Will we ever get a 1 vs 1 mode? It would be a promising mode

[zonias.1083]

I was just wondering, why arenante does not implement a 1 vs 1 ranked mode, to me it seems it could appeal to some part of pvp, and i would certainly not mind to wait a few minutes to have a 1 vs 1 where stats are normalized. I like WvW but i do not like that i need to roam to find opponents and that i can be ganged upon, so a 1 vs 1 would solve all the issues. You can make it a ranked ladder, so that players fight opponents of similar skill, and then you would also remove the problem about duo q where so many complain. Of course you could still have the problem of win trading, but since it is a 1 vs 1, it would be easy to detect if a player is losing to another player repeatedly, you can have a system that reduces the match rate between two players consecutively. 

Watching at the maps existing for pvp, it would not be very difficult to take the central node and adapt it to a 1 vs 1. I have seen over the year many posts that demand a 1 vs 1 mode, and i feel that now they want to give a new mode for pvp, it seems they want to try to save it after they destroyed it. So why not invest a little bit more and try to give it a go¿

I was thinking it could be a best of 5 mode for example. And there would be different conditions to win,  you could have conquer a node and maintain it for lets say 10 seconds, or kill the opponent. To avoid everyone playing really big bunquer style, there could be some locations where the player can activate a trap that will hit the node, so that it resets progress and deals dmg, like skyhammer ,for example. 

And also, i would do so that only the losing player can change their build. This way only the losing player can change their build to better suit the matchup, if they they need condi cleance, cc, etc. Of course wining gives you a bigger advantage even if they counter you in the next round, then you can swap to counter them. It would be about doing the best you can in each situation. 

And of course,  only you can  play as the class you queue up with, so that people would not be changing into the opponents counter all the time. 

 

And it is not like the meta would be crazy to deal with, as they already have to deal with roaming in WvW this would bring it to a smaller scare and unify the stats, people in WvW would also not complain about the celestial stat and i think a big part of the roaming community and pvp would  move to this mode. if they are worried about player base, i am sure they can get it from frustrated pvp players that stopped playing, and WvW players.

There are some classes that would excel some more than others, but i believe that right now, since we have so much build diversity every class can come up with something to fight opponent, for example abuse the short range of war, or break a druid using the traps i mentioned if they bunker, swap for a more condi cleanse or build. In this situation condi builds would be more popular as they can harrass the opponent and you do not need to worry about the speed of killing, something i think normal rank ladder falls short, since you need momentum more than anything you wanna get kills fast. You can also go full glass cannon and try to cheese the opponent. There could be many different  playstyles.

If people are worried about stealth classes, you could put some upgrades in the arena that players can acquire to reveal the area nearby the player, that way they can chase them if people become frustrated about it. Or place shields that allow players to block projectiles for a shot while if they find that they can not fight it, only temporarily.

 

My main point, is that it could bring many benefits, and also it does not seem it would require as much development time, so why does arenante not do it? Pvp could certainly be happy to receive attention. Maybe if people have a 1 vs 1 mode where they can learn to fight, instead of being thorn into conquest where you need to focus on rotations, fights, people, many classes and interactions it could be better long-term for the player base. 

[arazoth.7290]

Depending ln arena environment, it would be favour many duelists builds a lot and ppl want to play it safe.

2 duelists against each other is boring.

 

For this they would be forced to make a mechanic that each 30 sec their self healing gets 5% lower.

 

[zonias.1083]

13 minutes ago, arazoth.7290 said:

For this they would be forced to make a mechanic that each 30 sec their self healing gets 5% lower.

I like that change, that way it will finish sooner or later by who makes a mistake or takes the initiative wins. 

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

2 hours ago, zonias.1083 said:

I was just wondering, why arenante does not implement a 1 vs 1 ranked mode

It actually works well now with templates, if you use the 2v2 arenas and set it to like 5 points for win, which gives plenty of time to go back and forth with builds & make changes on the fly to counter opponents and hone in on what you need to do to win.

We ran a community organized 1v1 season with a special system, here in this discord -> zTcNB9mXj3

If they would give us a mode similar to this, people would queue that all day. I don't know Arenanet doesn't care to try it. It's actually quite fun.

