Conquest is "not" the Bread and Butter. Its the only Option we had pretty much

[Knighthonor.4061]

Honestly I rather move on from Conquest, 2v2 and all that stuff. I want a larger SPvP mode with larger groups but still balanced team sizes, and objectives.

If given the option to move on from 5v5 matches I will jump on it. But we need a Queue for it as well. useless without a queue.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

Be nice if the geniuses at anet developed and implemented a rank system for pvp where people can't wreck ur rank by afk'ing and match manipulating like oh I donno a ranking on individual perfomance. Maybe they should fix the issues in the modes they have first lol games a joke right now.

[UNOwen.7132]

@"Psycoprophet.8107" said:Be nice if the geniuses at anet developed and implemented a rank system for pvp where people can't wreck ur rank by afk'ing and match manipulating like oh I donno a ranking on individual perfomance. Maybe they should fix the issues in the modes they have first lol games a joke right now.

Yes, because ranking on individual performance is totally doable. I mean, even in games like league, where stats say a lot more than they do in sPvP, riot investigated it and came to the conclusion "yeah it would be so insanely inaccurate youre more likely to be right just by flipping coins", but somehow its gonna work in sPvP. Of course it isnt, ranking by "individual performance" is a stupid idea that is literally impossible.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@"Psycoprophet.8107" said:Be nice if the geniuses at anet developed and implemented a rank system for pvp where people can't wreck ur rank by afk'ing and match manipulating like oh I donno a ranking on individual perfomance. Maybe they should fix the issues in the modes they have first lol games a joke right now.

Yes, because ranking on individual performance is totally doable. I mean, even in games like league, where stats say a lot more than they do in sPvP, riot investigated it and came to the conclusion "yeah it would be so insanely inaccurate youre more likely to be right just by flipping coins", but somehow its gonna work in sPvP. Of course it isnt, ranking by "individual performance" is a stupid idea that is literally impossible.

How is ranking a player on their own performance inacurate? How is being awarded points for decap,fullcap, revives,assists and kills inaccurate? At least if ur matched up with a player that has the same score average u kno they got their rank by actually doing something in their previous matches as those arnt just handed out to people carried by their team. Every fps I've played tracks those things I mention and isnt just won to loss game ranking which is far more inaccurate as u say than just going the lazy route and basing the ranking on 5 random people as a whole. If pvp was a team que game than I could sort of see that but in a random team q game its inaccurate and stupid,again as u put it. Also what incentive would win traders and adk'rs have to match manipulate if ranking were done the way I suggested? None!Good for riot but right now ranking is so inaccurate the random team u get might as while be ur proverbial coin.

[UNOwen.7132]

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:Be nice if the geniuses at anet developed and implemented a rank system for pvp where people can't wreck ur rank by afk'ing and match manipulating like oh I donno a ranking on individual perfomance. Maybe they should fix the issues in the modes they have first lol games a joke right now.

Yes, because ranking on individual performance is totally doable. I mean, even in games like league, where stats say a lot more than they do in sPvP, riot investigated it and came to the conclusion "yeah it would be so insanely inaccurate youre more likely to be right just by flipping coins", but somehow its gonna work in sPvP. Of course it isnt, ranking by "individual performance" is a stupid idea that is literally impossible.

How is ranking a player on their own performance inacurate? How is being awarded points for decap,fullcap, revives,assists and kills inaccurate? At least if ur matched up with a player that has the same score average u kno they got their rank by actually doing something in their previous matches as those arnt just handed out to people carried by their team. Every fps I've played tracks those things I mention and isnt just won to loss game ranking which is far more inaccurate as u say than just going the lazy route and basing the ranking on 5 random people as a whole. If pvp was a team que game than I could sort of see that but in a random team q game its inaccurate and stupid,again as u put it. Also what incentive would win traders and adk'rs have to match manipulate if ranking were done the way I suggested? None!Good for riot but right now ranking is so inaccurate the random team u get might as while be ur proverbial coin.

