Zombiesbum.3502

I will agree that the changes I see when it comes to balancing are often very heavy handed. Like increasing a certain coefficient by absurd amounts only to revert those changes a patch later. When Anet buffs or nerfs something (without a mechanical rework) by more than 15-20% I think they've got to stop to ask why is this skill/feature in this state to begin with. I do wish Anet would make smaller changes more frequently as sometimes nuking a skill or feature can and does have ripple effects.

The issue is elite specs just have too much given to them. They are power crept so much over core specs and core engineer (in PvE) is really the only viable spec left because of kits. This tells me two things, core specs need something that elite specs can't access. And two, kits in general are overpowered, but you also give up utility to use them. I think kits overall need a rework rather than a straight nerf. Some suggestions could be to remove utility kits from the utility slots and place them into a weapon slot instead. Adding ammo/fuel to kits in order to limit their 'spamability', and increase their power accordingly. I think kits should remain as tools to enhance the engineers versatility, but currently they are just a means to min-max DPS and almost entirely replace the engineers main weapon, which is just bad design imo. As they currently are, they are just near impossible to balance with engineers main weapon, and we all saw what happened to engi rifle because of an attempt at balancing. EDIT: I didn't see this was a necro, oops.

I was over emphasising the amount of burst certain specs have. I thought that would be pretty clear. I've edited it now so it's even more clear. My apologies.

