PvP Discussion: Game Modes

[Wolfric.9380]

Hi.As you said. 2:2 won´t be balanced. 2:2 duels are nice as a sidekick for training but not as a game mode. I won´t try to make game modes that need heavy balance overhauls.Also having more many ranked modes will always result in a preferred mode. You have to make modes that target players wishes.When the system can support 10:10 well but not more work with it. Niffel as 10:10? try it. A 10:10 Arena for guilds? Sounds intresting, but i am not sure it this will lure a large group.Solo/duo Q? Split the Q´s in the MM. Throw the solo´s in 3:3 and 5:5 matches and the duos in 4:4 and maybe 6:6. I a map is not good for a setup i am shure it´s not hard to remove the option from the map selection like don´t use niffel in a 3:3 setup. (even that can be funny but will benefit high mobility hard).I would make easy trials. Just throw in those things in unranked fast and look what happens. You should add Q preferences so players can select it like stronghold.So easy start add a button Q for 8:8 and thrwo them into normal conquest. Then do it with 4:4 too ....And keep in mind. sPvP is not a dueling/deathmatch ground! It tactical/strategic gameplay. Conquest is good as CTF or other tactical modes would be good. the lowest setup would be 3:3 but this is already critical low for balance and should be premade.

[Chiltonium.7643]

I just want to offer my own personal opinion here.

I've been playing MMOs since UO, and have for some period of time played probably every major MMO release with the exception of anarchy online. I even beta tested Guild Wars 1 (although I was too addicted to EQ and only played a few weeks.)

Of all games the top two who's PvP I've liked the most have been WoW and SWTOR. I know both get a lot of vitriol on this forum, and I agree there's a lot of bad things about those games, but their PvP battlegrounds/warzones have always been my favorite. Why?

I don't like deathmatch. PvP with no goal is not fun to me. 2v2, 3v3, whatever, arena style pvp has never been something I look forward to. In fact when SWTOR put arenas in the typical warzone rotation, I quit soon after, because their PvE couldn't hold my interest. GW2 so far is the opposite. I think the PvP is not fun, the TTK is far too low with people dying in literally less than 5 seconds sometimes, and most importantly the game types are ALL THE SAME. The secondary mechanic doesn't really make them more interesting, in my opinion.

SO What do -I- want to see? Capture the flag. Pass the ball (like huttball!), strongholds revamped because I liked what they COULD have been, but not that they discouraged PvP. I just really don't want to see arenas, as I love PvP, heck I made some PvP videos on youtube when the game came out and I thought it was fun! I even loved raid on the capricorn. I also want my soldiers amulet back.

[Ithilwen.1529]

I'd like to see the return of Polymock. Here's a game mode that's inherently balanced. ANET could even sell/offer as rewards game tokens in silver, gold , platinum and diamond.

PvP racing like that of the Labrythine Cliffs, but with not quite so many "ha ha I really screwed you" tricks.

Moderated 1v1 dueling. Such an event could even be staged in open world without excessive lag. You queue for it in HoTM. This is an incentive to come to HoTM. Then you are transported to the arena at the Black Citadel or The Queen's Arena. Last woman standing wins. That way, you get to play before the PvE public.

I love Coliseum, specifically for the simulated crowd. If we had PvP games in the PvE sphere it might pull more people in to come try. Please though... don't expose them to being cannon fodder. Season 1 drove a great number of potential players away, I suspect.

[ukk.9603]

Hi, I would like to thank the devs for actually asking us our opinions, here are my thoughts on some of the topics discussed so far.

5 man queue:I think that having the possibility to do this is a must for a mmorpg that wants its pvp to be competitive and to be perceived as "serious". I think that the inability to chose team mates and team composition is turning off many pvpers who genuinely want to put effort in the game mode. This is an mmorpg and, as many of you know, team composition determines who wins and who loses as much as player skills and player's ability to follow the map objectives does. I understand that solo queuers may be at disadvantage against a pre-made group, but i don't think it's a big issue for players that understand how team composition affects the matches and that are ready to swap classes when needed (those who don't, have issues when fighting random pugs as well). Furthermore, my suggestion is to include more in-game tools to mark targets and objectives and fast-target a specific enemy player: this would ease coordination for random groups.