Because you have to look at the many, many edgecases to try and figure it out. The guy who keeps fighting on home might be getting the most points in every category, but loses his team the game as they dont get the other 2 points. The guy who barely got points from decapping mightve singlehandedly won the game by keeping the enemy occupied at all times. And when you look at all edge cases, you realize that going by any statistic has a very, very low accuracy. Much lower than the current system in fact. Because with the current system, it infers your performance based on the average case. Your teammates, and the enemy teammates, average out over the course of enough games. It has a very high accuracy after, lets say, 100 games. Your suggested system would still have a <50% accuracy after 100 games (and Id imagine <20% in fact). It would be so amazingly worthless, that people would beg for it to be reverted the very day it comes out.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:Be nice if the geniuses at anet developed and implemented a rank system for pvp where people can't wreck ur rank by afk'ing and match manipulating like oh I donno a ranking on individual perfomance. Maybe they should fix the issues in the modes they have first lol games a joke right now.

Yes, because ranking on individual performance is totally doable. I mean, even in games like league, where stats say a lot more than they do in sPvP, riot investigated it and came to the conclusion "yeah it would be so insanely inaccurate youre more likely to be right just by flipping coins", but somehow its gonna work in sPvP. Of course it isnt, ranking by "individual performance" is a stupid idea that is literally impossible.

How is ranking a player on their own performance inacurate? How is being awarded points for decap,fullcap, revives,assists and kills inaccurate? At least if ur matched up with a player that has the same score average u kno they got their rank by actually doing something in their previous matches as those arnt just handed out to people carried by their team. Every fps I've played tracks those things I mention and isnt just won to loss game ranking which is far more inaccurate as u say than just going the lazy route and basing the ranking on 5 random people as a whole. If pvp was a team que game than I could sort of see that but in a random team q game its inaccurate and stupid,again as u put it. Also what incentive would win traders and adk'rs have to match manipulate if ranking were done the way I suggested? None!Good for riot but right now ranking is so inaccurate the random team u get might as while be ur proverbial coin.

Because you have to look at the many, many edgecases to try and figure it out. The guy who keeps fighting on home might be getting the most points in every category, but loses his team the game as they dont get the other 2 points. The guy who barely got points from decapping mightve singlehandedly won the game by keeping the enemy occupied at all times. And when you look at all edge cases, you realize that going by any statistic has a very, very low accuracy. Much lower than the current system in fact. Because with the current system, it infers your performance based on the average case. Your teammates, and the enemy teammates, average out over the course of enough games. It has a very high accuracy after, lets say, 100 games. Your suggested system would still have a <50% accuracy after 100 games (and Id imagine <20% in fact). It would be so amazingly worthless, that people would beg for it to be reverted the very day it comes out.

Lol than enjoy ur kitten matches and afk'r and wintraders lmao I'm not surprises the state of pvp given the player mentalities lol it's like u guys actually like having ur score dictated by random teamates and like that it's so easy to manipulate matches. This game never gonna go anywhere lmao

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:How is ranking a player on their own performance inacurate?

real life sports use a ranking system kinda like elo, in the sense that the team is more valued then the individual. it doesn't work so much in gw2 since there are no teams. I could agree that a player in gw2 loses 1 less point/ gains more point for each top stat they get, but to base it entirely on individual performance wouldn't work.

[Ziggityzog.7389]

Run to circle. Die to aoe spam on circle or loose said circle to spam.Go to next circle and proceed to take aoe spam and die or run from it.

Sadly with circlequest this is "spam and conditions wars"

I miss the days with ranked stronghold and conquest que having courtyard.

Best option if they want to force duo wintrade wars is to go 2v2 or 3v3 tdm. That's the only way to move on from the fake "leader" board we've had.

