subject to opponents doing the same. When the cooldown no longer matters, these skills become far too strong.

STRONGHOLDI'm still neutral on the concept. The version we have was executed poorly. It tried to force players into doing a few out of many specific low-impact tasks rather than give them a few strong options with trade-offs. The special rules (stability strip, channel mechanics) to enforce idealized gameplay are evidence. Stronghold also made NPCs matter more than players to the point where the best way to play was to almost completely ignore and avoid players.

CAPTURE THE FLAGHere's how this mode typically plays out in other MMORPGs: A tanky character takes a flag and runs it to their base unable to be stopped. The DPS players will be hindered from being able to burst them down. A tanky character with a support then holds it. This happens on both sides. In a random team, the rest of the players just slug it out in the middle for no reason. A more organized team will try to burst down the flag carrier (which tends to either be too hard or too easy depending on balance and mechanics which burden the flag carrier like increased damage taken after time). IF they happen to kill the flag carrier and return it, an opposing DPS just picks it up, hands it off to the tanky player and the problem resumes. Since capping is extremely hard, the game either ends in a draw after a time limit or once one team scores once, players tend to give up because the chance to score at all is so low; its better to let the opposition score unhindered to end the match faster.Additional CONS:

  • CtF often needs special ability rules. Can you teleport with the flag? What about faster movement abilities (leap, bull rush, etc)? What about swiftness? Is removing movement-impairing effects okay? Certain builds which are build around restricted mechanics are severely hindered.

PAYLOADIn this mode, you have you guard/pilot an object(s) which move from a spawn point to a goal. There are various incarnations of this - some you can swap ownership, others are round-based with an attack/defense. Multiple objects with changing ownership is basically conquest with moving capture points. A round-based system (Fort Aspenwood fits this) is hard to do for GW2 competitive since each team would need to play each side (too long). Stronghold can be thought of as this variant as well.

MARTYRIn this mode, players take an object(s) and score points periodically as long as they hold the object. The object makes the player progressively weaker either by dealing damage directly or by making them take more damage.CONS:

  • A single object version leads to the "deathball" problem described in other CON sections.
  • Like CtF, you start running into special rules. For example, without special rules, a thief could build to just teleport or run away endlessly and never be caught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas! Trevor.

A lot of people asked for new modes since the beginning, with arguments.

But dev. have always obstinately ignored those requests, without giving arguments. (I just remember that they said long ago that there were too many game mode in GW1)So they still stuck in their only 1 game mode, working exactly like the first day, when they thought that it will lead the game to esport.It failed but they still keep to think only in this unique game mode like if they can't imagine other thingsThis the reason why there are so many complains : game mode thought for competitive team, just throw up for soloQ / duoQ ranked.And if you look at their pvp projects, this is still conquest 5man mode and some 2v2.

At this point it's like talking to a wall.I would sadly say that all people who hope to see some real evolution are just dreaming. They are losing time of their live thinking about new modes and writing their ideas, as dev. just decided to simply ignore them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a long and interesting topic so i will answer about it. I said that on some other topic, but if we get a look at Conquest, we have different objectives already :

  • Legacy of foefire, which gives you the ability to kill lord
  • Temple of silent storm, which gives you the ability to gain buffs and steal capture points
  • Capricorn and Skyhammer, which are +/- same than Temple
  • Forest, the easiest map, introducing bosses
  • Colosseum, which i consider similar to forest
  • Spirit's watch, which introduces Orb running
  • Khylo, which introduces treb mechanics

As far as i recall, all this maps involved different strategies and could be won through different ways. But, if you recall, players did ask for nerfs because you had " broken situations " or " too complicated stuff ". Leading to :

  • Skyhammer losing pads and getting a buff working differently
  • Temple losing underwater
  • Khylo becoming much easier in terms of rotating
  • Spirit's watch becoming out of the rotation

If i was reasonning through the balancing team, i would truly understand that players do want " easy maps " and basic strategies. This, unfortunately, got even worse with HoT and especially PoF. Basically, with all due respect to top players, you can win any map by playing and running the same setup, and even using the same strategy.New modes are a thing but then :

  • Why would deathmatch be any different than 5v5 matchs that occur usually on middle point ?
  • Why would capture the flag be much different from Spirit's watch ?
  • Why would GvG be much different from Stronghold ?