Class stacking:My advice is strongly against a mechanism to prevent class stacking; don't get me wrong: i am aware that there are classes that can stack incredibly well and completely ruin the game for the opposing team when doing so. However I believe that this kind of situation is a design mistake from the developers, and preventing class stacking won't solve the mistake, will just hide it. If a class doesn't lose effectiveness when stacked, this means that it's good at too many things, and that either doesn't have weaknesses or the other classes don't have enough tools to exploit the weaknesses it has.

Game modes:I really like the addition of the new pvp modes, and i can't wait to see them in game; that's not because conquest is bad, but it's because the limited choice of pvp formats makes the whole mode stale after a while. Also, I don't share all the concerns that some have expressed about the balance: while of course is very likely for the new modes to have balance problems, I also expect/hope the meta for these modes to be very different from what we currently see in conquest. My suggestion here is to make 2v2/3v3 like a deathmatch, while it could be a good idea to try to implement some larger battlegrounds with pve objectives, eg killing big mobs that appear in certain locations after some time the match has started, having weapons/tanks on the battlefield for the players to use, collecting supplies at certain spawn points etc.. . This is to avoid the bigger battlegrounds to be nothing but zergfights, instead centering them around strategic gameplay. Personally, I would also like to see a ranked 1v1 format and an objective-based free for all arena some day.

At last, i would like to say a couple of things about balance. First thing is i don't think the game is really that much unbalanced as some people seem to believe; there are a couple of overperforming classes that should be slightly toned down, but nothing gamebreaking for what I see. However, I think there is a meta problem: there aren't a lot of options for team composition at this moment, but i think that's mostly due to how conquest works rather than the classes being unbalanced; I hope that the addition of new game modes may give more classes/specs a place to shine in pvp.A big problem in my opinion is how core classes are useless compared to the elite specs; it would be nice to have them reworked to some degree.

[Kukki Monsuta.2086]

Have you considered stealing borrowing Tawern Brawl from Hearthstone? Basically build a set of unfair and unbalanced rules and game modes and rotate them alongside the current ranked queue every 1-2 weeks. If some weeks happen to be so unbalanced that they are only played by scourges just name the game mode of the week "Who's the best scourge?" and suddenly it's perfectly balanced. You don't need to concern yourself with viability of all classes since the standard ranked mode is still available and everyone can create alt and join as favored class in matter of minutes (and might accidentally learn thing or two about the favored class!). It would also open the doors to test more drastic changes to the standard ranked. Example:

Week 1:

• 5v5, solo/duo queue
• conquest
• condition damage reduced by 50%

Week 2:

• 3v3, solo/duo/trio queue
• team elimination (1 life)

Week 3:

• 1v1, solo queue
• team elimination (3 lives)
• healing reduced by 50%

Week 4:

• 5v5, team queue
• stronghold
• player health increased by 50%

It might be similar to the "special tournament" idea, however if those will be in fact tournaments with limited replayability balance will be much larger issue because players will loose their turns experimenting with builds, compositions and team mates.

[Hasdrim.1875]

I know this is a topic that has been said many times and beaten to death but still to this day I don’t get why don’t you look into implementing a GvG gamemode, even if it’s 5v5. Considering:

• We had this game mode in the original GW1 and it had a lot of support from the playerbase. It was so good I’m not even exaggerating when saying it was the best team PvP I’ve ever played in any game period. Even if GW2 is a completely different game, you could take a look back and translate it to the current game.
• Many players have longed for a proper GvG gamemode since well… the release of the game back in 2012. And WvW’s ZergSpamFest doesn’t cut it for many. If done well I think many players would jump into it and actually increase the playerbase of spvp as a whole.
• The game’s PvP is in dire need of support for gamemodes other than conquest. While it’s proven that it works, it gets dull after a while.
• You already implemented PvP teams to the Guild system but there’s really not many incentives to care for them.
• We don’t have a proper sPvP gamemode aimed at Guilds or that promotes Guild Teams.

I get your concerns about splitting the playerbase, but I don't think adding gamemodes would necessarily be a bad thing. Less is not always more.

[Xibalbar.7459]

I whould love to see focus on 3v3, it has more synergies and makes more different comps viable. It is working well in battlerite, while 2v2 lacks there also to a fixed 2v2 setup. In 3v3 it matters not in all what you play, you can outburst heal or if you have 2 supports you miss the damage. In 2v2 it goes allways a strange way.

