Jump to content
  • Sign Up

conquest


jbondo.9817
 Share

Recommended Posts

I still come back after taking long breaks from this game, and I've played over 10,000 games of conquest, but I'm wondering if we can expect a new pvp mode anytime soon? I wasn't too much of a fan of playing stronghold, because I felt like the mechanics just promoted lazy gameplay, and I'm about done with conquest just from playing it too much. Over the last couple of years I've put thought into what new modes could come to fruition in GW2 and I have a couple of ideas, whether they are introduced or not I don't really care, but I'd really appreciate this game even more if we were given a new PvP mode that was just as or even more so entertaining than conquest. Anyways, a simple yes/no would suffice, but if it's a yes I'd like to know when we could expect this new game mode?

Anyways -- the ideas that I have are pretty simple.

Draft Conquest -Working something out with MetaBattle, so it was possible to ban certain builds from a match, based on one teams ban, much like in moba's where both teams can decide what they want to ban from being picked in the match. I understand this would anger people who only seem to play one build per season, but I definitely think it'd force build diversity. This mode would also include that one class per person could be picked, and I think it'd be more entertaining if there was no class stacking/build stacking. Definitely something I'd enjoy to see, but I can't speak for the community.

Hall Of Heroes GW2 -Four teams of 5 players, competing on the same map, and trying to accomplish some sort of goal. Perhaps a team conquest, or king of the hill type of map. For GW1 players they fully understand what I'm talking about, but in GW1 I think there were only three teams competing. A smaller version of this would be cool as well, four teams of 2 or 3, etc. I feel like this would promote players coming to pvp from pve as well with their teams, and I'm sure there'd be plenty of interesting team comps. I feel like other game modes from GW1 could be revamped in GW2 and be extremely entertaining, including Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry, and Alliance Battles. These maps provided entertainment not only for the 'pro' players, but the casual players as well.

Battle Royale -This game type has been taking over twitch lately. A GW2 version might be able to work, banning certain amulets, or as I stated early seeing if it were possible to ban builds, and promote more kill-active builds and not just bunker v bunker scenarios would be very interesting. I don't know how many people actively play GW2 PvP anymore, so I'd suggest the crowd size for this game mode being around 50 people, and if it took off which I think it would, increase the capacity to 100.

Feel free to respond with your ideas for new game modes as well. I really feel like the limits of pvp in this game are set too low, pigeon holing us into WvW/Conquest/Stronghold, and from how great these dev's are I'm sure they'd at least consider some of these ideas. I love this game and I love the diversity and the amount of content, I just feel like these modes would be very successful and finally support different builds for different game modes.

Anyways I hope you consider these ideas, and thank you for reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kodesh.2851 said:Stronghold sucks and there's only one map. TBH it feels like they've just given up on attracting/retaining pvp players. They could put out a new map every month and have 4-5 active game modes, but no, MOAR LIVING STORY WHEEE

This is a pve game mostly and was a game developed for bad players and players that like low effort.

Casuals.

Stronghold will be converted/re-used into 10 vs 10 or 15 on each side GvG genra u will seee....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@kodesh.2851 said:Stronghold sucks and there's only one map. TBH it feels like they've just given up on attracting/retaining pvp players. They could put out a new map every month and have 4-5 active game modes, but no, MOAR LIVING STORY WHEEE

This is a pve game mostly and was a game developed for bad players and players that like low effort.

Casuals.

Yeah, and somehow they made the most crunchy and addictive combat system with no-grind pvp in that same game QQ lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kodesh.2851 said:

@kodesh.2851 said:Stronghold sucks and there's only one map. TBH it feels like they've just given up on attracting/retaining pvp players. They could put out a new map every month and have 4-5 active game modes, but no, MOAR LIVING STORY WHEEE

This is a pve game mostly and was a game developed for bad players and players that like low effort.

Casuals.

Yeah, and somehow they made the most crunchy and addictive combat system with no-grind pvp in that same game QQ lol

Btw i want to ment stronghold(the wanabe moba rip off game mode) on the re-used gamemodeto become the new GvG not conquest lol.... i edited it.

Well it is adivtive but not has much gw1 was for its time, gw2 is far inferior in overall quality, better graphics but that's that.... gw1 ofered way more quality then gw2 wil ever have.And if u notice.. gw2 pvp is all about grind, play best gimmick to be more carryed as u can and grind the titles and rewards...that's all pvp is about.

Gw1 has quite few game modes inside the pvp arenas:https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Random_Arenas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Namless.4028" said:For draft mode would these builds be counted as different builds or as the same one?http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vRAQNAW7fnc0AN9i12Ae2As9iluBTPoeUTqUfgRwha6BMACAA-jZxgABm+QAAY/BNvAAieEAisMAAhttp://gw2skills.net/editor/?vRAQNAW7fnc0AN9i12Ae2As9iFvBb6iFAiVUdgQQhS/nWUPqA-jZxgABieEAisMgpPEANvAAAs/AA

Also if you want a different mode play stronghold

It's amazing the type of people that you find on these forums that don't add anything constructive or actually read the post and quickly respond with, "well just play stronghold that's enough variety in this game"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jbondo.9817 said:

@"Namless.4028" said:For draft mode would these builds be counted as different builds or as the same one?