Intro Ever since I've returned to Gw2 a few weeks ago (from playing back in 2012/13) I cant help but shake the feeling that PvP is vastly worse than I remember, maybe I remember things wrong, or maybe I'm just really bad at PvP. I did manage to get the 2v2 Elite title as a post-nerf mechanist while playing solo Q. This isn't a brag, but more of a reference for my skill level (or lack thereof), because that matters to some people apparently. For the record, I don't think that tittle is very difficult to get with how small the sPvP playerbase is currently. There are a few problems I'd like to discuss here. I'm also talking primarily about sPvP here too, not WvW PvP. Power Creep From what I see, the damage and skills that elite specs bring heavily outweigh core specs. Yes there are a few core specs that can do okay at holding nodes, roaming, and/or support/control roles. But the general rule is that elite specs are just better. That's not to say you can't make a core spec work, but you aren't going to be breaking many records (there are always exceptions). As a side note; even though this is a PvP thread, core specs do even worse in PvE content. Yes, you can make anything work in open world, but that's pretty much irrelevant in my opinion. Part the issue with elite specs is they unlock too much potential. You simply get too many goodies for elite specs, where as taking a 3rd core trait line gives you less than taking an elite spec. This is a fundamental problem with specs overall, and unless Anet want core specs to be inferior then I think this problem should be addressed, both for PvP and PvE sake. The solution here is to either scrape back what elite specs grant, and/or give core specs something of their own. Maybe extra traits for core, or even uncoupling spec-related skills and/or weapons. I think something should be done to bring core specs closer to elite specs. Time-To-Kill (TTK), Skill Floor, and Active Defences The TTK is far shorter than it use to be (at least that's how I feel). When a condi daredevil can burst a trillion damage in 1 second, then you've got a problem. It's a case of "dodge or you suck", this is obviously really bad design as you've now raised the entry level for fighting other players. If you don't know to dodge certain skills, then you die and look like a utter noob. This is especially bad when certain high damaging skills are not telegraphed very well. And so this adds a bigger emphasis on bringing more active defences (active defences being dodges, blocks, invulns, etc) and mobility tools. No matter what amulet, stats, and traits you bring to a character, if you don't nullify a players burst, you are deleted. This sort of fast pace gameplay fun to watch, but frustrating to play, especially when you are new to the game and are unfamiliar with most specs. This problem also gets progressively worse as more and more specs/content are added to classes. It's like playing league now vs playing league 10 year ago; you've got 100 more champions to memorize. The skill floor for PvP is simply too high, because not only do you need to know what your class can do, but you need to know what the other class can do. This isn't as much of a problem when a player doesn't inevitably die due to 1 or 2 mistakes. But currently making even 1 mistake means you die (depending on spec). I think more mistakes should be allowed before you lose a fight, fights in general should be longer for all classes/specs (but not endless). This would mean a cutback of offensive capabilities, less active defences, and/or bigger health pools. By increasing the TTK (idle/raw TTK) then I think more casual players wouldn't be put off PvP and it would help to alleviate the current minimum skill floor requirement. Diminishing Returns I don't know why there aren't diminishing returns in GW2 when it comes to things like crowd control. There is nothing fun about being unable to move because a Stunbreaker, I mean Spellbreaker decides you should no longer move. If you are meant to dodge all CC, then why is there CC that has next to no telegraphing? I often hear the phrase "just dodge" like it's an episode of DBZ abridged. I have a philosophy that if something is added to the game, then it is designed to be used and be effective, else it's useless. This means if something is in the current meta (or is very strong) then most players don't "just dodge", because they can't or aren't meant to outside of "prediction" (this isn't to say all CC skills are equal, some are telegraphed). However, the real problem here is you can't dodge while CCed, so you either hope your stunbreak isn't on CD, or you sit their helplessly CC chained. Which is why I'm confused as to the lack of diminishing returns. And I've lost count of the amount of time's I've used a stun break the second I get CCed and still get CCed from another source. Additionally, immobilizes are far too powerful due to the way conditions are cleansed (order wise) and what it actually does to your character. I think immobilized characters should at least still be able to dodge "in place". Either that or rework conditions to be cleansed from most dangerous to least. Though that can open the door to debate of what's more dangerous; a burn that will kill you in seconds, or an immobilize that will allow you to be killed in seconds. I also think active defences should have diminishing returns of sorts. I think skills like blocks, reflects, invulns, non-dodge evades, etc. shouldn't be chain-able, as this leaves certain specs in a position to be near unkillable at times. And I'm not saying that once you've used a block, then you can't use anything else, but I think other active defences should work to a lesser degree once you've either been affected by such skills or negated a certain threshold of attacks. Ranked vs Unranked I'm not a fan of forcing players to play ranked to gain pips, there is already plenty of reason to play ranked (for the legendary). People may get mad at me for training a new spec/class in ranked, but the game rewards me more for it. The game enticing players to play ranked regardless of their skill level or effectiveness on a particular spec/class is just silly further makes ranked play less enjoyable for everyone. Part of the issue is that your rank is tied to your account rather than class/spec, but there isn't a way to fix this without removing the ability to swap classes/specs at the start of a match. And you cannot expect players to not play ranked if their primary goal is to earn pips, even if they suck at a new class at a higher rank than how they play it. It is for this reason that I think unranked play should reward pips. I also think this would encourage more players to play PvP as rank anxiety is a real thing that should not be ignored. Matchmaking Lastly, the match making. It's bad, shamefully bad. The amount of times I see plat players being matched with silver players is too often. And for what? So the queues are shorter? The issue is that any match isn't always better than no match. Seeing players not of your level (whether higher or lower) only brings frustration and fuels toxicity in the mode. The obvious reason for the poor matchmaking is that there just aren't enough players that play PvP. But I think the reasons I listed above are why there aren't many players. /rant

Yeah, Overclock and Shift Signet are still bugged to hell.