[zonias.1083]

7 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

It actually works well now with templates, if you use the 2v2 arenas and set it to like 5 points for win, which gives plenty of time to go back and forth with builds & make changes on the fly to counter opponents and hone in on what you need to do to win.

I agree with you, although i have to admit that i am againts the 2 vs 2 arenas, i think they are poorly designed, there are many places where players can get stuck, too many details in the terrain that make it a bit dificult to navigate. In my opinion good examples of arena could be the middle of eternal colisium, or i would much prefer the side nodes of the coliseum, the arena with the garden has interesting terrain and it is not totally open. Maybe they could make it so that the arena changes, like give a random list of 5 arenas, that will be played, so that it does not favor only one type of matchup. 

 

As for the discord, i joined, but from what i saw it is NA based, no? i could make an account to play there, but i am not sure how bad the lag it is. Unfortunately i am EUW based, if there is EUW i would for surely join in. 

 

11 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

If they would give us a mode similar to this, people would queue that all day. I don't know Arenanet doesn't care to try it. It's actually quite fun.

I fully agree with you, i think a big majority of gw2 players enjoy the combat the most, no the conquest part of it. So i also do not understand why they never planned to make a mode like this. 

I hope that this forum can make some noise, and reach them, so pay a bit more attention to pvp. 

[maxwelgm.4315]

A 1v1 mode would be nice but the lack of a 5v5 death match/random arena is just as surprising. Duelist builds nowadays have so much sustain that some 1v1s would be painful to go through, but a 5v5 arena with no specific contest zones would go hard with people playing out different strats and movement skills.

[zonias.1083]

26 minutes ago, maxwelgm.4315 said:

the lack of a 5v5 death match/random arena is just as surprising. but a 5v5 arena with no specific contest zones would go hard with people playing out different strats and movement skills.

That is an interesting idea, although the main problem i see about gw2 pvp, is that you have it is entirely different coordinated gameplay and solo play. I see this issue with tournament, where it is a totally different beast compared to ranked ladder solo q, and even 2 queue.  I would not be interested in such a mode, i already have a headache to try coordinate 4 random people in conquest, but i think that given how much people enjoy WvW the possibility to have an organized mini fight would be really appealing to people for sure. 

 

In my opinion, gw2 should get WvW players base interested in PvP and the opposite, since both modes rely on the incredible interaction between players. 

 

3 hours ago, arazoth.7290 said:

For this they would be forced to make a mechanic that each 30 sec their self healing gets 5% lower.

Another player said something really smart about how to counter boring duelist gameplay. The ideal in my opinion would be round of around 1 minute on average with 2 minutes or less for maximum time. With the inclusion of different ways to win or to gain advantage, using traps from the map, or buffs the players could punish those that are not proactive. 

[arazoth.7290]

56 minutes ago, zonias.1083 said:

 

Another player said something really smart 

Whenever I say something smart

[whooot.5784]

I can't imagine, even in my worst nightmare a 1v1 game mod... It would be so bad ........ People will abuse it in billion way, you will see bunker duelist everywhere, only few class like ranger or warrior will play it. Boring to play, boring to watch, boring just by thinking about it actually.

If you want 1v1, go in ffa, or hotjoin/private areana, and 1v1 all you want, you'll always find people for it.

But for me it's a big NONO

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

4 hours ago, zonias.1083 said:

i have to admit that i am againts the 2 vs 2 arenas, i think they are poorly designed, there are many places where players can get stuck, too many details in the terrain that make it a bit dificult to navigate. In my opinion good examples of arena could be the middle of eternal colisium

There are a few reasons why the 2v2 arenas with fog mechanic became mandatory to use:

1. In a live tournament with human moderation & spectators, if there is a duel let's say "Staff Spellbreaker vs. Tanky Druid", if they fight forever and neither can kill each other, we can have moderators make a call such as: "Player A was more aggressive, Player B kited more to survive, so Player A wins". But with the kind of challenge system we had in place for players to arrange their own private 1v1s so scheduling was easier to progress the leaderboards, we needed a way to ensure that rounds ended when there is no human moderation around.
2. When we try to make rules like: "OK no bunker builds" then we get people saying "Define bunker" and then no one agrees on anything and there is nothing but arguing. If we say: "Ok this amulet/rune/relic isn't allowed" or maybe "This particular build isn't allowed" nobody agrees on anything, everyone argues, and tbh we found that removing any options at all from play, just pisses people off in general and it isn't good for participation rates.
3. This is where the poison fog timer comes in. We set a custom arena to first to 5 points wins on 3 minute match timers. This way we can allow all normal in-game options, and the poison fog will ensure that there is a winner and a loser. It also provided a good balance drawback to those who thought: "I'll just run a fat tank that can't die" because if you can't kill your opponent before the fog rolls in, your heals count for nothing when the timer is up. It brought a natural balancing factor to people's consideration of: "I shouldn't build too tanky or I'll get kited and die at the timer" and this was able to be achieved without putting bans on any builds/skills/traits/gear options, which everyone can agree on.