[bravan.3876]

I don't know why they are so afraid to add new gamemodes competing with conquest. It worked in GW1 as far as i know, why should it not work in GW2? I think the amount of player would come back or start with PvP because of new gamemodes would compensate for the split of population. In particular when you combine the release smart with the release of new elite specs (with or without expansion). And when it against expecation cause problems you can delete gamemodes again or let them die by their own without Anet support (like Stronghold). At least try something, i think the community is more forgiving of mistakes during trying out new stuff than doing nothing and waiting for little content for years. At this point i don't think mini seasons (what seems only to be 2 weeks of special ATs during conquest offseason) is enough to revive the PvP scene, even though it is at least something. But other gamemodes with q and lb are needed and in the tendency with smaller teamsize first because atm with such a low amount of competent players left you want to have less random teammates than more. I also don't get why there still is no supported GvG incl Guild lb in this game. It is the games name and the demand is clearly there from Guilds and WvW ppl.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:How is ranking a player on their own performance inacurate?

real life sports use a ranking system kinda like elo, in the sense that the team is more valued then the individual. it doesn't work so much in gw2 since there are no teams. I could agree that a player in gw2 loses 1 less point/ gains more point for each top stat they get, but to base it entirely on individual performance wouldn't work.

They definitely need to figure somthing out because for anyone to take gw2 pvp serious even slightly they have to figure a ranking system that isnt easily manipulated by other players thru wintrading,afk kitten. Even without those factors a players rank is literally rng due to random team matchup and random skill levels of players. I could see this rank system for a team que only pvp but not random q team pvp.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:How is ranking a player on their own performance inacurate?

real life sports use a ranking system kinda like elo, in the sense that the team is more valued then the individual. it doesn't work so much in gw2 since there are no teams. I could agree that a player in gw2 loses 1 less point/ gains more point for each top stat they get, but to base it entirely on individual performance wouldn't work.

They definitely need to figure somthing out because for anyone to take gw2 pvp serious even slightly they have to figure a ranking system that isnt easily manipulated by other players thru wintrading,afk kitten. Even without those factors a players rank is literally rng due to random team matchup and random skill levels of players. I could see this rank system for a team que only pvp but not random q team pvp.

agreed.

[Vithzerai.3291]

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:How is ranking a player on their own performance inacurate?

real life sports use a ranking system kinda like elo, in the sense that the team is more valued then the individual. it doesn't work so much in gw2 since there are no teams. I could agree that a player in gw2 loses 1 less point/ gains more point for each top stat they get, but to base it entirely on individual performance wouldn't work.

They definitely need to figure somthing out because for anyone to take gw2 pvp serious even slightly they have to figure a ranking system that isnt easily manipulated by other players thru wintrading,afk kitten. Even without those factors a players rank is literally rng due to random team matchup and random skill levels of players. I could see this rank system for a team que only pvp but not random q team pvp.

But it isn't though, is it. Aside from the whole wintraders/afk which yeah, is a complete gamble and sometimes you get cucked. But equally, are you sure you haven't got wins because the other team had that problem too? That would mean those games average out, which further means you can just discount those games entirely, really. Well, unless your rating gains/losses are disproportionate, but that only really applies to higher tier players.

If you consistently play better than the opposing player(s), you will average a higher winrate - which will be more visible over a large quantity of games. I find it highly unlikely so many people are the 1% who are on the fringe of averages that get constantly unlucky with teammates. Funny how I never see people complaining their games are too easy 'cause they always get the best teammates.

The issue this causes though is it's "Who can best carry the clown fiesta." instead of "Who can play best in the optimal competitive environment."

[Psycoprophet.8107]

@Vithzerai.3291 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:How is ranking a player on their own performance inacurate?

real life sports use a ranking system kinda like elo, in the sense that the team is more valued then the individual. it doesn't work so much in gw2 since there are no teams. I could agree that a player in gw2 loses 1 less point/ gains more point for each top stat they get, but to base it entirely on individual performance wouldn't work.