I really like mech, it's a pretty straight forward build in both PvP and PvE. However, the spec as a whole really does needs some tweaks that I either never see talked about, or doesn't get any real attention. Minor Traits One of the things that really annoys me are the Minor Traits for mechanics. Mechanist isn't the only spec the suffer from this problem, but it is from what I see the most aggreges. And that problem is that the minor traits are parasitic. Essentially these traits only effect the spec, are only granted by the spec, and require the spec for them to function. These traits are not optional like you would optionally pick alchemy for the minor traits. I like to think of the minor traits from mechanist as 'DLC cut from a game and sold to you as new content'. The traits here scream to me that they are there to fill text slots rather than any other reason. Compare that to something like Scapper's 3rd Minor Trait and you'll see the difference. This trait doesn't require the spec itself to function as it also applies to other aspects of the class. As said, this doesn't just apply to mechanist, they are not unique in this issue, but I feel like mech is one of the worse offenders here. Overclock Signet This Elite Skill has some major usability issues. Using the skill puts it on cooldown immediately, what does this mean? Well, if the mech is interrupted, unlike most skills with a cast time, the cooldown is not recovered. The other issue is if you use the skill after your mech is dead, but is still being recalled, you will not have the mech crash down again. This skill needs two changes: -It needs to recover cooldown (to the 5 second interrupt cooldown) if the mech is interrupted during it's cast time (not to be mistaken with it's channel time). -If the skill is cast as or right after the mech is killed, then the mech will crash down after it's death animation. Shift Signet A couple of issues with shift signet here; it can't teleport onto stairs (why?) and it can't be used while underwater (why can't it just be modified underwater to "go forward"?). Additionally if you are hit with a disabling effect as the signet teleports you, despite it being a stun break you will be locked where you are (not where you were supposed to teleport to) while your mech is teleported to the location you designated. Skills vs Damage Type vs Attack Type One problem with the mech is I think it's too rigid in how it can be spec-ed, or rather I should say the traits shouldn't be locked to both the mech skills, its stats, and attack type. The issue of course is there aren't really enough traits to achieve this without some rigid facets. Which is how it ended up with the spec looking like it is. One solution to this would be to change the way the mechs first skill works while removing/reworking the first level traits. For example, the first mech skill could be a toggle function between ranged + melee and apply the mech ranged or melee skill when it's toggled. This would not only allow more versatile mech play while in combat, but it would free up trait choices of apply augmentation to attacks (such as bleeding, might, more strike damage, barrier application, etc), all while moving the appropriate stat inheritances from second level traits to first level traits. This frees up second level traits to be a pure "I want this skill on my mech" trait. A change like this would also open more dynamic play without making the class "more intensive" to play in my opinion. AI Obviously one of the major issues with mech is the AI and pathing. And other than "fix it" there is really nothing to say that I think would be helpful here. Maybe allow the mech to jump over/onto obstacles? I'm sure nothing would go wrong with that right? 😛 Conclusion I do think mech is in a decent place (at least in PvE). In PvP it's pretty underwhelming at higher level play (it's burst is pretty mediocre (compared to other burst specs), and it struggles to side node against many of the meta side noders). Most the the PvP problems come from pathing and bugs. I do think alacrity mech in PvE is in a really good place when it comes to design, but that's not to say the spec doesn't need work. There are problems that should be addressed (as there are problems with many other classes). /rant

I really can't help shake the issue of how pigeonholed players are into spamming skills for boons. I wish this would change in the future as I think it would create a far more enjoyable experience for everyone. One thing I really like about mechanist is that you do not need to spam skills meant for other applications just to grant alacrity. However, a lot of other specs require the use of spamming skills for these boons. Scrappers, ranger spirits, spectres (just to name a few) have this problem. I think these class/specs needs a change in how they apply quickness and/or alacrity (and boons/buffs in general tbh). First and foremost, if you give players the chance to use X skills to give X desired boon, they are going to use all of those for that desired boon regardless of the skill's original intent. This means you need a skill that is dedicated to applying the boon which doesn't interfere with the skill's original design. For for an example of a badly designed skill; Scrapper's Medic Gyro. When traited, this applies super speed, which in turn also grants quickness via another trait. But by doing so, you are required to use it off cooldown to grant quickness, rather than when it's needed for it's original function (to heal). A better solution would be to have a single skill be traitable to tweak it's function use, such as function gryo, or sneak gryo. The same applies for ranger spirits, they shouldn't need to spam all of their spirits to upkeep alacrity. Having the trait apply alacrity from any spirit on intervals, which don't overlap (so having 3 spirits would only apply 1 alacrity application among them all) would be a far better solution than "spam spirit for alac". As a side note, I also think spirit movement should be given back to rangers, at least in PvE (as it was removed for being OP in PvP before skill splitting was introduced). TL;DR: As a general rule, the uptime for alacrity/quickness application should either be a near 90-100% uptime (in a practical sense) without the use of skill spamming, or to not have such a high uptime without the option to skill spam for a higher uptime (but instead to fill boon gaps and have a wider area and affect more targets).