In the end, the 2v2 arenas with the fog mechanic is what allowed 1v1s to be actually functional without running into problems like: "Two builds that can't kill each other", and what allowed the enablement of all options instead of having to put bans on things.

If they did a ranked 1v1 queue system, they'd need to do something similar. Ideas & drawbacks:

1. Simply use the 2v2 arenas for the poison fog. Drawback is that players absolutely hate dying to fog. But without it, we get matches like Staff Spellbreaker vs. the Tanky Druid. If they can't kill each other and there is no poison fog to force a death, what else can we use?
2. Maybe a DPS meter. The win automatically goes to the person who dealt the most DPS in the round. Drawback is that this doesn't necessarily best represent who was "the stronger player". You could have a DE kite you the entire round vs. your Bunker and never be able to kill you, and when that DE gets the win, you'll be thinking: "This kind of sucks because in a real match I'd be holding the node, winning the game for my team, and he wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Which leads me to the 3rd suggestion.
3. I actually wanted to test run a live tournament soon for this, which we will need to use Coliseum for. The idea is a 1v1 that is node-hold based to better represent 1v1 engagements in the conquest game, rather than 1v1s in an open field wvw style. A match starts and both players go only to the mid node. They are instructed to completely ignore their home/far nodes. We can set the score to end the match much lower, let's say 250 or 300. The players contest the mid node only, to accrue their point totals. If a player dies, he goes into respawn, and it will be enabled that he can swap his build while ooc in the spawn. Then he can go back to mid to try again. Any time a player dies, they can swap builds, but not characters/classes. This would provide a very interesting dynamic that much better represented conquest 1v1s, as well as a player/class's ability to defend nodes against various build types. There are so many reasons why I predict that a new mode like this would be highly successful and strangely balanced actually. If Arenanet were to arrange it for an automated queue, they could take something like the Asuran Arena, remove the poison fog, put a node up on the platform, and set the timer to about 10-15 minutes. That would be ideal for a 1v1 node-hold mode.
4. Super alternatively, they could use some kind of universal DPS buff that keeps ramping up once a timer expires. Example: A 10 minute timer expires and the Staff Spellbreaker vs. Tanky Druid isn't going anywhere. Every 10s past the timer expiration, it begins adding +2% DPS increase to both players. If an extra 60s goes on past 10 minutes, those players are both getting +12% to both power and condi DPS. If 2 minutes were to go by, they'd be getting +24%. If 4 minutes somehow went by, that'd ramp up to +48%. A mechanic like this would most certainly ensure a winner and a loser, and at a pace that I don't think would trigger feelings of: "I got screwed out of this match due to mechanics."

But yeah, just to share with you some of the things we learned while running the 1v1 season.

41 minutes ago, whooot.5784 said:

I can't imagine, even in my worst nightmare a 1v1 game mod... It would be so bad ........ People will abuse it in billion way, you will see bunker duelist everywhere, only few class like ranger or warrior will play it. Boring to play, boring to watch, boring just by thinking about it actually.

If you want 1v1, go in ffa, or hotjoin/private areana, and 1v1 all you want, you'll always find people for it.

But for me it's a big NONO

People only say stuff like this ^ because they never tried it.

Besides that, I just explained "from actual experience launching a major community project that was successful" how to avoid any & all problems you're imagining with a 1v1 system. It's not hard to configure to avoid problems, and it actually ends up feeling fun & rather balanced, believe it or not.

Edited June 30 by Trevor Boyer.6524

[WhoWantsAHug.3186]

6 hours ago, zonias.1083 said:

I like that change, that way it will finish sooner or later by who makes a mistake or takes the initiative wins. 