What i mean is that, these would have been good ideas if implemented 4 years ago, but right now, you would have to shift the whole meta ( and probably 80% of builds ran today) . I'm not saying all is vain, but there are serious issues regarding balancing first, and i believe new pvp modes involving fighting won't change much.. At this point, realistically, the only thing that could work is some kind of " Codex Arena " , similar to GW1, where everyone has a predefiined build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Abazigal.3679" said:As far as i recall, all this maps involved different strategies and could be won through different ways. But, if you recall, players did ask for nerfs because you had " broken situations " or " too complicated stuff ". Leading to :

  • Skyhammer losing pads and getting a buff working differently
  • Temple losing underwater
  • Khylo becoming much easier in terms of rotating
  • Spirit's watch becoming out of the rotation

If i was reasonning through the balancing team, i would truly understand that players do want " easy maps " and basic strategies. This, unfortunately, got even worse with HoT and especially PoF. Basically, with all due respect to top players, you can win any map by playing and running the same setup, and even using the same strategy.A lot of those changes made sense and were explained.

SkyhammerThe jump pads are still there; they just don't auto-activate. That was done in response to pads interrupting player actions when they got a little too close.The main change is the removal of breakable glass and addition of walls to remove environmental kills. The cannon was also changed from on-use to timer-based. I think they went overboard with glass removal; a lot of it should have been removed, but some should have been kept as flavor. The cannon mechanic is a toss-up as to which is better.

Temple of the Silent StormThe water was removed at the same time underwater combat was phased out of PvP. Underwater combat just didn't work (too many imbalances, couldn't stomp players, etc.).

Battle of KhyloThe major re-design of the clocktower was to deal with camera problems. Those problems depending on race and height, so you may not have noticed it as much. Subsequent changes are questionable.The trebuchet mechanic change is a response to the clocktower re-design which made it harder to fire the treb at that node. The trebuchet is no less or more effective than it originally was.

Spirit WatchThis map has numerous design problems. There are whole threads on it. That's why it's not in ranked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just poped in my head...a conquest style king of the hill.....read me out ha.Theres only 1 capture point at a time it has to be held for a certain amount of time, that means no enemy can enter or the time restarts. Your 3-5 man team has to hold the hill for a solid one min befor getting 25 points per say it can be anything it doeant matter 5 or 10 again doesnt metter pointer per kill...1st to 100 the team wins....i think tjis style will promote the most team cordination possible between each other as well have some fun while doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with courtyard is that its based on respawn and kills, rather than rounds. It encourages snowballing and punish mindless people who're so used to get cap points or lose half the match, as you point out about "mid fight mentality". It'd get a lot more popular if its short burst of rounds and ends early for people to change setup and adjust strategy as a group.

There is a reason why for years people still do GvG in guild halls or sanctums, why many WvW havocs seek out GvG rather than just mindless zergs or musical chairs. Sure there will be a dominant setup, just like WvW. But with 5 people there are different strategies to exploit weaknesses on a group rather than just pirateship meta or old hammertrain.

Again the big problem with spirit watch is its still base on cap point and point stacking system. Random pugs are unable to prioritize orb or cap points or even assign roles when they're so used to conquest and again it becomes snowball once a group got number advantage.

To put it simply, I think its reasonable that people are so groomed to conquest-points system after 6 years of GW2. It becomes harder to come across simple idea like rounds or flags. But it shouldn't prevent both players and dev from idea of alternative gamemodes. Conquest has gotten us nowhere both professional or casual franchise-wise after almost 6 years, and I think it is pretty reasonable to say GW2 doesn't have a flourishing PvP scene.

Also balance of firebrand/scourge combo and new gamemode should happen at the same time if there is a PvP team, as we know it is separate from the balance team. If PvP team wants to do something special, scrape point system from 2v2, courtyard and spirit watch and put them in the same tickbox with stronghold as "alternative gamemode". That way people adjusting build to conquest doesn't have to fight with those who're trying new things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great write up from OP and the first repply.