They definitely need to figure somthing out because for anyone to take gw2 pvp serious even slightly they have to figure a ranking system that isnt easily manipulated by other players thru wintrading,afk kitten. Even without those factors a players rank is literally rng due to random team matchup and random skill levels of players. I could see this rank system for a team que only pvp but not random q team pvp.

But it isn't though, is it. Aside from the whole wintraders/afk which yeah, is a complete gamble and sometimes you get cucked. But equally, are you sure you haven't got wins because the other team had that problem too? That would mean those games average out, which further means you can just discount those games entirely, really. Well, unless your rating gains/losses are disproportionate, but that only really applies to higher tier players.

If you consistently play better than the opposing player(s), you will average a higher winrate - which will be more visible over a large quantity of games. I find it highly unlikely so many people are the 1% who are on the fringe of averages that get constantly unlucky with teammates. Funny how I never see people complaining their games are too easy 'cause they always get the best teammates.

The issue this causes though is it's "Who can best carry the clown fiesta." instead of "Who can play best in the optimal competitive environment."

Lol no ones gonna complain that there games aren't easy,especially these days but there are complaints about games usually being snowballs going either way. Close games arnt to common. My issue is a lot of the times ur winning and all the sudden ur teammates standing at spawn or in a corner somewhere afk and u end up losing and ur rank goes down. Or ur team constantly getting destroyed mid and ignoring side nodes completely and if u try and help the mid their dead quick still and are now out numbered. If u try rotating side nodes alot of the time ur out numbered cuz 3 of their players are destroying ur whole team mid and ur team keeps running there feeding them kills lmao list goes on. I'm not an amazing player and I'd never talk down to someone not as good or that is learning but my issue is that there's too many things out of a players control in this rank system that effects a players rank to accurately depict the players skill level. I think this is part of the reason u see players I gold that seem to not even understand the modes concept. After my firat 18 ranked games I was put just over gold 2 and after 40 games now mid silver lol. I've seen players literally at our spawn the second our door opens to cap our close node, I've seen many bots or I hope there bots lol,slot of afk'rs and obvious game throwers and all effect a players rank whether their performing well that game or not.

[Khalisto.5780]

@Knighthonor.4061 said:Honestly I rather move on from Conquest, 2v2 and all that stuff. I want a larger SPvP mode with larger groups but still balanced team sizes, and objectives.

If given the option to move on from 5v5 matches I will jump on it. But we need a Queue for it as well. useless without a queue.

They need to balance the game for that first, they can't even balance a 7 years old mode properly

I can see ppl complainting that some comp at 2v2 is unbeatable

[Knighthonor.4061]

@Khalisto.5780 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:Honestly I rather move on from Conquest, 2v2 and all that stuff. I want a larger SPvP mode with larger groups but still balanced team sizes, and objectives.

If given the option to move on from 5v5 matches I will jump on it. But we need a Queue for it as well. useless without a queue.

They need to balance the game for that first, they can't even balance a 7 years old mode properly

I can see ppl complainting that some comp at 2v2 is unbeatable

waiting another 20 years for balance instead of doing something different from Conquest, SPvP would be dead by then as people move on.

[Exedore.6320]

@Knighthonor.4061 said:Honestly I rather move on from Conquest, 2v2 and all that stuff. I want a larger SPvP mode with larger groups but still balanced team sizes, and objectives.Soooo WvW? Because we all know how balanced that is laugh

[Knighthonor.4061]

@Exedore.6320 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:Honestly I rather move on from Conquest, 2v2 and all that stuff. I want a larger SPvP mode with larger groups but still balanced team sizes, and objectives.Soooo WvW? Because we all know how balanced that is

laugh

Is WvW a SPvP match with equal teams? didnt think so.