I hope I'm not alone in thinking that the current state of PvP is far worse than it was back in 2012. First of all you have an enormous emphasis of trying to get CC chains in builds. The lack of diminishing returns on CC actually reduces build diversity. You as a player are forced into putting more and more stun breaks or stability stacks into a build. But the main issue is the time to kill (TTK). Raw survival stats have been stripped back so much that spvp now revolves around burst damage and active defences. This all sounds good on paper, but it means that the first point is so much more powerful. CC stacking. There is nothing fun about sitting there watching your screen helpless while you are CCed and your long-kitten stunbreak cooldowns are, well, on cooldown. Active defences are a problem too, they are simply too good. And I think the game development has (over the years) gone in the wrong direction because of this. Instead of creating diminishing returns on things like CC and active defences. Anet thought it a good idea to make it so while active defences and on cooldown, that you pop like a balloon. SPvP use to be slower paced, still with burst and reactive gameplay. But now I feel it's devolved into a race to button mash combos. Almost like it's been devolved to make fights "explody" for an audience rather than a game to play. EDIT: I still don't understand why DLC ranger pets do 2-3 times the DPS as core ranger pets in spvp. That really does baffle me. /rant

I think you missed the part where I said these were Examples. Additionally, even in those examples you'd have to equip at least 3 elixirs to get those effects, essentially reducing your own effectiveness in combat by virtue of stuffing potions down your gullet. If you refuse to read the rest, then I don't mind since you didn't read the part you thought you read anyway.