I'd like to include something:

  • Deathmatch mode needs a different spawn system. It needs to be round base to avoid some serious snowballingIf you die, you stay dead untill the whole team (yours or opponent) is dead. Then everyone resets (skills and position) for another round. Game is won by best of 3 or 5.This also leads to problems of time and strategies like stealth spam, bunkering, ress, etc. A timer (or maybe secondary objectives that can be activated) needs to start map-wide debuffs if the round drags for too long. Healing debufs, revealed, mobility debuffs, etc.

The other issues with more game modes are:

  • the lack of build templates so you can quickly swap you spec for different modes.
  • Low population becoming even more spread on different modes.

Other than that, I'd love to see the "soft pvp" activities (Southsun survival, aspect arena, crab toss, etc) getting a queue in the pvp lobby, and maybe some fine polishing and leader boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well doing it right helps. deathmatch with no rounds is ludicrous, ofc its going to turn into a snowball fiesta. that's how a lot of conquest matches turn out, that's how a lot of wvw matches turn out, so its not a big leap to imagine deathmatch going the same way. the problem with courtyard and stronghold is that there were no attempts to fix them, or at least nothing I heard about. I hate to sound like i'm complaining, but damn gang, ya know?

also there is a flaw in your logic. conquest is not the preferred mode. it is the only mode. the only working one that is. another thing, you said about stronghold and deathmatch that players didn't think they were as fun as conquest. sure, being on the receiving end of a snowballing courtyard match or killing/building npcs on stronghold got old fast. I think the bad courtyard and stronghold matches were still more enjoyable then a bad conquest map. people just give up on conquest, not so in the other ones. even if your team was bad they would still headbutt the wall lol. that counts for something in my book. anyway, ive still had way more fun in average courtyard + stronghold maps then my best conquest maps. conquest feels more like a job then a game. I really don't care about those capture points lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:COURTYARD 5v5 DEATHMATCH - The deathmatch that everyone asks for, that already happened

Nobody asked for this garbage. Everyone wanted WoW style ranked arenas, instead we got this mess with respawns thus the gamemode was quickly abandoned.

STRONGHOLD - A good game mode, that everyone forgot about?

lol what? Almost nobody liked this clownfiesta. It's not a "bad PvP gamemode", it simply isn't even a PvP gamemode! The winning tactic was, and still is, to do nothing but PvE. Heal your skritt, kill enemy guards, kill enemy skritt, and then kill the lord with your first skritt wave. It's literally just PvE. Only reason anyone ever played this gamemode at higher ratings was because stronghold was dead so wintrading was easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of new game modes but honestly whats the point because it will just end up being solo queue or it will be put into custom arenas only.

I was a huge fan of courtyard too, not sure why that was even removed but im guessing it was the same situatuon as team queue, complaints from the minority to better suit themselves.

fun to me is playing games with friends or chilling with friends...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love a 5-point Conquest map with an 800 point goal rather than 500.

Reason being this would make map control + snowballing a lot more difficult. It balances the strength every role has in the game (for example, a bunker controlling a point in a 5-point map would be less effective than controlling a point in a 3-point map; or, a Mesmer will be less effective since portal plays will be less effective as points in a 5-point map have less value compared to a 3-point map; or, a Thief will need to constantly rotate to decap points since there are two more, etc.).

Imagine a scenario where every player on the team splits into 5 individual 1v1's!! Ridiculous.

It'll also be easier for newer players/players wanting to learn how to rotate and strategize more effectively, as there is much more space to do so and more points to spare.

The possibilities with a 5-point map are ENDLESS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@witcher.3197 said:

@"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:
COURTYARD 5v5 DEATHMATCH
- The deathmatch that everyone asks for, that already happened

Nobody asked for this garbage. Everyone wanted WoW style ranked arenas, instead we got this mess with respawns thus the gamemode was quickly abandoned.

