No gimmicks in PvP please

I would like a PvP map that has no lord no beast no trebs any gimmicks. I want a map with just 3 capture points in it why can't we have this. Why A-net 1 little gimmick should not give the other team a win with no chance of every coming back.

Colisseum feels very close to this. Most people ignore the artifacts, although they CAN be strong, but imo not gamebreaking.I don't understand why you think gimmicks give any team a win? Imo only lord killl and getting tranquilitiy in silent storm are the only "gimmick" that really offer a strong advantage, but they still are no safe win. I've won matches on silent storm where we ignored tranquility, the enemy got it and 5s later all points were decapped again.

Also, secondary mechanics reward map awareness, tactics and mobility. It's just a higher level of play to win fights and points AND care for the objectives. I guess, some matches against hyper defensive classes that just bunker on 2 points would be sooo boring without these gimmicks.

The one I hate most is Foefire Lord.... By 300 points a PvP game turns into a PvE game, who can kill or heal the NPC the most.

My favourite map mechanic is hammer and capri, its just a node to fight over. Simple PvP. No PvE at all.

I think that PVP should mostly depend on players skills on how they master their classes. Not things that disturb a good fight between the skill of 1 player against the skill to another.There are players who are penalized by things like map's morphology (small random hole sometwhere, a corner post somewhere and so....)

I dream of a pvp where players are in a simple round map, without any monsters, posts to leech or some map's morphology to exploit.

Just player's skill vs player's skill.

I prefer maps with "gimmicks" that force teams to think tactically and force them to move around the map. I actually would prefer to see this even more, especially if the points/objects to contest land in different places. Something like a king of the hill where the points move every so often. Or a power orb or flag that spawns randomly and needs to be contested then collected. Something that gets entirely away from strict conquest.

I do think the points awarded at Foefire are too much. I've been in a map where we had the lead by more than 100 and were spread out capping all three points. Had Just killed their entire team in a mid-fight (or most of it) and so their entire team rushed far, bypassed the point and went through the open door, and killed Lord before anyone had a real shot at getting to him. Dying would have actually been an advantage in that case because we could have gotten back to defend faster. So that aspect is kind of frustrating. But that's also only happened once in all my games and honestly, it was just a well designed tactic by the opposing team. A lot of times going Lord is a good way to give free points to the other team. I wish the adds would respawn though. As it is, a lot of times one player will just slowly whittle away the door and adds for a push and quick kill by the rest of the team later. I would be less annoyed by the mechanic if it was slightly harder.

End of the day, map gimmicks are just another way for players to show they are better. PvP doesn't have to strictly be about straight fights. Strategy is a pretty important factor.

Additional mechanics to fight for in organised PvP are a vital element of the game. They add depth to the format and make players choose what they want to focus on at a particular point of the match, and why.

@Omcrazy.4756 said:I prefer maps with "gimmicks" that force teams to think tactically and force them to move around the map. I actually would prefer to see this even more, especially if the points/objects to contest land in different places. Something like a king of the hill where the points move every so often. Or a power orb or flag that spawns randomly and needs to be contested then collected. Something that gets entirely away from strict conquest.

I do think the points awarded at Foefire are too much. I've been in a map where we had the lead by more than 100 and were spread out capping all three points. Had Just killed their entire team in a mid-fight (or most of it) and so their entire team rushed far, bypassed the point and went through the open door, and killed Lord before anyone had a real shot at getting to him. Dying would have actually been an advantage in that case because we could have gotten back to defend faster. So that aspect is kind of frustrating. But that's also only happened once in all my games and honestly, it was just a well designed tactic by the opposing team. A lot of times going Lord is a good way to give free points to the other team. I wish the adds would respawn though. As it is, a lot of times one player will just slowly whittle away the door and adds for a push and quick kill by the rest of the team later. I would be less annoyed by the mechanic if it was slightly harder.

End of the day, map gimmicks are just another way for players to show they are better. PvP doesn't have to strictly be about straight fights. Strategy is a pretty important factor.

Agree.Though i do understand what the OP means.And also i am a little scary about map with only stomp on points ( i mean, i would like some arena, but gw2 is really not meant for it due to aoe spam everything ).Courtyard for an instance, to me, was total shit.

I'd be ok with this if the capture circles changed locations. Like, if periodically there was a single capture point on the map at different locations (randomized) that could be captured for extra points.

Keeps the unique feel of the map without things like beasts/bell/stillness that can shift a game massively.

Like, the other day my team triple capped Temple. Then got triple stillness. It was close and we were behind. Then 30 seconds later we were like 200 points ahead.