I think I'm not the only one to think that the core engineer is quite underwhelming. Part of the problem is you have to juggle kits for the core engineer to be viable in any competitive sense. Not really an appealing playstyle. There are a couple of changes to alchemy, turrets, and even the tool belt, which could improve the core class. So here are some suggestions to make the core engineer more appealing, and hopefully, without making the elite specs too strong. EDIT: Kits I think an issue that plagues the engineer are the kits and how they are designed. I think kits are a means to give up utility in order to increase combat versatility. But that's not how they function (looking at you grenadier kit). They currently work to increase your DPS to adequate levels by having more high damaging skills to rotate through. That is a problem for 2 reasons; first is that you're now pigeonholed into using a kit. Second is that you're main weapon is not your primary source of DPS. Even Holosmith suffers from this problem to a lesser extent, and it's one of the better engineer specs. There are a couple of ways to deal with this by fine-tuning kits to not overlap in functionality compared to main weapon skills, while increasing main weapon DPS, essentially make kits either an alternative damage method (like AoE/longer range/cleave), or for mostly utility (like the Tool Kit). Another method could be to make weapon kits use your secondary weapon slot instead of utility. Obviously this limits the number of kits a player can use in combat and wouldn't solve the issue of kit balance. Alchemy When I think of alchemy, I think of experimentation. Mixing ingredients to discover interesting results. The earlier versions of Elixirs were sort of like that, but not very good mechanically. Having random effects happen sounds good on paper, but in practice it's just not fun. It's the main reason why Elixir X is hardly ever used. But it doesn't have to be that way. I think two Elixirs could be changed to give that feeling of "experimentation", while also encouraging builds that use more Elixir Utilities. Elixir B Rework: The last 2 non-lesser elixirs (or tossed elixirs) used gives Elixir B different side effects upon use, the last elixir giving a more potent affect than the first (Major/Minor effects). If one or no elixirs were used, then the effect is the same as the current version of Elixir B. Examples of effects from Elixir B after using other Elixirs: Elixir C - Grants 10s Resolution. Elixir B gives you a random aura or otherwise extends an existing aura for 10/6 seconds. Elixir R - Grants 10s Vigor. Dodge rolls do not consume endurance for 4/2 seconds. Elixir U - Grants 10s Fury. Applies 25 stacks of might for 10/3 seconds. Elixir S - Grants 10s Protection. In the next 6 seconds, avoid lethal damage once and grant 1000/6000 barrier. Elixir X - Grants 10s Swiftness. Pulses 2/1 random damaging conditions on up to 5 nearby enemies each second for 6 seconds. Elixir X Rework: Drink Concoction/Drink Antidote ability (5 sec cooldown) - Pulses a 3 second condition on yourself every second and pulses an opposite boon on 5 nearby allies every 3 seconds (excluding self). Condition/boon type is dependent on the last elixir used before activating this ability (excludes lesser elixirs). If no elixirs were used, then it transforms you randomly into a tornado or rampaging brute. Examples of effects from Elixir X after using other Elixirs: Elixir C - Pulses Poisoned / Regeneration Elixir R - Pulses Chilled / Alacrity Elixir U - Pulses Slow / Quickness Elixir S - Pulses Vulnerability (5 stacks) / Protection Obviously, these are some outlandish suggestions here that are just new skills essentially. But the main point here is to show at least one example of an Elixir that isn't just "use on CD for boons". Turrets Turrets are fun, at least thematically. But in practice, they have some glaring issues. First off is the turrets are each competing for a space on your limited utility bar. So of course, a player is only ever going to take what maximizes his/her DPS. There is a way to fix the DPS issue here and it involves removing certain utility turrets and reworking them into the elite skill. Another issue with certain turrets (especially the healing turret) is the player is heavily encouraged to place them and destroy them immediately due to the overcharge mechanic and cooldowns. This is especially true given their lack of HP anyway. And lastly, the trait for turrets is pretty underwhelming if I'm being honest. Additionally, one thing that plagues the turret is the lack of mobility, which is okay for certain scenarios. However, I think changing the turret trait could really allow players to choose whether they want a more traditional type of turret, or a more fast-paced type of turret. In any case, below are some of the suggestions. -Increase the HP of Turrets. -Remove Rifle, Flame, and Rocket turrets from utility skills. -Turrets start their cooldown when placed instead of destroyed. Supply Crate Rework: Drops down a Rifle, Flame, and Rocket Turret to a chosen area that lasts for 5 minutes and overcharge when placed (remove stun effect from the skill). Experimental Turrets Rework: Placed turrets have enhanced abilities, but they have a much shorter duration and can't be manually destroyed. Examples of enhancements: Net Turret - Rapidly Fires every half a second, choosing different targets if valid. -Lasts 3 seconds. Thumper Turret - Attacks faster in a wider area and causing the Slow condition. -Lasts 6 seconds. Healing Turret - Overcharges at the end of its duration. -Lasts 10 seconds. Rifle/Flame/Rocket Turret - Increase damage inflicted by 100%. -Lasts 10 seconds. While I think nit picking turret stats and abilities to have each perform well for specific scenarios (like I've seen in other discussions). I am of the opinion that only so much number crunching can help, the main issue is too many same-like skills each competing against each other. And balancing those just shifts the flavour of turret to the best current one. Do the suggestions above solve those issue? That's debatable, but I think they do create less overlapping of these skills at the very least. Inventions/Tool Belt One thing I think the engineer is really good at is being versatile. Whether or not that versatility is strong mathematically is another topic. But I do think the engineer could (or should) be pushed further into this versatility "role" (for lack of a better work). At least I think players should have the option to. I think replacing a bad trait within Inventions would be a good start here. Inventions is a pretty one-dimensional trait line as it currently is. So onward with the suggestion: Bunker Down Rework (And rename): Tool Expert - You can now choose any Tool Belt skill that matches the skill type you have equipped. Example: Equipping the Rocket Boots skill allows you to swap Rocket Kick with any other Gadget type tool belt skill. Obviously, this has some major implications of what you can do. You could argue that some skills are balanced based on their Tool Belt skills, and allowing a player to change that ruins that balance. But you have to ask yourself; how balanced are the skills to begin with? How likely are you to pick Utility Goggles over Elixir S for example? Oddities These are just some things with the engineer that annoy me slightly. I'll go through them as briefly as I can. Optimized Activation - Change to 10 seconds Vigor boon with 20-30 second cooldown. This removes the need to spam tool belt skills on cd which I think isn't healthy for gameplay (or my fingers). A.E.D - Added effect: If the effect ends without taking lethal damage, then reduce the remaining cooldown by 5 seconds. Utility Goggles - Added effect: Attacks cannot be blocked for 6 seconds. This skill is overshadowed by other stun breaks. Elixir R - Added effect: When used, allows an over-cap of Endurance for 5 seconds. I really hate how this skill heavily encourages you to use it immediately after a dodge, and dodge again immediately after. It's just janky to maximize its effect. Bomb Kit - Change auto attack to have a longer Cast time, but more damage. Just so it looks less ridiculous, that's the only reason. Toss Elixir U - Reduce cast time (and also please add the "Breaks Stun" tag in tooltip). Seems a bit silly to have a cast time for stun breaks, and I feel like it's only ever used for super speed. Kit cooldowns - Please remove (or at least drastically reduce) the short cooldowns for unequipping kits. This is a really minor point, currently to unequip a kit immediately after equipping, you have to weapon swap. Which is obviously not bound to a close-by key for engineer since usually it's unneeded. Slick Shoes - Added effect: Breaks Immobilized. I feel like having Slick Shoes be an immobilize break would bring it more in-line with Rocket Boots. That's all for now.

