Would You Rather More Conquest Maps or Fixed Stronghold?

[Yerlock.4678]

And why?

[thc enjoyer.4976]

I'd prefer conquest all day or a brand new game mode like search and destroy. Idk literally anything new is wishful thinking. Best they can do is break balance. 

[TheQuickFox.3826]

I like Stronghold and I would like to see it improved, and have a non-mandatory option to play it ranked as well so I get pips while playing Stronghold.

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

CTF, KOTH.

[ArthurDent.9538]

I like stronghold and every time I read suggestions on how to "fix it" they clearly come from someone who hasn't spent a lot of time playing it, at least not recently. Unfortunately, there simply isn't any high level stronghold play for an optimized meta to develop. All it really needs imo for now is a regular daily AT that is stronghold only and maybe give it it's own monthly AT. From there people can optimize actual strategies and then anet can rework in ways to eliminate the degenerate stuff from the game mode.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

4 minutes ago, ArthurDent.9538 said:

I like stronghold and every time I read suggestions on how to "fix it" they clearly come from someone who hasn't spent a lot of time playing it, at least not recently. Unfortunately, there simply isn't any high level stronghold play for an optimized meta to develop. All it really needs imo for now is a regular daily AT that is stronghold only and maybe give it it's own monthly AT. From there people can optimize actual strategies and then anet can rework in ways to eliminate the degenerate stuff from the game mode.

what would be some of the things you would fix in stronghold?

[ArthurDent.9538]

8 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

what would be some of the things you would fix in stronghold?

 

Get competent players actually playing it first then iterate from there. But I can speculate on some things I think should be changed.

The first mist champion channel point should not spawn near the losing team's spawn. It's early enough in the match that it makes it actually a reasonable strategy to let your opponent get a small score lead since having fast respawn for fighting for mist champion is actually a huge advantage. I would suggest making a central mist champion spawn point for it or making the first one be a double summon though if one team gets both mist champions that early it's pretty much gg.

I feel like stalling out games is too easy, each gate broken is a tight choke point that can be hard punished to push through, especially inner gate with its even more confined area. Repelling an offensive push is also super rewarding with each player killed dropping 2 supply which allows for a super strong and fast counterattack. This makes pushing for a lord kill a massive risk and provides large incentive to stall out the clock and win on score in close games rather than pushing for a lord kill I would reduce supply dropped by killed players to 1. Lords and inner guards also do quite a lot of damage making winning lord room fights nearly impossible without mist champion help, so maybe tone them down a bit but also make mist champions less oppressively strong when they get into lord room, because they kind of annihilate people once they get there.

I think running supply the normal way is a bit too tedious and boring but Im not sure the best way to fix this.

You can port into enemy base on blue side once you break down outer gate with targeted ports like steal but you can't do so on red side which should be normalized to work the same on both sides.

[Eddbopkins.2630]

Neither.....gw1 had some really good and different pvp game modes. No reason why the most popular one can't be carried over. 

Since they can't come up with something different and new them selfs just take it from the past.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Eddbopkins.2630

[Bladestrom.6425]

On 7/30/2023 at 6:59 PM, vesica tempestas.1563 said:

 'Till some months ago...people would laugh at you for running a full signet ele' is exactly what im referring to, i happily played a signet build that took me to top of gold 3 for well over a year until it got destroyed recently.  People who 'laugh' at others because they play meta are oblivious to diversity, they just want the next top build, and this CMC character (or whoever messed this up)  Clearly is too tunnel visioned on metas.

To be clear, we got 2  last -minute desperate patches that were clearly knee jerk reactions to the original patch/  This original patch did not intend to target sceptre or existing non meta builds in the first place and instead buffed the hell out of an already overperforming cata. That's not skill, that's crude hacking as a result of  poor impact analysis.

 

5 hours ago, Eddbopkins.2630 said:

Neither.....gw1 had some really good and different pvp game modes. No reason why the most popular one can't be carried over. 

Since they can't come up with something different and new them selfs just take it from the past.

agree, Gw1 pvp was great fun.

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

The correct answer because it is the correct answer. If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness.

 

But I'd prefer if they fixed both really. Stronghold for the sake of variety and Conquest so I; 1 person, do not have to go against coordinated teams of 2 or more persons.