Implementing a healing dampening mechanic would just make the game more unbalanced. Different builds have different strengths/weaknesses and adding any combat mechanic would be a bad idea IMO. You have to initially consider that any 1v1 scenario is inherently favoring some builds over others. Any game mode would develope it's own metagame, you have to accept that fact. 

As I see it, there are two ways to help balance a 1v1 game mode, that's with adding secondary win conditions.

Having a large node to fight over, like foefires middle node would prevent any cheesy stealth builds from emerging. Maybe it could be even larger than foefire with more time required to cap, so you could still stealth within reason before losing. IMO this would work best if the entire map was a "node"

Another obvious win condition would be victory from top stats, mainly via damage with a possible reduced weight from healing done. This would work well with a time limit, but you could implement it without one. 

If a 1v1 map was to exist, it would be many obstacles and kiting vectors IMO. This is conjunction with my proposed balance suggestions would give ranged/kiting builds a more legitimate avenue to victory. Bunker builds would need to pursue the opponent to avoid losing via damage. 

Edited June 30 by WhoWantsAHug.3186

[Flowki.7194]

The only way 1v1 in a competitive setting works is if it were within-class based. That way, when some of the obvious specs dominate 1v1s, or are obnoxious af to fight, you can pick some classes that mostly don't have such specs, or can be countered within class.

[zonias.1083]

2 hours ago, whooot.5784 said:

I can't imagine, even in my worst nightmare a 1v1 game mod... It would be so bad ........ People will abuse it in billion way, you will see bunker duelist everywhere, only few class like ranger or warrior will play it. Boring to play, boring to watch, boring just by thinking about it actually.

that is why i mentioned having alternative objectives to gain an advantage and remove this sort of playstyle, or have it be skilled based.

 

If you would not play it, then do not play it, nobody forces you to. I am just considering that it would not be difficult to implement, why gw2 does not have such a mode where there is demand for it. 

[zonias.1083]

1 hour ago, WhoWantsAHug.3186 said:

As I see it, there are two ways to help balance a 1v1 game mode, that's with adding secondary win conditions.

Having a large node to fight over, like foefires middle node would prevent any cheesy stealth builds from emerging. Maybe it could be even larger than foefire with more time required to cap, so you could still stealth within reason before losing. IMO this would work best if the entire map was a "node"

Another obvious win condition would be victory from top stats, mainly via damage with a possible reduced weight from healing done. This would work well with a time limit, but you could implement it without one. 

That is a great ideas. That is why mentioned at the start to have secondary advantages so force interaction and counterplay certain playstyle. I like the idea of having a strategy to win, but there has to be a counter to it for the opponent to also have a chance. 

 

I like both ideas you mentioned. I would also consider that during the best of 5 the maps changes, and so the secondary objectives could also change, or offer different options to give room for improvising and adapting to the conditions

[zonias.1083]

2 hours ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

There are a few reasons why the 2v2 arenas with fog mechanic became mandatory to use:

i agree with you on the necessity of the arenas. I just feel from a technical point of view the 2 vs 2 arenas are not polished. Lets take for example the top part of asura arena, there are many spots that are not easily visible where the player can get stuck, i have gotten stuck in many points going up the ramp because of those flower pots, or whatever they are. 

I feel like other conquest arenas have an interesting terrain and they offer good ways to kite and position while still being simple to read and to navigate on. I do not agree with the distribution and terrain difference high in the 2 vs 2 arenas. But i agree with you some mechanic to finish a match fast is necessary. 

All the ides you mention in your post are indeed necessary and required for a 1 vs 1 mode. I would also add to have different conditions to win. My main idea would be have a conquest node that gives you the victory if you maintain it for lets say 20 seconds, or if you kill opponent one time then you win that round. 

 

I also feel this mode would be much more simple to balance than other modes. In a 1 vs 1 scenario there are less variables and it is more easy to detect unfair matchups or advantages. Already based on the roaming aspect of WvW every class has possible builds and they all bring different aspects. 

[Flowki.7194]

19 minutes ago, zonias.1083 said:

that is why i mentioned having alternative objectives to gain an advantage and remove this sort of playstyle, or have it be skilled based.

 

If you would not play it, then do not play it, nobody forces you to. I am just considering that it would not be difficult to implement, why gw2 does not have such a mode where there is demand for it. 