Your fun may just be at the expense of someone elses fun. That's what happens when things are unfair.

There is unranked if you want to play with friends. Granted you don't get pip rewards, but that's another matter for another topic. Ranked is not there to chill out with your friends, and actually, those duos are usually not a problem, it's the duos that pick the strongest combination of classes and really try to win games. And I'm guessing these aren't the players you are describing, right? But these are the players that ruin the game mode, not that it's their fault, they are just playing the system, but what I'm saying is that system is flawed. It seems like you want some attention, but what you posted is not an argument.

But why? then players could just avoid the defending fight altogether, and just reflip to keep the bonuses when the enemy leaves. Or the enemies would then just wait until whatever time you set for this to wear off anyways. There would be less urgency for players to defend something like this. Possibility of completely losing the upgrades gives those players the urgency to defend in the first place, it's practically the only reason to cause no one really calculation points for this. Part of the issue is that objectives go down way to quickly, and obviously making them take a lot longer to capture via giving wall HP buffs isn't what players want, right? Will there be situations where a side will ignore defending an objective? Sure. But I don't know if that will be the norm. Especially if let's say, the time to retake an objective would scale with the server's overall point lead. If your server is well ahead of second place, then you'd get no-less time to recapture objectives. Sort of another layer of reverse-snowball. The point is that refreshing siege is a dull job that doesn't reward players. And obviously allowing siege refreshing to grant participation or rank exp is probably asking to be abused without severe limitations. It's also silly that siege goes "poof". It would be more immersive if siege HP decayed over time and could be repaired. But I'm not sure if players would be a fan of this sort of gameplay, and it would probably just result in ignoring siege entirely. If the price is meaningless, then there is no point in having a price, right? I'm talking about cannons and oil. They are mostly useless as you've already pointed out. And the reason for that is you don't get to ever use them, you get 1 shot (maybe 2 if the force isn't very large) before you have to jump off and re-boon/heal. That doesn't strike me as an intended design for these. Do we need any more systems? No. But you should realise that details are often what defines a game as being great instead of good. And I find it pretty immersive breaking that siege is in this state of "dump and forget". To be fair, I don't think the idea is for oils and cannons to destroy rams outright, but rather the players operating them. The problem of course is you can never operate them without exploding. So, essentially remove regular siege, and call superior siege regular siege because there won't be regular versions of superior siege anymore? It just seems silly to reduce wall HP, keep superior siege and remove regular siege. The problem with superior siege is it's just replaced regular siege. This is just really bad powercreep design. And obviously the "easier" solution of reduces the numbers doesn't change that. It's why I think superior siege needs variations compared to their regular counterparts. If that means all siege is now too weak, then sure, buff up all siege damage. But the way superior siege has just made regular siege obsolete does quite annoy me. I couldn't find anything of mobile cannons. In any case, it would really depend on how they were implemented. For example, if players could move at a pretty quick pace while firing, then that would be pretty unbalanced and unfun to play against. But generally, when I think of mobile siege, I'm more thinking on the lines of you can either move slowly, or fire. Additionally, giving some siege the ability to be moved is another variation of how to differentiate siege from a balance perspective. If siege shouldn't be moveable. Then Anet should at least remove the wheels from all variants of siege. I just don't see how this is a factor. Those who do get to repeat chests are simply putting in more hours playing WvW. And even at 6 pips per tick, you'd need 171 minutes per day of WvW to get to repeat chests. It's kind of like someone complaining they don't get to raid as often because they don't play enough. 🤷‍♂️ I still think the game (not just WvW though) should better explain what things are and do, or at least direct players to where things can be explained or experienced. And obviously not everything needs explaining, some things are self-explanatory. Is this an issue that is urgent? I don't think so. But I think it's definitely a QoL thing that is going to help newer or more casual players be more immersed into the game without spending additional time researching the game's features. This is why I think rewards should probably not be a thing here. Of course, players are going to jump ship in order to get rewarded. That's just toxic game design at that point. Part of the issue is that the game is designed in a way for that isn't intended for 1st place to always be "ganged up on". Which undermines the whole point of a 3-way war. Being king of the hill isn't the objective. The objective is to be higher up the hill, which is what creates this issue. The 2nd placed server is going to focus its efforts on the next closest-point-server. If 1st place is 1000 points ahead, ignore them and focus on 3rd place to stay 2nd place. 3rd place is always going to focus 2nd place to catch up. While 1st place is going to focus on 2nd place to stay ahead. And this is also ignoring what players tend to do, focus on the weak for easy earnings. Which, when the scores no longer matter to players, that's exactly what happens.