[Yannir.4132]

@bravan.3876 said:I don't know why they are so afraid to add new gamemodes competing with conquest. It worked in GW1 as far as i know, why should it not work in GW2? I think the amount of player would come back or start with PvP because of new gamemodes would compensate for the split of population. In particular when you combine the release smart with the release of new elite specs (with or without expansion). And when it against expecation cause problems you can delete gamemodes again or let them die by their own without Anet support (like Stronghold). At least try something, i think the community is more forgiving of mistakes during trying out new stuff than doing nothing and waiting for little content for years. At this point i don't think mini seasons (what seems only to be 2 weeks of special ATs during conquest offseason) is enough to revive the PvP scene, even though it is at least something. But other gamemodes with q and lb are needed and in the tendency with smaller teamsize first because atm with such a low amount of competent players left you want to have less random teammates than more. I also don't get why there still is no supported GvG incl Guild lb in this game. It is the games name and the demand is clearly there from Guilds and WvW ppl.

Did you see the PCGamer interview with Mike Z/others? WP has a video about it too. It's a good interview too, best in years as it's not full of the usual nonsense, they have some really good questions. Mike also answers them to the best of his ability. The reporter really seemed like they were up-to-speed on what's currently happening in the game and community.From Anet's PoV, having multiple gamemodes DIDN'T work in GW1. If I remove my nostalgia glasses and am totally honest about it, it didn't. I have fond memories from AB, GvG's, etc. but I tried Hero Arena maybe like twice before going back to the aforementioned modes, and Team Arena died almost completely when Factions came out as AB/JQ/FA kinda took its place.

Thinking about it now, I actually like how RA worked in GW1 more than I like soloQ in GW2. There's a key difference in that RA didn't disband the victorious team, and would instead Q you into the next match with the same team. I would like that mechanic in SoloQ as well.

[Konrad Curze.5130]

@"Psycoprophet.8107" said:Be nice if the geniuses at anet developed and implemented a rank system for pvp where people can't wreck ur rank by afk'ing and match manipulating like oh I donno a ranking on individual perfomance. Maybe they should fix the issues in the modes they have first lol games a joke right now.

Thanks God they are in charge and not you, you'd drive the entire company into the ground in hours with your "genius"

[bravan.3876]

@Yannir.4132 said:

@bravan.3876 said:I don't know why they are so afraid to add new gamemodes competing with conquest. It worked in GW1 as far as i know, why should it not work in GW2? I think the amount of player would come back or start with PvP because of new gamemodes would compensate for the split of population. In particular when you combine the release smart with the release of new elite specs (with or without expansion). And when it against expecation cause problems you can delete gamemodes again or let them die by their own without Anet support (like Stronghold). At least try something, i think the community is more forgiving of mistakes during trying out new stuff than doing nothing and waiting for little content for years. At this point i don't think mini seasons (what seems only to be 2 weeks of special ATs during conquest offseason) is enough to revive the PvP scene, even though it is at least something. But other gamemodes with q and lb are needed and in the tendency with smaller teamsize first because atm with such a low amount of competent players left you want to have less random teammates than more. I also don't get why there still is no supported GvG incl Guild lb in this game. It is the games name and the demand is clearly there from Guilds and WvW ppl.

Did you see the PCGamer interview with Mike Z/others? WP has a video about it too. It's a good interview too, best in years as it's not full of the usual nonsense, they have some really good questions. Mike also answers them to the best of his ability. The reporter really seemed like they were up-to-speed on what's currently happening in the game and community.From Anet's PoV, having multiple gamemodes DIDN'T work in GW1. If I remove my nostalgia glasses and am totally honest about it, it didn't. I have fond memories from AB, GvG's, etc. but I tried Hero Arena maybe like twice before going back to the aforementioned modes, and Team Arena died almost completely when Factions came out as AB/JQ/FA kinda took its place.

Thinking about it now, I actually like how RA worked in GW1 more than I like soloQ in GW2. There's a key difference in that RA didn't disband the victorious team, and would instead Q you into the next match with the same team. I would like that mechanic in SoloQ as well.

