Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Why 3v3 offseason enforcement is a thing?


ramorambo.6701

Recommended Posts

@"ramorambo.6701" said:Basically what the title says, i absolutely hate 2v2 or 3v3, many builds are just not viable and people in pubs just play with their monitor turned off, why is 3v3/2v2 enforced rather than put together with the next 5v5 season?

well, every time a season ends, the next one takes about 2 weeks or so to start... previously we had just unranked in between. now we have the addition of 2v2 or 3v3... i can't see the downside here

want to play 5v5? go unranked while offseasonwant to play 2s or 3s? go the "mini ranked season"

it pleases everyone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they do it because no matter what 5v5 will always have more value than 3v3 so if they spam 5v5 seasons it will just become more of a farmable thing than ever, as they used to just have breaks before, but the 2v2/3v3 is a filler so its neither enforced on anyone or is it the cause that 5v5 isnt happening again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why do we need such a long time before the next 5v5 season starts? most games take something like 1 or 2 days before the next season, not 2 entire weeks.Also for the other 2 guys, i literally answered your question about why playing unranked is just unfun so i don't know why you even ask

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ramorambo.6701 said:Basically what the title says, i absolutely hate 2v2 or 3v3, many builds are just not viable and people in pubs just play with their monitor turned off, why is 3v3/2v2 enforced rather than put together with the next 5v5 season?

There are many people who like the 2v2 - 3v3 options.

So while I respect your opinion , not everyone is on the same page as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Azreell.1568 said:

@ramorambo.6701 said:Basically what the title says, i absolutely hate 2v2 or 3v3, many builds are just not viable and people in pubs just play with their monitor turned off, why is 3v3/2v2 enforced rather than put together with the next 5v5 season?

There are many people who like the 2v2 - 3v3 options.

So while I respect your opinion , not everyone is on the same page as you.

Yeah, people who aren't Thief/Mesmer/Ranger mains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played a lot of 3v3 as theif. Ended up fighting mostly necros who face tanked my damage without dodging while and dropping AoE's on top of themselves. Meanwhile I was busy playing "the floor is lava" trying my best not to stand in the abundance of AoE's and somehow find my way in to do my damage. If I made even one mistake I'd end up with 8 different condis on me and die because signet + cleansing sigil isn't enough.

After that I decided to stop caring and played Staff Acro thief with vigor and cleansing traits and spammed them with bounds and Vaults. I figured if they're going to face tank me anyways I don't have to worry about missing my skills.

I ended up topping damage in most games I played and occasionally healing. In the games where they tried to focus me they ended up wasting so much time that my team could go in with impunity.

Was the build good? Nah, it was hot garbage. Was it fun? Satisfying? You bet it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ramorambo.6701 said:Basically what the title says, i absolutely hate 2v2 or 3v3, many builds are just not viable and people in pubs just play with their monitor turned off, why is 3v3/2v2 enforced rather than put together with the next 5v5 season?

i only come back for the 2v2/3v3 seasons. How are you not sick of conquest? How is anyone not sick of it after 8 years??? I really don't understand the resolve of people who will actively try to keep the game stagnate by advocating for less game modes. As others have said, there is still conquest in unranked, so I really don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

Conquest WOULD suffer from the changes, time and effort devoted to 2v2/3v3 is time NOT devoted to 5v5 which is actual game mode where we can at the very least pretend that some classes are viable.2v2/3v3 CANT be balanced since there is no objective, and maps are to be honest very fucking bad, and force shitty playstyles, where range above 600 doesnt really matter ( so many classes and builds get shit on from the get go ) and there are so many stupid LoS places that aoe rocks ( if you walk up to the top of asura arena enemy is forced to run melee into you OR spam aoe from the bottom )Or the stupid pillars you can benny hill around and 2 ledges you can jump from. Range doesnt mean jack, aoe is OP as fuck since map is poorly designed, teleports dont work since high as fuck intern made the maps and entire objective is to 3/2 man train down 1 person with aoe while facetanking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Leonidrex.5649 said:

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

Conquest WOULD suffer from the changes, time and effort devoted to 2v2/3v3 is time NOT devoted to 5v5 which is actual game mode where we can at the very least pretend that some classes are viable.2v2/3v3 CANT be balanced since there is no objective, and maps are to be honest very kitten bad, and force kitten playstyles, where range above 600 doesnt really matter ( so many classes and builds get kitten on from the get go ) and there are so many stupid LoS places that aoe rocks ( if you walk up to the top of asura arena enemy is forced to run melee into you OR spam aoe from the bottom )Or the stupid pillars you can benny hill around and 2 ledges you can jump from. Range doesnt mean jack, aoe is OP as kitten since map is poorly designed, teleports dont work since high as kitten intern made the maps and entire objective is to 3/2 man train down 1 person with aoe while facetanking.