STRONGHOLD
- A good game mode, that everyone forgot about?

lol what? Almost nobody liked this clownfiesta. It's not a "bad PvP gamemode", it simply isn't even a PvP gamemode! The winning tactic was, and still is, to do nothing but PvE. Heal your skritt, kill enemy guards, kill enemy skritt, and then kill the lord with your first skritt wave. It's literally just PvE. Only reason anyone ever played this gamemode at higher ratings was because stronghold was dead so wintrading was easier.

This. GW2 is almost like a teenage hipster at this point. They NEED to do things different, when tried-and-true methods are out there... that work... that people love! You don't HAVE to be different just because i'ts "cool." And don't get me started on stronghold!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@pah.4931 said:

@"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:
COURTYARD 5v5 DEATHMATCH
- The deathmatch that everyone asks for, that already happened

Nobody asked for this garbage. Everyone wanted WoW style ranked arenas, instead we got this mess with respawns thus the gamemode was quickly abandoned.

STRONGHOLD
- A good game mode, that everyone forgot about?

lol what? Almost nobody liked this clownfiesta. It's not a "bad PvP gamemode", it simply isn't even a PvP gamemode! The winning tactic was, and still is, to do nothing but PvE. Heal your skritt, kill enemy guards, kill enemy skritt, and then kill the lord with your first skritt wave. It's literally just PvE. Only reason anyone ever played this gamemode at higher ratings was because stronghold was dead so wintrading was easier.

This. GW2 is almost like a teenage hipster at this point. They NEED to do things different, when tried-and-true methods are out there... that work... that people love! You don't HAVE to be different just because i'ts "cool." And don't get me started on stronghold!

Have you seen the playerbase? Who do you think demands this stuff. I mean look at this thread. They want to play non-functional stuff to be special / feel unique / be different then complain when it's completely dysfunctional. They want PvE / gimmicks / bypasses to content to allow anything to work, thinking it'll improve things and make them more casual-friendly yet it does the exact opposite. It creates an environment which is completely dysfunctional and quickly abandonned. It's almost like hypercasual doesn't work outside of openworld PvE.

GW2 is just listening to the majority of its playerbase, who constantly demand these kind of things thinking it'll be "great" for them and much nicer than what we have now... And yet every time it's proven it plain doesn't work. It's almost like casual players with little investment and understanding of the game aren't great designers and fail at predicting the results of their suggestions.

The biggest mistake anet has made was catering to them to the point where they're a vast majority and almost nothing else remains. It's the reason all other content is being abandonned, and the reason they can't fix PvP ever. Nothing they do will EVER fix it outside of making LARGE development and marketting investments. They'd need to change the perceptions of players that left in order to acquire a population healthy and big enough to support these ideas... Something I don't think they're capable of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Abelisk.4527 said:I would love a 5-point Conquest map with an 800 point goal rather than 500.

Reason being this would make map control + snowballing a lot more difficult. It balances the strength every role has in the game (for example, a bunker controlling a point in a 5-point map would be less effective than controlling a point in a 3-point map; or, a Mesmer will be less effective since portal plays will be less effective as points in a 5-point map have less value compared to a 3-point map; or, a Thief will need to constantly rotate to decap points since there are two more, etc.).

Imagine a scenario where every player on the team splits into 5 individual 1v1's!! Ridiculous.

It'll also be easier for newer players/players wanting to learn how to rotate and strategize more effectively, as there is much more space to do so and more points to spare.

The possibilities with a 5-point map are ENDLESS.

This would be a great dynamic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Abelisk.4527 said:I would love a 5-point Conquest map with an 800 point goal rather than 500.

Reason being this would make map control + snowballing a lot more difficult. It balances the strength every role has in the game (for example, a bunker controlling a point in a 5-point map would be less effective than controlling a point in a 3-point map; or, a Mesmer will be less effective since portal plays will be less effective as points in a 5-point map have less value compared to a 3-point map; or, a Thief will need to constantly rotate to decap points since there are two more, etc.).

Imagine a scenario where every player on the team splits into 5 individual 1v1's!! Ridiculous.

It'll also be easier for newer players/players wanting to learn how to rotate and strategize more effectively, as there is much more space to do so and more points to spare.

The possibilities with a 5-point map are ENDLESS.

How cool would this be? A larger map would be neat also. Could put thieves heavily back into rotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...