What you are not considering is that any given objective will favour X spec/class over Y, one type of objective will favour mobility, the other, bunker. It would get to the point where you just give up a given objective becuase the other spec has simply won it by default, which is basically RNG, not skill. You can propose any objective you like and I will give you a solid argument in how it will be flawed. Limited/mirror DM is the only way to reduce RNG, and rock/paper effect, you have to use FPS level balancing, we all know sniper v shotgun is completely map dependent on who wins, so you have to force sniper v sniper and shotgun v shotgun.

Edited June 30 by Flowki.7194

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

7 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

What you are not considering is that any given objective will favour X spec/class over Y, one type of objective will favour mobility, the other, bunker. It would get to the point where you just give up a given objective becuase the other spec has simply won it by default

This is the purpose behind allowing build swaps in between deaths for 1v1, regardless of the match style.

It just needs to happen, otherwise it's quite clear in most cases who is going to win if a match loads in and say it is: Sic Em Soulbeast vs. Deadeye. It could be a first to 5 points or node hold, doesn't matter. The Ranger is going to win unless the DE greatly outplays it. The build swap in between rounds for point matches or build swap in between deaths for a node hold, makes for a much much more interesting match. The Thief has plenty of builds it can swap to deal with a Ranger in that case. It can swap to blind spam condi builds, and vice versa, the Ranger can swap to deal with this as well.

The 1v1s simply don't work unless build swapping is a thing. People get real tired real fast of running the full duration of a 1v1 they already know they'll lose because they chose the wrong template pre-game in round 1. Build swapping allows actual counterplay, which keeps the players interested, otherwise the matches are honestly boring and the 1v1 meta becomes way too narrow.

With build swapping, every class can deal with every class. It just tests a player's ingenuity & ability to play various build structures. This is ultimately what equates to which players are actually good at 1v1s and that is the way it should be.

[zonias.1083]

57 minutes ago, Flowki.7194 said:

What you are not considering is that any given objective will favour X spec/class over Y, one type of objective will favour mobility, the other, bunker. It would get to the point where you just give up a given objective becuase the other spec has simply won it by default, which is basically RNG, not skill. You can propose any objective you like and I will give you a solid argument in how it will be flawed. Limited/mirror DM is the only way to reduce RNG, and rock/paper effect, you have to use FPS level balancing, we all know sniper v shotgun is completely map dependent on who wins, so you have to force sniper v sniper and shotgun v shotgun.

that is why rotating the maps and giving the person who loses the chance to change their build would give room for counterplay and adapting. and it would be more fair than just letting people be stuck in a mode where this class beats this class. In any FPS given your example, why there are different guns¿ Because each gun have different situations they excel at and choosing a gun depends on your execution's, what strategy you are going for, what terrain you are fighting at. 

If we talk about perfect plays and a game that is solve, then that means there is for any given scenario only one winning outcome and strategy, but the game is not the same, it can be balanced and changed. You could say the same about any pvp game, there is always a theoretical optimal solution. 

Why the normal conquest mode meta is different from tournament meta? or from 2 vs 2 meta, or 3 vs 3 meta? because all these modes have different goals and conditions and people adapt to it. There is no perfect balance system to test players skill where there is no diversity unless like you very well said you force a battle where both sides have exactly the same resources. 

 

Lets say you are a thief that is facing a warrior, of course you can not fight a direct confrontation, so you use your speed to gain the secondary objectives to get an advantage and then fight. Then it would not be simple process of you are better at this so i automatically lose. That is precisely why you need secondary objectives, so that the fight does not become what class is the best at X. 

The ability to change your build for the losing side, would give a strategy advantage that should be well managed to gain momentum back and it would people to use their understanding of the game for a battle about not just execution but planning. 

Imagine this, when you  start a match you are given the order of the 5 different maps you will both fight at, every map has their own secondary objectives, you can check which maps you can go for a win, plan to get the right build you want, and plan your loses if you see that you can not win in a certain matchup but make up later with the correct build while your opponent is stuck on that build. that would certainly to me sound like a really fun experience and not just a fight of who is better at X, or Y. 

 

Also i feel that the current balance of the game allows for any class to have a build that fulfills the role they need, of not perfect, but every class has a class that can dps, that can roam, that can bunker, that can duel. Then the fun of the game comes from exploiting what you are best at. 

