Would you still play sPvP (or GW2 at all) if the only "ranked mode" option was organised 5v5?

Feel free to explain your reasoning in the comments.

they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

Had this argument in another thread, so lets gather a (albeit very small and somewhat skewed since only a certain type of players bother with the forums at all) sample of data.

Tried to give an option for people with a more definitive opinion and another for the people with a less polarized opinion but who have to answer to the whims of life in general.

As for me, i already gave me reasoning in the other thread, i don't hate the idea of organised play, i do agree that it really feels like this game was built for it, more than solo-q and i want to see the game support it more for the people that want it but as far as i'm personally concerned, i simply cannot afford to lock large chunks of time (never raided in this game either for the same reason) as i'm a restaurant manager with an hectic schedule and many other responsibilities and i feel a large portion of the MMO playerbase now fall into this age group (25 - 39, give or take a few years, i'm 27 personally) as we're the ones who grew up with it, so i cannot believe that making it the ONLY option would be sustainable from a population or financial perspective for ArenaNet as a company.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of playing in a team with 4 other players once in a while for AT but i'm a soloQ player.I get more enjoyment playing in soloQ, in a more casual environement, with no need to make calls, order people around or follow someone else's call. It may sound stupid but i prefer playing alone in a team rather than being inherently part of the team. I prefer making my own decisions based on what informations i can gather and let my allies make their own decisions based on what they can gather.

5 man team requirements belong in a tournament game mode

@Sampson.2403 said:5 man team requirements belong in a tournament game mode

you are right.and, when they release swiss/on-demand, ranked will simply be a better paying warm-up

I'm fairly sure if there was room for separate leagues, Anet would have done it by now, so 5 man would have to be part of normal ranked, so no way.

so I can play unranked? this wouldn't effect me very much.

I can't help but to wonder if the majority of the "No" votes is comprised of people who don't quite understand exactly what is happening. It's kind of like when someone votes for a candidate because they liked his attitude, but they have little understanding of government functions.

@Crab Fear.1624 said:they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

Yes LoL, Overwatch, etc are massive failures by catering to anything other than full team queues and players who play for hours each day, whilst Wildstar was a huge success catering to hardcore players.

no, because i don't have friends

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

Let us not forget GW1, a huge success that did what you tried to snarkily negate.

Owned

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

GW1's success or otherwise is irrelevent, you stated "cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get", I negated that just fine.

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

yeah, because GW2 pvp is the pinnacle of success....

hahaha

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

GW2's success or otherwise is irrelevant to wrote I what, unless you think LoL, Overwatch and Wildstar are codenames for GW2.

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

GW2 pvp is a flop because it is not team required.

You point to dissimilar games to show the opposite and did quite poorly.

If we are talking about relevance, GW1 is more relevant to GW2 than any game you mentioned.

Are you following your own conversation?

Instead of getting rid of teams, they should have improved the game mode, and made more game modes like we asked for.

The 2nd option makes zero sense...if you have a network of friends you just queue up with whoever is on or just grab people from LFG.If you just want to do you own thing why do you care if its unranked? your are clearly not trying your best to win/improve/compete.Would you feel the same if the rewards from that unranked/solo-queue were the same or almost the same as the rewards from ranked? I would bet that this is a reward issue...which really shouldnt be the reason people go to play ranked.

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@zinkz.7045 said:

@Crab Fear.1624 said:they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

Not really, LoL & Overwatch are actual competitive team games, Wildstar is an MMORPG, you claimed "cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get" that is absolute nonsense as shown by those games.

GW2 is in the state it is in for numerous reasons, not simply because some players wanted team queue, people leave for all sorts of reasons such as the powercreep, boredom with the game, the money disappearing for the handful of "pro" players that stuck around after HoT, no actual solo queue for large parts of the game, horrible balance like bunker chronos boring people out of the game, the state of other parts of the game like WvW and so on.

And as you apparently missed it, people were still leaving the game back when people were able to queue as a team in various queues.

I hate to break it to you, but the reality is it doesn't matter what they do, MMORPGs are a declining genre and it is absolutely typical for the population to basically be in a permanent trend of decline beyond temporary increases from a game going F2P or expansions.

That goes even more for PvP, because in a themepark MMORPG where they balance across gamemodes and for players with very different priorities it is basically a hopelessly flawed model. They could add team queue tomorrow and in a couple of years there will still be less players in PvP than now.

@Spoichiche.1290 said:I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of playing in a team with 4 other players once in a while for AT but i'm a soloQ player.I get more enjoyment playing in soloQ, in a more casual environement, with no need to make calls, order people around or follow someone else's call. It may sound stupid but i prefer playing alone in a team rather than being inherently part of the team. I prefer making my own decisions based on what informations i can gather and let my allies make their own decisions based on what they can gather.

You want casual play in a ranked, competitive and rated game mode instead of in an unranked, casual and unrated game mode?Makes perfect sense.