So how would 5v5 suffer if all of that was corrected to make 2v2 and 3v3 less of a shit show? If the 2v2 and 3v3 matchups become quality, that quality will reflect in 5v5 as well. There is an argument to be made about the game objectives; but as you're well aware our "objectives" have lead to problems of their own and their problems can be greatly refined by matchup quality on the smaller scale.

@Avatar.3568 said:

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

If course conquest would suffer from. That changesImagine buffing Teamfight capabilities from ranger, thief and idk what else

In conquest they would totally rule

Why would you buff those? That's definitely not the way I'd go I'd focus on the already really potent synergies and reduce them. I don't see how 5v5 suffers though, If you can make a 3v3 fair across all classes in a mode without an objective, you at worst make 5v5 better balanced and the only extraneous factor for what is and isn't op becomes the objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daishi.6027 said:

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

Conquest WOULD suffer from the changes, time and effort devoted to 2v2/3v3 is time NOT devoted to 5v5 which is actual game mode where we can at the very least pretend that some classes are viable.2v2/3v3 CANT be balanced since there is no objective, and maps are to be honest very kitten bad, and force kitten playstyles, where range above 600 doesnt really matter ( so many classes and builds get kitten on from the get go ) and there are so many stupid LoS places that aoe rocks ( if you walk up to the top of asura arena enemy is forced to run melee into you OR spam aoe from the bottom )Or the stupid pillars you can benny hill around and 2 ledges you can jump from. Range doesnt mean jack, aoe is OP as kitten since map is poorly designed, teleports dont work since high as kitten intern made the maps and entire objective is to 3/2 man train down 1 person with aoe while facetanking.

So how would 5v5 suffer if all of that was corrected to make 2v2 and 3v3 less of a kitten show? If the 2v2 and 3v3 matchups become quality, that quality will reflect in 5v5 as well. There is an argument to be made about the game objectives; but as you're well aware our "objectives" have lead to problems of their own and their problems can be greatly refined by matchup quality on the smaller scale.

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

If course conquest would suffer from. That changesImagine buffing Teamfight capabilities from ranger, thief and idk what else

In conquest they would totally rule

Why would you buff those? That's definitely not the way I'd go I'd focus on the already really potent synergies and reduce them. I don't see how 5v5 suffers though, If you can make a 3v3 fair across all classes in a mode without an objective, you at worst make 5v5 better balanced and the only extraneous factor for what is and isn't op becomes the objective.

I explained already, time wasted for 2v2/3v3 is time that was not devoted to fixing 5v5. 2v2/3v3 has very different issues to 5v5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@White Kitsunee.4620 said:Why is 5v5 ranked enforced?2v2 is a much superior game mode and healthier for a game with a small population. They should just removed 5v5

No thanks. MMOs and arena death match do not mix. They can never ever be remotely balanced, and getting them more balanced requires significant class homogenisation. There is a reason why the main mode is 5v5 conquest.

@Leonidrex.5649 said:

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

Conquest WOULD suffer from the changes, time and effort devoted to 2v2/3v3 is time NOT devoted to 5v5 which is actual game mode where we can at the very least pretend that some classes are viable.2v2/3v3 CANT be balanced since there is no objective, and maps are to be honest very kitten bad, and force kitten playstyles, where range above 600 doesnt really matter ( so many classes and builds get kitten on from the get go ) and there are so many stupid LoS places that aoe rocks ( if you walk up to the top of asura arena enemy is forced to run melee into you OR spam aoe from the bottom )Or the stupid pillars you can benny hill around and 2 ledges you can jump from. Range doesnt mean jack, aoe is OP as kitten since map is poorly designed, teleports dont work since high as kitten intern made the maps and entire objective is to 3/2 man train down 1 person with aoe while facetanking.