I never played GW1, i just heard from different ppl that there were several different gamemodes and that they enjoyed it, in particular because you had different builds working in each mode gave room for more different playstyles to be viable all over the game. I don't know how many gamemodes they exactly had in GW1, maybe it was too many then? How about give GW2 at least one other with nearly same priority to conquest (like q and lb) with a smaller teamsize (2v2 or whatever the most popular mode from GW1, even liked the idea from @"Trevor Boyer.6524" of heaving 3v3 conquest). And then add little other modes in offseason as miniseasons stuff? It can be introduced as test to see how it would turn out, how much ppl like and play it and if they still would play conquest in addition, how much ppl it would bring back etc. If test runs bad just delete the test gamemode. I mean yes, we can just wait how mini seasons will turn out, i just think when they don't get any meaning in terms of prestige you can get and show then i don't think they will revive PvP enough or sustainable. Atm for me it feels like it will be like meaningless minigames (like Keg Brawl) no one will care about if you do good there or not and you don't get anything to shine and brag with. Also i think 2 weeks is too short then to make them important in any "i can show my skill here"-scenario. But ofc i could be wrong. Yes i saw the interview yesterday. Cleary better than the announcement rofl.

[Exedore.6320]

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Exedore.6320 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:Honestly I rather move on from Conquest, 2v2 and all that stuff. I want a larger SPvP mode with larger groups but still balanced team sizes, and objectives.Soooo WvW? Because we all know how balanced that is

laugh

Is WvW a SPvP match with equal teams? didnt think so.

Go look at the current state of GvG - of course all those guilds pretty much died. Even in the past you'd see that it was a complete mess where one or two weak links in your team got you killed and it was just piling on AoEs.

[Knighthonor.4061]

@Exedore.6320 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Exedore.6320 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:Honestly I rather move on from Conquest, 2v2 and all that stuff. I want a larger SPvP mode with larger groups but still balanced team sizes, and objectives.Soooo WvW? Because we all know how balanced that is

laugh

Is WvW a SPvP match with equal teams? didnt think so.

Go look at the current state of GvG - of course all those guilds pretty much died. Even in the past you'd see that it was a complete mess where one or two weak links in your team got you killed and it was just piling on AoEs.

That's just a death match. That has no objective. Key difference

[BadMed.3846]

We don't need to split population further. These demands for new modes go into unneeded implementations like stronghold. Conquest is good enough. 2v2 can come in as off season.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

@Konrad Curze.5130 said:

@"Psycoprophet.8107" said:Be nice if the geniuses at anet developed and implemented a rank system for pvp where people can't wreck ur rank by afk'ing and match manipulating like oh I donno a ranking on individual perfomance. Maybe they should fix the issues in the modes they have first lol games a joke right now.

Thanks God they are in charge and not you, you'd drive the entire company into the ground in hours with your "genius"

Yeah cuz their doing great know. The games bleeding people and players like u just sit there and scratch their heads why or delude urself into thinking it's not lmao. Maybe u just like the carry aspect of how ranking is now, like afk'rs etc?

[DoomNexus.5324]

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@UNOwen.7132 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:Be nice if the geniuses at anet developed and implemented a rank system for pvp where people can't wreck ur rank by afk'ing and match manipulating like oh I donno a ranking on individual perfomance. Maybe they should fix the issues in the modes they have first lol games a joke right now.

Yes, because ranking on individual performance is totally doable. I mean, even in games like league, where stats say a lot more than they do in sPvP, riot investigated it and came to the conclusion "yeah it would be so insanely inaccurate youre more likely to be right just by flipping coins", but somehow its gonna work in sPvP. Of course it isnt, ranking by "individual performance" is a stupid idea that is literally impossible.