[Flowki.7194]

2 hours ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

This is the purpose behind allowing build swaps in between deaths for 1v1, regardless of the match style.

It just needs to happen, otherwise it's quite clear in most cases who is going to win if a match loads in and say it is: Sic Em Soulbeast vs. Deadeye. It could be a first to 5 points or node hold, doesn't matter. The Ranger is going to win unless the DE greatly outplays it. The build swap in between rounds for point matches or build swap in between deaths for a node hold, makes for a much much more interesting match. The Thief has plenty of builds it can swap to deal with a Ranger in that case. It can swap to blind spam condi builds, and vice versa, the Ranger can swap to deal with this as well.

The 1v1s simply don't work unless build swapping is a thing. People get real tired real fast of running the full duration of a 1v1 they already know they'll lose because they chose the wrong template pre-game in round 1. Build swapping allows actual counterplay, which keeps the players interested, otherwise the matches are honestly boring and the 1v1 meta becomes way too narrow.

With build swapping, every class can deal with every class. It just tests a player's ingenuity & ability to play various build structures. This is ultimately what equates to which players are actually good at 1v1s and that is the way it should be.

And all that allows is the option of a cheap counter pick when you are genuinely outplayed on the given spec. It just becomes an arms race of cheap counter picks, which imo is a cop out for those who simply cannot tolerate being outskilled. This is why playing 1v1 within a class only is better, as it reduces the ability for cheap counter picks. Say a mesmer mirrow match, and one rages to thief, rather than taking the loss for simply being outskilled, get better.

 

1 hour ago, zonias.1083 said:

that is why rotating the maps and giving the person who loses the chance to change their build would give room for counterplay and adapting. and it would be more fair than just letting people be stuck in a mode where this class beats this class. In any FPS given your example, why there are different guns¿ Because each gun have different situations they excel at and choosing a gun depends on your execution's, what strategy you are going for, what terrain you are fighting at. 

If we talk about perfect plays and a game that is solve, then that means there is for any given scenario only one winning outcome and strategy, but the game is not the same, it can be balanced and changed. You could say the same about any pvp game, there is always a theoretical optimal solution. 

Why the normal conquest mode meta is different from tournament meta? or from 2 vs 2 meta, or 3 vs 3 meta? because all these modes have different goals and conditions and people adapt to it. There is no perfect balance system to test players skill where there is no diversity unless like you very well said you force a battle where both sides have exactly the same resources. 

 

Lets say you are a thief that is facing a warrior, of course you can not fight a direct confrontation, so you use your speed to gain the secondary objectives to get an advantage and then fight. Then it would not be simple process of you are better at this so i automatically lose. That is precisely why you need secondary objectives, so that the fight does not become what class is the best at X. 

The ability to change your build for the losing side, would give a strategy advantage that should be well managed to gain momentum back and it would people to use their understanding of the game for a battle about not just execution but planning. 

Imagine this, when you  start a match you are given the order of the 5 different maps you will both fight at, every map has their own secondary objectives, you can check which maps you can go for a win, plan to get the right build you want, and plan your loses if you see that you can not win in a certain matchup but make up later with the correct build while your opponent is stuck on that build. that would certainly to me sound like a really fun experience and not just a fight of who is better at X, or Y. 

 

Also i feel that the current balance of the game allows for any class to have a build that fulfills the role they need, of not perfect, but every class has a class that can dps, that can roam, that can bunker, that can duel. Then the fun of the game comes from exploiting what you are best at. 

Same as above mate. At the end of the day, if you want 1v1 to test your skill, then stop asking for second, third and forth chances when youre being outplayed. For me it is important that the two specs are very similar, within the same class.. to reduce mechanical advantedge. Anything else aside from that is genuinely just adding RNG, rock/paper, or uneccersary loser "catch up". If youre losing vs a similar build, there can be no complaints other than lack of skill.

 

Also, getting to plat level on all classes would be a massive time sink, so all you would do is alienate players who do not have that kind of time. The leader boards would be full of the most sweaty no lifers, who smash the game 18 hours a day, so that the one guy who only has time to maintain plat skill on one or two specs, does not stand a chacne. Is that skill?, in a sense.. but you can maybe see what I mean? it is not the best of the best, it is just the best of the sweats. That guy who only has time to get good on 1 spec may win that sweat, who then picks a cheap counter, and the guy with less time now cannot play that counters counter. He is being punished now for having more in life than gw2?