So how would 5v5 suffer if all of that was corrected to make 2v2 and 3v3 less of a kitten show? If the 2v2 and 3v3 matchups become quality, that quality will reflect in 5v5 as well. There is an argument to be made about the game objectives; but as you're well aware our "objectives" have lead to problems of their own and their problems can be greatly refined by matchup quality on the smaller scale.

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

If course conquest would suffer from. That changesImagine buffing Teamfight capabilities from ranger, thief and idk what else

In conquest they would totally rule

Why would you buff those? That's definitely not the way I'd go I'd focus on the already really potent synergies and reduce them. I don't see how 5v5 suffers though, If you can make a 3v3 fair across all classes in a mode without an objective, you at worst make 5v5 better balanced and the only extraneous factor for what is and isn't op becomes the objective.

I explained already, time wasted for 2v2/3v3 is time that was not devoted to fixing 5v5. 2v2/3v3 has very different issues to 5v5.

Exactly. I do not think that effort is spent on 2v2 and 3v3. I also, dunno why we have the after season break. It would only make sense if between seasons devs access class balance and make adjustments, but they clearly do not do that (or much really). Ya... sPvP is right now a fucking hot mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@otto.5684 said:

@White Kitsunee.4620 said:Why is 5v5 ranked enforced?2v2 is a much superior game mode and healthier for a game with a small population. They should just removed 5v5

No thanks. MMOs and arena death match do not mix. They can never ever be remotely balanced, and getting them more balanced requires significant class homogenisation. There is a reason why the main mode is 5v5 conquest.

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

Conquest WOULD suffer from the changes, time and effort devoted to 2v2/3v3 is time NOT devoted to 5v5 which is actual game mode where we can at the very least pretend that some classes are viable.2v2/3v3 CANT be balanced since there is no objective, and maps are to be honest very kitten bad, and force kitten playstyles, where range above 600 doesnt really matter ( so many classes and builds get kitten on from the get go ) and there are so many stupid LoS places that aoe rocks ( if you walk up to the top of asura arena enemy is forced to run melee into you OR spam aoe from the bottom )Or the stupid pillars you can benny hill around and 2 ledges you can jump from. Range doesnt mean jack, aoe is OP as kitten since map is poorly designed, teleports dont work since high as kitten intern made the maps and entire objective is to 3/2 man train down 1 person with aoe while facetanking.

So how would 5v5 suffer if all of that was corrected to make 2v2 and 3v3 less of a kitten show? If the 2v2 and 3v3 matchups become quality, that quality will reflect in 5v5 as well. There is an argument to be made about the game objectives; but as you're well aware our "objectives" have lead to problems of their own and their problems can be greatly refined by matchup quality on the smaller scale.

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

If course conquest would suffer from. That changesImagine buffing Teamfight capabilities from ranger, thief and idk what else

In conquest they would totally rule

Why would you buff those? That's definitely not the way I'd go I'd focus on the already really potent synergies and reduce them. I don't see how 5v5 suffers though, If you can make a 3v3 fair across all classes in a mode without an objective, you at worst make 5v5 better balanced and the only extraneous factor for what is and isn't op becomes the objective.

I explained already, time wasted for 2v2/3v3 is time that was not devoted to fixing 5v5. 2v2/3v3 has very different issues to 5v5.

Exactly. I do not think that effort is spent on 2v2 and 3v3. I also, dunno why we have the after season break. It would only make sense if between seasons devs access class balance and make adjustments, but they clearly do not do that (or much really). Ya... sPvP is right now a kitten hot mess.

I think it's a bit funny you guys think more effort and resources going into 5v5 conquest is going to do something substantial. We've had 8 years, no real esport, barely even real pvp; I don't know what else you need as a display to show it's pretty much failed. We should have diverted from 5v5 conquest to something actually better ~~ lol @ stronghold~~ YEARS ago, and we should have rained in the matchups to make the small scale matchups much more fair and to support a better system that reduces visual noise for the viewers, and standardizes information between opponents to cultivate good reactive play. 2v2 or 3v3 may not be the end goal for that in terms of mode, but it at least forces the scale of play into that state.