[rank eleven monk.9502]

If you are planning to implement 2v2 and 3v3 gamemodes, you seriously have to get rid of passive invulnerabilites, as they would hinder any kind of proper gameplay in these setups. Please seriously do consider this.

In GW1 most fights were based on properly executed bursts (spikes). Passive invulnerabilities totally kill the point of coordinated and timed bursts, and that also take away the value of 2v2 and 3v3 gamemodes.

[Xibalbar.7459]

And another idea:

I played dcuo for a while in the past. There was beside the normal pvp, close to conquest, a legendary pvp-mode. It was same kind of maps and modes, but you had to pick a given class like robin, batman, zod, superman, harlequin and so on. They had a balance, no ways for switching skills or traits. Same can work for gw2 also. Give us Kasmeer, Canach and Taimi ( and others). You can develope new "champs" and sell them in the gemshop also, something what dcuo also did. Balance is easier and is was fun!

[Vancho.8750]

Sugestion for game mod payload where one team pushes battaring ram to checkpoints while the other team is deffending waiting for rainforcments something with char vs Ascalon theme.Another sugestion:Foefire but with only one point (maybe 3v3) where you can only reach 350 points at which the gates at the lord are destroyed and the team has to kill it to win, also the lord has to be stronger then the one present in the game, so the other team has the chance to cap the point and open their gate.

[Ioras Dagnir.3927]

3v3 and 15v15 sounds very promising and I am very interested in these, while i think 15v15 should be supported by tournaments. 3v3 since it is smaller scale would benefit from having a queue, perhaps eventually even allowing a ranked mode and leaderboard. thanks for opening these threads for discussion. I really enjoy conquest and havent tired of it in 5 years, having these additional game modes to cater to the different kinds of players can only benefit the pvp community and increase population.

I'm will always be of the opinion teamQ should be allowed back in conquest as it makes sense for a team based game that isn't just about kills. I dont think I have ever been on the Rainbow 6 Siege forums and seen solo players asking to ban premades from ranked. players enjoy playing with their friends and players enjoy playing in a guild, benefit these players by not restricting them so harshly.

[Dreams.3128]

Just do it 10v10 like SWTOR

Literally what can go wrong with that?SWTOR was pretty garbage tier, but one thing that was notable is their PVP. You'd always have the availability to PVP practically anywhere?

Now I wouldn't say copy the warzones agenda, but I'll tell you what, it is much more entertaining to watch the 4v4 in the corner with the two DPS, tank, and healer trying to gun each other down while the occasional assassin or non-force (magic) class tries to slip by for the objective.

It's amusing, entertaining, and not make me want to fall asleep.

[kobi.5236]

There are a lot of great ideas already in this thread but one thing bothers me a lot. Please think long term, I dont sit on any data on how populated pvp in gw2 is and was over the past 5 years but just as a pvp player point of view, I have noticed the pvp scene in general decreasing and it felt like it never was in a super hyped state. So I think taking the age into consideration It´s very unlikely to attract new players with the current pvp. Tournaments was a great addition but it wont change the core of pvp.

It might be risky, it might fail but I think its worth taking the risk to do something new, rather then continue to drop so much support and dev time into a very slowly sinking ship.

Go wild,go big or go home.

If you talk to players about the gw1 pvp experience almost everyone will tell you it was great, sure nostalgia might push it and we dont need to hide that gw1 pvp had it own issues but gvg and ha where popular and made a ton of fun too.

So @Ben I would like to know why GvG or Ha never where considered ( at least thats the perception because of no talk about it in the last 5 years) or why it seems like its just totally of the table? Else I would request GvG/Ha as new game types and gladly expand on a concept for gvg/ha compatible in gw2 terms

[Ithilwen.1529]

Multiple entries here have talked about a team queue. Teams are inherently exclusionary. You'd need to do the old Solo and Team ( party of any size up to 5 ) queues.

I don't want to have to engage in preschool schoolyard politics to play PvP. "Pick me, oh please." Judging by the numbers I've been seeing in HoTM there might not be games at all at some hours with such a system.

I recognize that team queue is an advantage and that it allows a player to get higher in rank than they would as a solo. It's not worth the damage it would do to PvP.