Edited June 30 by Flowki.7194

[fable spirt.8465]

We had a 1V1 PvP mode in 2013 called Solo Arena. The game's PvP system will split into Team Arena and Solo Arena, which allows single players to face off against one other person. Those wishing to play with friends must queue for Team Arena. Team play will still be five-on-five and "function much like the current rated play format." - Polygon Aug 6, 2013 If I remember the game mode correctly it had 1 lane and a object at both ends. It would spawn in something akin to door breakers in stronghold. it obviously failed as it is no longer in the game.

Edited June 30 by fable spirt.8465
Correct error

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

38 minutes ago, fable spirt.8465 said:

We had a 1V1 PvP mode in 2013 called Solo Arena. The game's PvP system will split into Team Arena and Solo Arena, which allows single players to face off against one other person. Those wishing to play with friends must queue for Team Arena. Team play will still be five-on-five and "function much like the current rated play format." - Polygon Aug 6, 2013 If I remember the game mode correctly it had 1 lane and a object at both ends. It would spawn in something akin to door breakers in stronghold. it obviously failed as it is no longer in the game.

No idea what you're remembering, but it isn't GW2.

Solo queue arena was the exact same conquest 5v5 mode that we have now, but you could only queue solo.

[fable spirt.8465]

It may have been a beta, but I do remember it as it is the only win I have on a guardian.

[Shagie.7612]

man i lose like 99% of my 1v1s even if i play nearly as perfectly as possible 

i would be legitimate bronze

[zonias.1083]

8 hours ago, Flowki.7194 said:

Same as above mate. At the end of the day, if you want 1v1 to test your skill, then stop asking for second, third and forth chances when your are being outplayed. For me it is important that the two specs are very similar, within the same class.. to reduce mechanical advantage. Anything else aside from that is genuinely just adding RNG, rock/paper, or unnecessary loser "catch up". If you are losing vs a similar build, there can be no complaints other than lack of skill.

The issue i see here is that forcing a mirror matchup will not suit more people and it will reduce the build diversity. 

In my opinion class knowledge and knowing how to adapt and fight other classes is important and although maybe it is not perfectly balanced to now, it could be possible to reach a balance where every class has fighting chances against every other class. For example i main rev, and even though rev does not have favorable match ups against all classes i still would be down to 1 vs 1 anyone. I agree there are class counters but i do not think they can not be surmounted by a correct build and the inclusion of secondary objectives to gives chances for players to use their advantage. For example from what i know, and i am not sure so correct me if i am wrong, i think in the matchup Mesmer vs thief, the Mesmer could try to go bunker and hold the node to get the win, it does not have to go for the kill.  And the thief will try to break that bunker. 

8 hours ago, Flowki.7194 said:

That guy who only has time to get good on 1 spec may win that sweat, who then picks a cheap counter, and the guy with less time now cannot play that counters counter. He is being punished now for having more in life than gw2?

It is important to remark that you could not swap the class you queue up as to not allow people to cheese it by always changing, because that would resolve in both players changing until the end of time to gain an advantage. The matchups will be skilled based, and if you reduce the chance to encounter the same player again and again you would just have an even spread fighting different classes not just your counter. I understand your concern but i think a good design matchmaking system which is much more easy to do than the conquest mode that is really exploitable, a 1 vs 1 has much less factors. 

[zonias.1083]

3 hours ago, Shagie.7612 said:

man i lose like 99% of my 1v1s even if i play nearly as perfectly as possible 

i would be legitimate bronze

Well i feel it would be beneficial to have a space where you can practice 1 vs 1 in a ranked ladder and face opponents of similar skill to develop and learn no? 

if you are playing a dueling build and you know what you are doing, you should not lose 99%, then you are either playing the wrong build or you are not playing as good as you think. 

I play revenant and even with a full roaming build, i can still defend myself in a fight in home against a war or an ele as an example

And again this is just a mode, people who are not interested can simply not play, i think given the playerbase and depending how they mark it, it would appeal to WvW players and other players and it would not remove the player base of Conquest mode as much so you can still play conquest if you choose to.