Also if you want a different mode play stronghold

It's amazing the type of people that you find on these forums that don't add anything constructive or actually read the post and quickly respond with, "well just play stronghold that's enough variety in this game"

Its amazing the Types of Player that ignore half of the comment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing the type of people that you find on these forums that don't add anything constructive or actually read the post and quickly respond with, "well just play stronghold that's enough variety in this game"

Its amazing the Types of Player that ignore half of the comment

"Also if you want a different mode play stronghold""Its amazing the Types of Player that ignore half of the comment"

anything constructive yet, or why are you still replying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least there's Basket Brawl. It's fun :-)

I'm really not sure what to call it, maybe another style of Conquest, but a gametype like Battlefield/Battlefront. Where there are numerous control points that can also act as spawn points. I suppose you could have two different varieties, one where all control points are up for grabs, and a second where only the "mids" are contestable at a time.

In the first type, there would be many control points (9 for example), all of which would start as neutral. Both teams start at their base (spawn). When the game begins, both teams rush to take control of as many points as possible. And all points are always vulnerable, allowing mobile professions like Thieves to go for points deep in enemy territory. The score keeping could count up as GW2 does now where control of points adds to the score total, ending at a set number (like 500), or where holding control points would drain the number of "reinforcements" of the opposition until one team is eliminated by having no reinforcements left. In this game type, control points may or may not act as spawn points. If so, it would allow "snowballing," but it would also give more reason to take risks and grab the deeper points.

In the second type, the control points would be connected in a linear system that would act more like a Tug-of-War game. Let's say there are 5 control points that have a lot of distance between them. At the beginning, points A and B are controlled by Red, point C is neutral, and points D and E are controlled by Blue. Only point C is contestable. At the start, both teams would rush point C and fight it out until one team succeeds in controlling it. If Blue takes C, then the points B and C are now contestable. If Red manages to counter and take point C, then points C and D would be contestable. The game would end when one team takes control of all points. In this game type, each control point would act as a spawn point as well, but spawning is not allowed at contestable points. At the end, if Red were to be in control of points A, B, C, and D, then Rest would be able to spawn at points A, B, and C, and also its base (point D is contestable), where Blue is allowed to only spawn at its base (point E is contestable).

The first game type would probably be better for larger numbers like 10v10 or more. But the second type could be done with as few as 5v5, though 10v10 or more would get quite intense. Respawning may need to be done in waves also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Kageseigi.2150" said:Well, at least there's Basket Brawl. It's fun :-)

I'm really not sure what to call it, maybe another style of Conquest, but a gametype like Battlefield/Battlefront. Where there are numerous control points that can also act as spawn points. I suppose you could have two different varieties, one where all control points are up for grabs, and a second where only the "mids" are contestable at a time.

In the first type, there would be many control points (9 for example), all of which would start as neutral. Both teams start at their base (spawn). When the game begins, both teams rush to take control of as many points as possible. And all points are always vulnerable, allowing mobile professions like Thieves to go for points deep in enemy territory. The score keeping could count up as GW2 does now where control of points adds to the score total, ending at a set number (like 500), or where holding control points would drain the number of "reinforcements" of the opposition until one team is eliminated by having no reinforcements left. In this game type, control points may or may not act as spawn points. If so, it would allow "snowballing," but it would also give more reason to take risks and grab the deeper points.

In the second type, the control points would be connected in a linear system that would act more like a Tug-of-War game. Let's say there are 5 control points that have a lot of distance between them. At the beginning, points A and B are controlled by Red, point C is neutral, and points D and E are controlled by Blue. Only point C is contestable. At the start, both teams would rush point C and fight it out until one team succeeds in controlling it. If Blue takes C, then the points B and C are now contestable. If Red manages to counter and take point C, then points C and D would be contestable. The game would end when one team takes control of all points. In this game type, each control point would act as a spawn point as well, but spawning is not allowed at contestable points. At the end, if Red were to be in control of points A, B, C, and D, then Rest would be able to spawn at points A, B, and C, and also its base (point D is contestable), where Blue is allowed to only spawn at its base (point E is contestable).

The first game type would probably be better for larger numbers like 10v10 or more. But the second type could be done with as few as 5v5, though 10v10 or more would get quite intense. Respawning may need to be done in waves also.

Holy cow, I didn't even consider a battlefield-esque map. It's kind of like AB in GW1, but if they fit it for GW2 that'd be so amazing. +1 for sure buddy. Depending on the map I could see 15v15 even working for it and adding a few more capture points. I feel like it would be like a WvW but more combat and less pvDoor. If there was a way to seperate those 10-15 people and force them into smaller skirmishes (hopefully with the capture points) that'd be such an amazing game mode for GW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jbondo.9817 said:Holy cow, I didn't even consider a battlefield-esque map. It's kind of like AB in GW1, but if they fit it for GW2 that'd be so amazing. +1 for sure buddy. Depending on the map I could see 15v15 even working for it and adding a few more capture points. I feel like it would be like a WvW but more combat and less pvDoor. If there was a way to seperate those 10-15 people and force them into smaller skirmishes (hopefully with the capture points) that'd be such an amazing game mode for GW2.

Indeed, WvW is what drew me to the game, but as a lone roamer, there was only so much I could do, so I moved to PvP instead... and Conquest isn't friendly to the Thief, unfortunately.

I would definitely be interested in larger groups with a lot of open space... and control points instead of towers and walls.

As for breaking groups up, perhaps there could be secondary points that grant bonuses such as access to a trebuchet on the perimeter of the map... so you actually have to fight to gain control of one (like the old Skyhammer map's cannon) instead of having them for free (Khylo/stronghold). Maybe control of one point could lower the respawn time by half for that team. Or another point could grant 10% faster cooldowns on skills. There are far too many possibilities there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Sadly they thought restricting the match to 3 little circles and make those the only thing that matters a good idea , then you make a class that can cross the map in 1/4th the time of any other class was also a good idea.

Shit is bound to fail lol. What you get is a game mode based off who is faster and not who is more skillful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...