[TallBarr.2184]

HelloAs someone who only play Stronghold these days and never queue conquest (ranked/unranked) will stronghold ever be available in ranked play? Will stronghold ever get new maps or is it a gamemode u dont want to think about and want us to forget even existed. One of the reasons u removed stronghold from ranked play was because u could queue as a 5 man team but u cant do that anymore. Conquest is the biggest snorefest ever with a stale and boring meta consisting of bunker guards and scourges.

[Xillllix.3485]

@TallBarr.2184 said:HelloAs someone who only play Stronghold these days and never queue conquest (ranked/unranked) will stronghold ever be available in ranked play? Will stronghold ever get new maps or is it a gamemode u dont want to think about and want us to forget even existed. One of the reasons u removed stronghold from ranked play was because u could queue as a 5 man team but u cant do that anymore. Conquest is the biggest snorefest ever with a stale and boring meta consisting of bunker guards and scourges.

They say that they basically gave up on making new maps for stronghold, but that it's not off the table...

Sometimes I feel that they don't realize the potential of what they could build upon.

Come on, revamp stronghold to be the GvG it was meant to be, allow team and guild queue.

[choovanski.5462]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:We do have some balance concerns with 2v2's. I think when we have our first special 2v2 tournament, it will teach us a lot.

2v2 has been in unofficial tournaments for the longest time. it's a good mode.

as far a balance concerns for 2v2, it's not like we don't have balance issues in conquest right now. so I can't see why balance issues are such a big deal for a new gamemode, when they aren't treated as big issues for conquest

[Xevius.6174]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@Placentlad.9742 said:

The main issue currently IMO is the decreasing PVP population due to the recent ranked queue changes

. Probably the easiest and least difficult solution to this will be using the old ranked queue system during vanilla GW2 which was ranked team queue: 1-5 players & Solo and/or duo ranked queue.i think this will cover most of the pvp players concerns with not wanting to play into a premade when soloing, and also not been able to playing with friends in a competitive environment as the ranked queue is currently solo/duo ONLY (

this is probably the main reason of the recent pvp population decrease

).

The problem with splitting the queue is that our data doesn't show that 2 separate queues for ranked would work. To put things in perspective, 92% someone queues it's queuing solo. The team queue would have horrendous wait times. And when a match finally popped, difference in team skill would likely be rage inducing.

Ranked -> 1-5 QueDaily and Monthly Tournament - 2v2 or 3v3

That would be interessting for me.The actual Season feels so bad balanced and in the fact that i cant play with my Friends doesnt make it better so i stopped playing PvP until i can que with Friends (~1700 is my actual ranking...) in Ranked again.

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

@LUST.7241 said:Fix the core problems with the current modes as a priority:

• Decapping points is far easier than capping points (takes significantly less time to decap).This is on purpose, and I feel adds some strategic options to conquest.

• Any thoughts on being able to capture a point quicker if there are more players on the point (like PvE/WvW does...and almost every "capture" game)?Fun fact, this is actually already true. But only if you have all 5 members of your team on 1 point. It's 4 or 5 seconds faster.

• Currently if someone is capturing a point alone and uncontested the map icon shows the point contested on the map...which misleads some people (who don't pay attention or have communication) to thinking a point is being contested when it is not. Is there a way to change the icon so it doesn't show as contested if an enemy is not say 1000 range from the point (for allies only, enemies will always see a point not being captured by them as contested)?

This is probably something that wouldn't be changed at this point, since players can get around this by looking at the mini map and seeing if there is an enemy icon there.

[Orpheal.8263]

Make finally first Stronghold again a strogn thing .. You added this game mode, just to abandon it instantly??? Seriously?

You haven't done anything yet to improve or expand this alternative pvp form after implementing it ..

Add more Stronghold Maps, add more Mist Heroes (bring back Heroes in general!! but thatsa an other topic xD) ...

Aside of that, make a PvP Mode, that resembles to WvW and feels more like a small form of "Guild Wars" (GvG) in a kind of wvw like scenario (100v100; 50v50, 25v25)Call it Battlefields eventually.

Bring back the Codex Arena as PvP Mode, where you have to fight with randomized pregiven builds, where your equipment, your skills, your traits, ya even your class/character are each time you enter a randomized product, so that you never know, wehat expects you and what you need to handle for your battle together with your other totally randomized team members.