1. That is not a strawman, the video of "evidence" was literally an advert for a 5v5 tournament by the looks of it. It doesn't say anything about design intent. 2. Assertions aren't facts. 3. He needs evidence of the actual design intent from the creator's mouth(s) in order to assert it as a fact. Of course, if he had such evidence, he would have posted it, I'm sure. Additionally, I don't remember anything about the design intent of structured PvP even being stated when I played gw2 in 2012, and I am doubtful this poster is being trueful about what he says.

Did you design the game back before 2012?

You are talking about an E-sport scene, not a game mechanic intent for the average player. You don't actually know, you think you know.

A straw man in layman's terms is to argue an argument the other person is not making. Your original accusation of my apparent strawman is not what a strawman argument is. And by saying that I am strawmaning as part of your argument, that would in fact be a strawman in itself. Anyway, back on topic. A team game does not mean it is designed with the intent that all parties should previously have known each other. You don't know the intent of the design. You can only guess the intent. And by asserting your guess as a bases for your argument, then that turns your argument into a fallacious one. Hence why I have asked for a reason even after you think you've given a good enough answer.

You can solo queue in 2v2, and people do solo queue in 2v2. I am talking about how the mode currently works, not the ideal of "it should only be 2v2 premade". Something being a personal choice or not is not the point I am making here. When you are playing 2v2 premade versus a 2v2 non-premade, then you have made the choice of increasing your odds of winning by playing as a premade. You cannot say that someone chooses to play solo without also saying that they choose to play premade. And so far I haven't seen any real reasons why this mode should allow premades. Again, I have listed other suggestions too. I don't think you know what staw man argument means. That is not a straw man argument. What you mean to say is it's a fallacious argument. However, I could also argue the same with your logic here, because you don't truly know the reason the causation for the PvP community being "divided" though that in itself is a loaded statement as you'd also have to show evidence for the community being "divided", though you mean could something else than what I'm thinking when you say divided. It is an insult though. Something being true from your perspective (I'm assuming you think it's true) doesn't make something not an insult. Otherwise, I could say something like; "you are a monkey", if I believe you to be a monkey then by your definition (from what I can see at least) then I didn't insult you. Can you see how ludicrous that is? Why doesn't solo play belong in arena? And if it doesn't belong, then why include solo play? This only creates artificial rankings (arguably far more than duo 5v5). I haven't seen any reason or argument to keep premade 2v2 as premade AND solo.