How is ranking a player on their own performance inacurate? How is being awarded points for decap,fullcap, revives,assists and kills inaccurate? At least if ur matched up with a player that has the same score average u kno they got their rank by actually doing something in their previous matches as those arnt just handed out to people carried by their team. Every fps I've played tracks those things(....)

Because then everybody would just go for max rating all the time no matter what. Most of the time it's better to just leave the node (unless you're a bunker or sidenoder and confident you can hold the point) but ppl would stop rotating properly because they get better rating when they can hold on to the point, maybe even get kills from defending but rather die because they simply can't 1v3 with scourge or something idk. Since you've already mentioned FPS games, that's also the reason why Valve for example doesn't publish the stuff they factor in for rating - NOTHING in csgo regarding the mmr is visible. Almost the same in Star Craft II (where you can see your mmr but nothing else).Also how would you weigh those things? Is 1 kill worth 5 offense points or is 1 defense point worth 2 kills or what? Either way, no matter how you make those coefficients up, you'll always have some classes that won't get a lot of rating this way. There is a lot of other relevant stuff aside from stats and I'd even argue that stats (let alone top stats as some ppl suggested in the past lul) is almost entirely irrelevant. Maybe it was the one guy who rotated far to split the team after everybody was brainlessly feeding into mid and enabled the team to take over again, maybe it was the one guy foolishly holding far against 3 ppl for just the one second long enough that his team was able to retake close and regrouped on mid and snowballed from there on, or maybe it was the one guy who managed to just run around and attract the enemy team's attention for long enough to stop the enemy team's momentum. In those scenarios they'd have contributed next to nothing based on your said stats but this might have just turned the game 180°. And at least I'd feel like this would be more than unfair if this particular guy single handedly stopping the enemy team's momentum or enabling your team to snowball gets less rating than the stupid ass warrior dude who brainlessly runs around thinking it was death match and just happened to pull of the most kills, even tho this resulted in your own team being outnumbered on the rest of the map and the enemy team even starting to snowball.It's the same with those guys in counter strike who just stand around somewhere until everyone on their team is dead and then sneaking up on enemies, managing to kill 1 or 2 ppl each round but ultimately throwing the game because if he would have hold the angle on mid they'd have probably won the rounds, even tho he might get killed without a kill in the round. Those ppl are usually also the ones force buying every round (sometimes even requesting drops if they are broke) and keeping the entire team's money management out of sync. I would hate to see this guy getting less rating loss than me just because he had 20:15 at the end of the match whereas I only have 10:15 or something, even tho he was the non-teamplay-oriented guy who is mainly responsible for our loss. Stats don't mean shit in games.

@topic: I don't think we need new modes NOW tbh and I also don't mind Capture. Actually I prefer Capture over every death match mode they could come up with.Also Anet isn't really known for bringing new content fast so even if they'd start a new mode they probably wouldn't publish it for the next 3 years+.Since Anet also stated in the past multiple times that 10v10 won't happen (at least not ranked) I wouldn't count on that thread cause anything other than a lot of hate between those ppl who direly await new content and those who cry for relatively "minor" adjustments like balance patches and maybe an overhaul to the rating and queueing system (because the rating system really needs an overhaul, just not like @Psycoprophet.8107 suggested imho, because of my reasons above).I certainly woulnd't mind a new pvp mode or honestly even a reworked 10v10, GvG (finally) or reworked Stronghold - even if they don't make it as ranked queue. For me at least it would be enough if Anet just made a UI lobby where you can enter your squad or guild to signal others "Hey, we are looking for a 10v10, if you want fight us" and then other groups can accept the challenge and the match starts. Maybe give reward track points and stuff, doesn't need to have shinies and certainly not pips but yea..Considering we are still not able to close the map vote window after all these years ehhh, I don't think we will even get something like this before 2022 either, even if they'd start today.

Honestly, PvP is just beyond repair imo. Anet just can't keep update cycles short and even trivial stuff like a close button is apparently way too complex in GW2 to make it into a hotfix or in a regular update on a side note.