I like map mechanics but I do like being on maps with lower impact ones more.

@Shirlias.8104 said:

Agree.Though i do understand what the OP means.And also i am a little scary about map with only stomp on points ( i mean, i would like some arena, but gw2 is really not meant for it due to aoe spam everything ).Courtyard for an instance, to me, was total kitten.

Yeah, I can't speak to how my ideas of new game modes or arenas would affect all classes. I tend to prefer classes that can participate in the stomp fests, but I recognize that maps need to cater to all equally.

Alternating ranked seasons of 5v5 modes then arena modes would be a cool idea though. Not sure what the negatives are from Anet's perspective although I don't doubt they would have some.

lower the points for these things a little the beast r fine the trebs no problem but getting 1-4th of the 500 score to kill lord is to high lower the lord kill by at least 50

Diversity is Key. If all maps are the same long term exitement gets lost.... I realy liked old skyhammer (except cannon ...)

The only place where the side objectives are actually a problem to me is Forest of Niflhel and thats because some games end on a dice roll for the win due to the objective. You can time your abilities all you want and cc opponents but in reality who comes victorious out of the situation does not come down to skill a vast majority of the time. The difference between winning and losing should not be a dice roll in this games pvp. Yes only a few games end this way but why should they ever end this way?

You could argue that it brings a lot of hype to the end of games which is valuable of course, as well as just having a side objective in general diversifying things a little as the game goes on. However, things have changed a lot along the years and its become more and more about luck. To begin with It felt like it was so little about luck that the objective was actually quite nice but nowadays the situation is just horrible without a doubt. Horrible to the extent that i think what we gain from the side objective does not outweigh how bad it feels to lose a game to that and how stupid it feels to win a game by that when you know how much random shit is involved.

Coliseum is almost near this, u can ignore artifacts if dominating the match. Then battle of Kylo.

@ugrakarma.9416 said:Coliseum is almost near this, u can ignore artifacts if dominating the match. Then battle of Kylo.

Yeah, Kylo has the treb and thats it. And most of the time I see the treb used it actually hurts the team using it because they are down a man.

conquest itself in a way is a gimmicky format already 2v1 etc becomes a part of the game by design rather than staying a team game. its an excuse for gimmicks like the current state of combat. I dislike conquest partially for this reason its just an excuse for bad combat decisions bad class designs/gimmicks one trick ponys etc.

@Stephen.1207 said:I would like a PvP map that has no lord no beast no trebs any gimmicks. I want a map with just 3 capture points in it why can't we have this. Why A-net 1 little gimmick should not give the other team a win with no chance of every coming back.

So basically you want a new game mode that isn't conquest since the point of conquest is a 3 point cap system with a unique map mechanic. Personally I'd love to see a Capture the Flag map but I know Anet will never bother to implement a new mode considering how badly Siege failed.

Does no one think PvP would be more boring without these side factors? If we want PvP with no gimmicks then Anet need to make a game mode like courtyard or an arena where capping points isn't the goal.

biggest problem with courtyard is it carries over the conquest rules of respawning; it would be a lot better to die once as a team and have the match end like in gw1 and if you really want to respawn you respawn as a team (like in gvg however its much more preferred to not respawn at all).... and it forces teams to meet in chokes on the sides which makes the entire map feel strange rather than a nice open middle area.

They built this map like they wanted the idea of arenas to fail. The current respawns are built for a more conquest type of gameplay.

Yeah I'll pass on your idea.

What you call 'gimmicky' is actually another layer of strategy.

Agreed, but we clearly need permastealth back in pvp. it's been 4 years, and it's time for it to return!

@EnderzShadow.2506 said:

Yeah I'll pass on your idea.

What you call 'gimmicky' is actually another layer of strategy.

a useless unrequired layer of strategy. lets go add heaps of pve monsters to gw1 gvg hell lets add some supply and walls and make it stronghold so we can call it strategy and have new people that never played something good defend it. I would be all for team arenas/single death no respawn if the game wasnt so stale on its weaponsets making me not want to play the same repetitive set of skills. The expacks dont do much to address this issue really. Gw1 never got old because you could just change your entire bar into something new, sealed deck was also a good idea but players got mad at losing while not using the builds they were used to however it kept fresh metas/new ways of playing what exists. GW2 has nothing for this your weaponset will always be the same 5 skills without interchangeable skills to make it interesting for a longer period of time. one t thing they could do is a format for sealed deck weapons and utilities maybe even traitlines if they didnt want to add changeable weapon skills which i thought was needed on release not only for diversity but the weapons got old fast.