Like I said in my post, one of the solutions to this problem is to remove the ability to queue into 2v2 as a solo player. The issue with 2v2 is that if you are playing duo (and serious about, ei have compatible builds and using voip) then that provides you with a huge advantage over other players that do play solo queue. This artificially increases your rank, it's like a lesser form of win trading, though more accepting by the community. It is absolutely game-manipulation to play in a premade against none premades, and this goes for all ranked modes too (but 2v2 is the most "damaging", for lack of a better word). The issue with other suggestions of allowing 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 5v5, all year round is that is just going to further dilute the already tiny PvP community. Win trading is a huge problem in PvP, and like it or not, that's a big problem that only gets worse with more mode choices. I would love to see modes like this added permanently, but not at the expense of extremely long wait times and even more rampant cheating. Note: Before you try to insult people by referring to the twilight zone, maybe you should look at the issues of your own ideas and how flawed they actually are. I'm not going to insult you for a bad idea, but I will point it out and why it's a bad idea. Please show me the same curtesy. Which brings me to the next issue I have with the argument in your post (as others have made the same argument too); Why. Why should 2v2 remain as a duo queue? I mean really, why? "It's a team game" isn't an objective "why" here, it's an assumption that because you are working with other players, then you should automatically be allowed an advantage over other players of being in a premade group. I don't see any reason for why, only an opinion that many other players do not share. What are the benefits of allowing players to play as a premade group and play against non-premade groups? And I mean benefit to the mode and community, not to an individual player's artificially inflated rank.

Meanwhile in lala land, someone thinks this content is clearable at 4 in the morning. In reality that's not the case.

I have to say that you really shouldn't take compilations as an indication for the state of balance. An example of this is old drakedog videos in WoW (when warlocks were bad (no "skillcoil")). Just because someone can put together some footage of doing well, that doesn't mean it's the norm. Additionally, 16k HP is really low, he's playing a paper build. Any competent thief that gets the jump on him is going to ruin his day.

Obviously, this tittle is sort of click bait. While I won't complain about the removal of duo queueing in ranked 2v2, I'm not going to expect it or suggest that as the only solution. But I do think something needs to change in the current 2v2 landscape. Some suggestions: Give players that have played over a threshold (like 90%) of games as a solo player a separate tittle like "Solo 2v2" and "Solo 2v2 Elite". Remove the ability to pick the same class. Generally speaking, problems arise when 2 players are able to pick 2 of the same thing, and it's not just this game. If you've ever played Minion Masters, 2 players picking the same hero was a major problem, then they made it so you can't, and it actually made the matches far more enjoyable. This should probably happen here too. It's not elementalists that are the problem (though they are very strong), but duo elementalists. Have you ever played against duo druid? You don't want to. Give the duo team some sort of handicap. And obviously the last suggestion is to just remove the ability to duo queue in 2v2. EDIT: Of course, another obvious solution to this could be to just remove the ability to solo queue. As bad as that sounds, it solves the issue to some degree.

I have to agree that the participation mechanic is a problem. While it is better than it was back in 2012, it could really be improved to include more activities. For a start, using siege equipment doesn't even give you enough participation. You can sit there keeping pressure on an objective for your team, and you'd very quickly be forced to move off the siege and cap something. This is just not very well designed. Additionally, the current system doesn't want you to engage in all PvP, but rather either avoid it, or engage only winning PvP scenarios. And guess what the other teams are doing? The same. Of course, you do get the odd player not paying attention, so you do get to gobble them up. But that's not really a solution now, is it? I think merely engaging in PvP should grant participation. Another point is that scouting or guarding an area doesn't give players participation. These two are simply trickier to reward. How does a computer differentiate someone keeping watch versus someone who's afk? But I think not even trying to find any solution to this is short sighted.

I would like to tell you exactly where, but I can't recall. Which either says my memory is bad, or the map is as I said; unintuitive. But mostly it is quite easy to get lost within a keep due to all the stairs going down, and then up with 90 degree angles. I think complex designs are fine if they are somewhat uniform. But when every keep is almost alien to one another (in terms of layout), then I think that is a problem. Again, I would like to emphasise that the desert map looks good. But it doesn't feel good to play on. Maybe I am a minority on that, but from what I've heard/seen, other players seem to share a similar view. I've even seen one player straight up refuse to go to desert map after a commander (that he/she was following) made a call. Kind of telling maybe?

I'm not sure what part you are referring to.