[deathdealer.2197]

tbh only #2 is the sensible answer.

a new map wont magically make conquest more enjoyable, imo atleast.

Edited August 2, 2023 by deathdealer.2197

[Bazsi.2734]

How does a fixed stronghold even look? It doesn't even smell like a finished product.

[Mell.4873]

They essentially need to go back to drawing board with Stronghold. I mean the whole Dota style of pushing lanes is fine but It needs more elements.

First let's increase the player count to 10 on each team. That would really make it a creative game mode worth playing. 

How about you also get supply by killing enemy spawns rather than just from the centre of the map or players. How about temporary boons spawn around the map that you can collect or kill a boss to trigger a team wide buff. 

Think about it most of the Conquest game maps have these elements so why not Stronghold.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Mell.4873

[Chaos God.1639]

they can add the 15 vs 15 map, that according to them is ready. alliances is also not released, so I hope the 15 vs 15 map is also still on the table.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Chaos God.1639

[Bladestrom.6425]

6 hours ago, Mell.4873 said:

They essentially need to go back to drawing board with Stronghold. I mean the whole Dota style of pushing lanes is fine but It needs more elements.

First let's increase the player count to 10 on each team. That would really make it a creative game mode worth playing. 

How about you also get supply by killing enemy spawns rather than just from the centre of the map or players. How about temporary boons spawn around the map that you can collect or kill a boss to trigger a team wide buff. 

Think about it most of the Conquest game maps have these elements so why not Stronghold.

very much like the GW1 version, sounds good.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, Chaos God.1639 said:

they can add the 15 vs 15 map, that according to them is ready. alliances is also not released, so I hope the 15 vs 15 map is also still on the table.

... isnt one of the most common sPvP complaints that there arent really enough players for good matchmaking? Where are all these players supposed to come from to facilitate this? Or are we assuming a 3v3 scenario where each player control 4 bots, lol.

[atshadow.8695]

8 hours ago, Chaos God.1639 said:

they can add the 15 vs 15 map, that according to them is ready. alliances is also not released, so I hope the 15 vs 15 map is also still on the table.

Or an even larger scale map akin to Alterac Valley in WoW, with pve elements, objectives etc.

 

[Saiyan.1704]

They didn't take ANY of our suggestions during the stronghold beta so why would they start now?

There is no character progression or map progression system similiar to LoL/Dota, which was what a lot of players wanted.

There is no creature strategy, defense strategy, offense strategy, or rotation strategy. Stronghold doesn't hold any strat secrets so there's no need for "top teams" to play the map over and over to discover some magical strat. It's a dead gamemode because it isn't fun nor challenging and Anet hasn't even attempted to fix it.

[Bladestrom.6425]

16 hours ago, Saiyan.1704 said:

They didn't take ANY of our suggestions during the stronghold beta so why would they start now?

There is no character progression or map progression system similiar to LoL/Dota, which was what a lot of players wanted.

There is no creature strategy, defense strategy, offense strategy, or rotation strategy. Stronghold doesn't hold any strat secrets so there's no need for "top teams" to play the map over and over to discover some magical strat. It's a dead gamemode because it isn't fun nor challenging and Anet hasn't even attempted to fix it.

mm your not gonna get lol/Dota style play in a mmorpg and I think everyone at the time understood at the time stronghold was more a nod to GW1 battleground equivelant. 

 

https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Fort_Aspenwood would be good.

Edited August 4, 2023 by vesica tempestas.1563

[draxynnic.3719]

21 hours ago, Saiyan.1704 said:

They didn't take ANY of our suggestions during the stronghold beta so why would they start now?

There is no character progression or map progression system similiar to LoL/Dota, which was what a lot of players wanted.

There is no creature strategy, defense strategy, offense strategy, or rotation strategy. Stronghold doesn't hold any strat secrets so there's no need for "top teams" to play the map over and over to discover some magical strat. It's a dead gamemode because it isn't fun nor challenging and Anet hasn't even attempted to fix it.

What really killed it was the disparity in rewards between ranked and unranked. If they did a Stronghold miniseason occasionally they might be able to breathe some life back into it.

There's not really much point in trying to rejuvenate it if nobody's going to play it anyway, though.