I woudl find also very interesting to see a Last Man Standing-PvP Mode, where like 100 people in all vs all pvp are on a map, and the person whos alive last, wins..Or some kind of smaler version, which resembles the movie trilogy Tributes of Panem - the Hunger Games, which I would find awesome to have in GW2 - as homage - but also as kind of unique pvp, where you just fight alone for yourself, just with the goal to survive vs all others (Survival PvP is something you see not often/alot in MMORPGS)in the movie its multiple teams (12) with each having 2 players in their Team.

Yes, the Ui is a problem now.. but the ui should surely be no excuse for GW2, to add more Pvp modes to the game, to add more DEPTH to PvP and make the game mode in itself more rich in variety, broader in its surface area and simply said, just more depthful, because a game mode like PvP becomes quickly boring, when it offers over x years permanently only the exact same thing, that is fighting over points in conquest style, when Pvp in itself can be so much more.

[kKagari.6804]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

Fun fact, this is actually already true. But only if you have all 5 members of your team on 1 point. It's 4 or 5 seconds faster.

Whatttttttttttttt????????????????????? Mind blown.

[Vagrant.7206]

@Sinid.7460 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Sinid.7460 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:Poor matchmaking + Lack of game mode diversity = Continually dropping player populationContinually dropping player population = No game mode diversity

Cue vicious downward cycle.

I don't get it -- conquest is boring. Almost everybody who has left PvP says this. Conquest is boring and stale. That's why a lot of people left in the first place. Splitting the population is risky? You haven't taken enough risk, and it has resulted in this low population.

We've literally had conquest since day one. We've had stronghold for maybe one season, and a poorly implemented deathmatch before that. If the player population has been dropping, what has been the common factor? Conquest. For the love of god, introduce new game modes to spice it up.

How is conquest boring and stale? Stronghold appeared and it was never popular. At all. Same with deathmatch, I believe most people disliked that one as well. Fun modes for sure, every now and then. But people saying that conquest is boring and stale blows my mind because it's the only mode that doesn't promote zerging....

It's been considered the only "real" mode of play since launch (5 years now). There have been a grand addition of 2 maps (after one got removed)? It's literally the definition of stale. If we ignore HoT/PoF for a moment (because of how elite specs affect pvp), it's objectively terrible. Most multiplayer games AT LAUNCH have more variety. We didn't even have that. We got some half-baked attempts to introduce variety, which failed because there wasn't enough effort to improve them.

And my point still stands -- They don't want new game modes because it's "risky." They haven't really taken any risk to this point. Stronghold could have been made better. TDM could have been made better. CTF or Assault could be realistically implemented.

I'm speechless... I just hope that for the good of this game, the devs won't listen to people like you.

And what exactly have I suggested that is so revolutionarily stupid that you completely disregard it and insult me? CTF? Assault? More effort on the half-baked game modes? Or is it that they have taken virtually no risk for five years, watched the player population continuously dwindle, and continue to take no risks for fear it would split the ever-dwindling player population?

It's at exact points in time like this that the PvP team should take risks. There's not much left to lose -- PvP is stale, the population continues to shrink, and people are tired of waiting for change every 3 months that fails to address major issues.

[Darek.1836]

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Sinid.7460 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Sinid.7460 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:Poor matchmaking + Lack of game mode diversity = Continually dropping player populationContinually dropping player population = No game mode diversity

Cue vicious downward cycle.

I don't get it -- conquest is boring. Almost everybody who has left PvP says this. Conquest is boring and stale. That's why a lot of people left in the first place. Splitting the population is risky? You haven't taken enough risk, and it has resulted in this low population.

We've literally had conquest since day one. We've had stronghold for maybe one season, and a poorly implemented deathmatch before that. If the player population has been dropping, what has been the common factor? Conquest. For the love of god, introduce new game modes to spice it up.

How is conquest boring and stale? Stronghold appeared and it was never popular. At all. Same with deathmatch, I believe most people disliked that one as well. Fun modes for sure, every now and then. But people saying that conquest is boring and stale blows my mind because it's the only mode that doesn't promote zerging....

It's been considered the only "real" mode of play since launch (5 years now). There have been a grand addition of 2 maps (after one got removed)? It's literally the definition of stale. If we ignore HoT/PoF for a moment (because of how elite specs affect pvp), it's objectively terrible. Most multiplayer games AT LAUNCH have more variety. We didn't even have that. We got some half-baked attempts to introduce variety, which failed because there wasn't enough effort to improve them.