@Amaranthe.3578 said:

@"Spoichiche.1290" said:I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of playing in a team with 4 other players once in a while for AT but i'm a soloQ player.I get more enjoyment playing in soloQ, in a more casual environement, with no need to make calls, order people around or follow someone else's call. It may sound stupid but i prefer playing alone in a team rather than being inherently part of the team. I prefer making my own decisions based on what informations i can gather and let my allies make their own decisions based on what they can gather.

Casual doesn't mean bad.While a 5v5 premade match tests your communication skills and your team synergy, a solo queue match emphasizes your adaptability, comprehension skills and quick decision making. You can't say the former are somehow "better" or more important than the latter, they're just different experiences.

@Airdive.2613 said:

@Amaranthe.3578 said:

@"Spoichiche.1290" said:I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of playing in a team with 4 other players once in a while for AT but i'm a soloQ player.I get more enjoyment playing in soloQ, in a more casual environement, with no need to make calls, order people around or follow someone else's call. It may sound stupid but i prefer playing alone in a team rather than being inherently part of the team. I prefer making my own decisions based on what informations i can gather and let my allies make their own decisions based on what they can gather.

Im sorry but this is just plain bull.You do realize this is a team-based game?What do you imagine will happen if you pit a 5-man premade against a team of 5 randoms? Do you seriously think that in a premade there is less quick decision making? You think they discuss things mid-match? O_o. Have you ever watched a 5v5 game? go ahead and try.Casual doesnt mean bad...but I have a weird feeling you have no clue what the word actually means, it means NOT competitive...it means you are NOT doing all you can to win.Try to think of the difference between casual soccer and competitive soccer.

@Amaranthe.3578 said:

@Airdive.2613 said:

@Amaranthe.3578 said:

@"Spoichiche.1290" said:I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of playing in a team with 4 other players once in a while for AT but i'm a soloQ player.I get more enjoyment playing in soloQ, in a more casual environement, with no need to make calls, order people around or follow someone else's call. It may sound stupid but i prefer playing alone in a team rather than being inherently part of the team. I prefer making my own decisions based on what informations i can gather and let my allies make their own decisions based on what they can gather.

There are teams in the game, yes. However, this is not a "team-based" game. If the game were team based, classes would be far less "Swiss Army Knife" and able to do just about everything.

As to "competitive," there is nothing inherently more competitive about playing on a team than there is playing solo. That's a myth, as any swimmer, surfer or racing sailor could tell you. The ability to think and act alone is very important.

The other reality is that teams would lead to people, ( like myself, ) being excluded. That's not healthy for the game.

@Ithilwen.1529 said:

@Amaranthe.3578 said:

@Airdive.2613 said:

@Amaranthe.3578 said:

@"Spoichiche.1290" said:I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of playing in a team with 4 other players once in a while for AT but i'm a soloQ player.I get more enjoyment playing in soloQ, in a more casual environement, with no need to make calls, order people around or follow someone else's call. It may sound stupid but i prefer playing alone in a team rather than being inherently part of the team. I prefer making my own decisions based on what informations i can gather and let my allies make their own decisions based on what they can gather.

But It's not something a footballer, basketball player, or rugby player would say.I doubt those guys would want an untested random when their prestige is on the line

Edit: For someone who claims such a love for GW1, you seem to agree with removal of core aspects in this game.

I honestly do not expect any changes. The game is six+ years old.They have moved F2P.Someone said mmos are dying.Amazon is releasing an MMO...lol

What is my reason for moving to a gw3 if there ever was one?

I know why I moved on to GW2. I love GW1.

Oh well. I may not be happy, but I guess enough other people are.

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@Ithilwen.1529 said:

@Amaranthe.3578 said:

@Airdive.2613 said:

@Amaranthe.3578 said:

@"Spoichiche.1290" said:I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of playing in a team with 4 other players once in a while for AT but i'm a soloQ player.I get more enjoyment playing in soloQ, in a more casual environement, with no need to make calls, order people around or follow someone else's call. It may sound stupid but i prefer playing alone in a team rather than being inherently part of the team. I prefer making my own decisions based on what informations i can gather and let my allies make their own decisions based on what they can gather.

Each of the games you mentioned are team games. GW2 is not a team game. The classes are specifically set up to be self sufficient and not require a team.

Let me just quote you: "I doubt those guys would want an untested random when their prestige is on the line." that illustrates why teams won't work in this game.

Teaming inherently means excluding players. That's at least one of the root causes of the problems with ATs, Fractals and Raids.

@Crab Fear.1624 said:

@Ithilwen.1529 said:

@Amaranthe.3578 said:

@Airdive.2613 said:

@Amaranthe.3578 said:

@"Spoichiche.1290" said:I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of playing in a team with 4 other players once in a while for AT but i'm a soloQ player.I get more enjoyment playing in soloQ, in a more casual environement, with no need to make calls, order people around or follow someone else's call. It may sound stupid but i prefer playing alone in a team rather than being inherently part of the team. I prefer making my own decisions based on what informations i can gather and let my allies make their own decisions based on what they can gather.

These are games with long history, they have a strong tradition of teams.Also, somehow individual player's ratings are derived in these "strictly team-based" games, which would imply the community cares about solo performance, after all.