Every year the game continues along this 5v5 conquest train where the scenery gets more and more desolate and ominous, painting a clear picture that the end point can be nothing more than a huge wall or a cliff. Or worse; chugging along at a snails pace into the abyss of limbo, lazily duct tapped onto the game part of the game. It's slightly depressing in it's predictability, but if the community wants to keep it along that track I don't mind; who am I to deny people the seeds they choose to sow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daishi.6027 said:

@White Kitsunee.4620 said:Why is 5v5 ranked enforced?2v2 is a much superior game mode and healthier for a game with a small population. They should just removed 5v5

No thanks. MMOs and arena death match do not mix. They can never ever be remotely balanced, and getting them more balanced requires significant class homogenisation. There is a reason why the main mode is 5v5 conquest.

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

Conquest WOULD suffer from the changes, time and effort devoted to 2v2/3v3 is time NOT devoted to 5v5 which is actual game mode where we can at the very least pretend that some classes are viable.2v2/3v3 CANT be balanced since there is no objective, and maps are to be honest very kitten bad, and force kitten playstyles, where range above 600 doesnt really matter ( so many classes and builds get kitten on from the get go ) and there are so many stupid LoS places that aoe rocks ( if you walk up to the top of asura arena enemy is forced to run melee into you OR spam aoe from the bottom )Or the stupid pillars you can benny hill around and 2 ledges you can jump from. Range doesnt mean jack, aoe is OP as kitten since map is poorly designed, teleports dont work since high as kitten intern made the maps and entire objective is to 3/2 man train down 1 person with aoe while facetanking.

So how would 5v5 suffer if all of that was corrected to make 2v2 and 3v3 less of a kitten show? If the 2v2 and 3v3 matchups become quality, that quality will reflect in 5v5 as well. There is an argument to be made about the game objectives; but as you're well aware our "objectives" have lead to problems of their own and their problems can be greatly refined by matchup quality on the smaller scale.

@Daishi.6027 said:2v2 and 3v3 would be better than conquest if they actually balanced around it, and Conquest wouldn't suffer for the changes.

If course conquest would suffer from. That changesImagine buffing Teamfight capabilities from ranger, thief and idk what else

In conquest they would totally rule

Why would you buff those? That's definitely not the way I'd go I'd focus on the already really potent synergies and reduce them. I don't see how 5v5 suffers though, If you can make a 3v3 fair across all classes in a mode without an objective, you at worst make 5v5 better balanced and the only extraneous factor for what is and isn't op becomes the objective.

I explained already, time wasted for 2v2/3v3 is time that was not devoted to fixing 5v5. 2v2/3v3 has very different issues to 5v5.

Exactly. I do not think that effort is spent on 2v2 and 3v3. I also, dunno why we have the after season break. It would only make sense if between seasons devs access class balance and make adjustments, but they clearly do not do that (or much really). Ya... sPvP is right now a kitten hot mess.

I think it's a bit funny you guys think more effort and resources going into 5v5 conquest is going to do something substantial. We've had 8 years, no real esport, barely even real pvp; I don't know what else you need as a display to show it's pretty much failed. We should have diverted from 5v5 conquest to something actually better ~~ lol @ stronghold~~ YEARS ago, and we should have rained in the matchups to make the small scale matchups much more fair and to support a better system that reduces visual noise for the viewers, and standardizes information between opponents to cultivate good reactive play. 2v2 or 3v3 may not be the end goal for that in terms of mode, but it at least forces the scale of play into that state.

Every year the game continues along this 5v5 conquest train where the scenery gets more and more desolate and ominous, painting a clear picture that the end point can be nothing more than a huge wall or a cliff. Or worse; chugging along at a snails pace into the abyss of limbo, lazily duct tapped onto the game part of the game. It's slightly depressing in it's predictability, but if the community wants to keep it along that track I don't mind; who am I to deny people the seeds they choose to sow?

Who said anything about competition? If this is what you are looking for, this was never the right game.

And to quote from earlier, from a ranger main:

: > @Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

@ramorambo.6701 said:Basically what the title says, i absolutely hate 2v2 or 3v3, many builds are just not viable and people in pubs just play with their monitor turned off, why is 3v3/2v2 enforced rather than put together with the next 5v5 season?

There are many people who like the 2v2 - 3v3 options.

So while I respect your opinion , not everyone is on the same page as you.

Yeah, people who aren't Thief/Mesmer/Ranger mains.

The game is not designed for a death match. It will never work as a death match without titanic adjustments to classes that no one wants. And will not make the sPvP anymore active than it is. The reason why it is not active is not cuz conquest aint cool, but cuz Anet seriously fucked the balance and are way too slow to respond to issues. And regardless of the sPvP structure, that will not change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...