And my point still stands -- They don't want new game modes because it's "risky." They haven't really taken any risk to this point. Stronghold could have been made better. TDM could have been made better. CTF or Assault could be realistically implemented.

I'm speechless... I just hope that for the good of this game, the devs won't listen to people like you.

And what exactly have I suggested that is so revolutionarily stupid that you completely disregard it and insult me? CTF? Assault? More effort on the half-baked game modes? Or is it that they have taken virtually no risk for five years, watched the player population continuously dwindle, and continue to take no risks for fear it would split the ever-dwindling player population?

It's at exact points in time like this that the PvP team should take risks. There's not much left to lose -- PvP is stale, the population continues to shrink, and people are tired of waiting for change every 3 months that fails to address major issues.

Lol well there's about 100 hardcore pvprs and none of them want those gamemodes not made for gw2. If I could get an actually not trash conquest map it'd be great, especially with how limited resources they have now I'm this dead game.

[Saiyan.1704]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@LUST.7241 said:Fix the core problems with the current modes as a priority:

• Decapping points is far easier than capping points (takes significantly less time to decap).This is on purpose, and I feel adds some strategic options to conquest.

• Any thoughts on being able to capture a point quicker if there are more players on the point (like PvE/WvW does...and almost every "capture" game)?Fun fact, this is actually already true. But only if you have all 5 members of your team on 1 point. It's 4 or 5 seconds faster.

Could you make this a "Full Team" item as oppose to only 5 individual players? If one or two people DC, I would like to capture a point quicker with 4 or 3 players. That would remedy a lot of (small minority) blowouts when a player DC for 30 seconds at a time but always manages to come back in the game before the team receives a "bye" for that Ranked match.

[Saiyan.1704]

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Sinid.7460 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:

@Sinid.7460 said:

@Vagrant.7206 said:Poor matchmaking + Lack of game mode diversity = Continually dropping player populationContinually dropping player population = No game mode diversity

Cue vicious downward cycle.

I don't get it -- conquest is boring. Almost everybody who has left PvP says this. Conquest is boring and stale. That's why a lot of people left in the first place. Splitting the population is risky? You haven't taken enough risk, and it has resulted in this low population.

We've literally had conquest since day one. We've had stronghold for maybe one season, and a poorly implemented deathmatch before that. If the player population has been dropping, what has been the common factor? Conquest. For the love of god, introduce new game modes to spice it up.

How is conquest boring and stale? Stronghold appeared and it was never popular. At all. Same with deathmatch, I believe most people disliked that one as well. Fun modes for sure, every now and then. But people saying that conquest is boring and stale blows my mind because it's the only mode that doesn't promote zerging....

It's been considered the only "real" mode of play since launch (5 years now). There have been a grand addition of 2 maps (after one got removed)? It's literally the definition of stale. If we ignore HoT/PoF for a moment (because of how elite specs affect pvp), it's objectively terrible. Most multiplayer games AT LAUNCH have more variety. We didn't even have that. We got some half-baked attempts to introduce variety, which failed because there wasn't enough effort to improve them.

And my point still stands -- They don't want new game modes because it's "risky." They haven't really taken any risk to this point. Stronghold could have been made better. TDM could have been made better. CTF or Assault could be realistically implemented.

I'm speechless... I just hope that for the good of this game, the devs won't listen to people like you.

And what exactly have I suggested that is so revolutionarily stupid that you completely disregard it and insult me? CTF? Assault? More effort on the half-baked game modes? Or is it that they have taken virtually no risk for five years, watched the player population continuously dwindle, and continue to take no risks for fear it would split the ever-dwindling player population?

It's at exact points in time like this that the PvP team should take risks. There's not much left to lose -- PvP is stale, the population continues to shrink, and people are tired of waiting for change every 3 months that fails to address major issues.

Stronghold was 1000% more risky than ANY Gamemode ever created in the MMORPG genre. Saying Stronghold took 0 risk is like saying Einstein took 0 trials in solving the theory of relativity.

Anet knew the risks... it was definitely an ambitious move but a 2v2/3v3 etc gamemodes [even restricting traits and/or amulets on a per class basis] would have yielded a higher success rate at a much cheaper cost. They took the MOBA idea without incorporating MOBA gameplay similarities. They launched Stronghold without a day-by-day test run beta server like how most games would have done. Now it takes even more resources to fix, on a game that has very little of.