Ranked PVP

[Mythuleez.4372]

Please make PvP great. You need to have 2v2 and 3v3 arenas all the time. I don't want to que up with 5 random people all the time in ranked brackets. Makes for toxic games. Also que same ranked players together. ( 1100 bracket, 1200 bracket ...ect)This seems like very normal request for PvP ranked system.

[Quadox.7834]

no

[razaelll.8324]

1 hour ago, Mythuleez.4372 said:

Please make PvP great. You need to have 2v2 and 3v3 arenas all the time. I don't want to que up with 5 random people all the time in ranked brackets. Makes for toxic games. Also que same ranked players together. ( 1100 bracket, 1200 bracket ...ect)This seems like very normal request for PvP ranked system.

I also wish they add 2v2 and 3v3 permanently.

[Crab Fear.1624]

The modes are just aoe tank fiestas. 

 

I would be inclined to believe that the reason they are even played during mini season is how fast you can pump through chests.

 

Easy for pve who hate pvp and also good for bots.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Crab Fear.1624

[Quadox.7834]

the worst part of gw2 are the teamfights, they should really make maps that make people spread out not cluster together

Edited July 19, 2021 by Quadox.7834

[Luclinraider.2317]

This NEEDS to be done!

If they want to save their games PvP they MUST:

 

1. Add 2v2 and 3v3 Arena as a constant competitive game mode

2. Remove downed state (and thus, rally) from all forms of PvP.

 

People can say "no" all they want. But we have the proof, GW2 PvP is deader than dead with more bots than real players, meanwhile WoW arena has a million dollar tournament every year with millions of viewers. And a HUGE chunk of the competitive players from WoW and old GW2 pros have all said downed state has no place in PvP.

 

If I could pay a sub to play GW2 pvp free of downed state I'd be on that monthly sub rather than WoW.

[Exile.8160]

13 minutes ago, Luclinraider.2317 said:

This NEEDS to be done!

If they want to save their games PvP they MUST:

 

1. Add 2v2 and 3v3 Arena as a constant competitive game mode

2. Remove downed state (and thus, rally) from all forms of PvP.

 

People can say "no" all they want. But we have the proof, GW2 PvP is deader than dead with more bots than real players, meanwhile WoW arena has a million dollar tournament every year with millions of viewers. And a HUGE chunk of the competitive players from WoW and old GW2 pros have all said downed state has no place in PvP.

 

If I could pay a sub to play GW2 pvp free of downed state I'd be on that monthly sub rather than WoW.

Yes to 1 No to 2.

 

 

theres no bigger rush in a pvp match when theres 2 to 3 down ppl amd you clutch a kill faster than the enemy and save the fight. All down state need in terms of nerf is the rezzing speed and skills. 

[Luclinraider.2317]

35 minutes ago, Exile.8160 said:

Yes to 1 No to 2.

 

 

theres no bigger rush in a pvp match when theres 2 to 3 down ppl amd you clutch a kill faster than the enemy and save the fight. All down state need in terms of nerf is the rezzing speed and skills. 

I'd agree it sure feels cool when you rally 2 or 3 teammates, but this is also the problem with the PvP and why many pro's have said it doesn't work.

Killing 3 people on paper, just to have them pop back up because 1 of your teammates died in downed state which shouldn't be there in the first place, ruins the competitive aspect.

In competitive pvp, when you die, you die.

If downed state had some real legit role in competitive PvP, GW2 pvp wouldn't be in the state that it's in.

They have a fantastic combat system! If they can just get their balance down and realize that as cool as downed state may feel when you rally allies, and as nice as it is in PvE to help people out, it has no place in PvP, they have a chance of building a good size PvP scene again.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Luclinraider.2317

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

56 minutes ago, Luclinraider.2317 said:

this is also the problem with the PvP and why many pro's have said it doesn't work.

Killing 3 people on paper, just to have them pop back up because 1 of your teammates died in downed state which shouldn't be there in the first place, ruins the competitive aspect.

In competitive pvp, when you die, you die.

If downed state had some real legit role in competitive PvP, GW2 pvp wouldn't be in the state that it's in.

They have a fantastic combat system! If they can just get their balance down and realize that as cool as downed state may feel when you rally allies, and as nice as it is in PvE to help people out, it has no place in PvP, they have a chance of building a good size PvP scene again.

This is anecdotal at best…And circular reasoning. In fact you actually gave no reason for why downstate is not competitive…not to mention “being competitive” is a vague and a nonsense statement to begin with.

Edited July 19, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Luclinraider.2317]

According to pro's in multiple games from GW2 to WoW Arena, without a doubt the biggest MMO PvP scene ever, they have all said giving everyone a second life promotes too much tanky bunker builds. If a tank is already hard enough to bring down once, giving them a second life in downed state, or even an insta rezz in rally, does not promote healthy gameplay.

 

And wouldn't you know it, we saw their Esports scene dominated by tanky bunker builds, with one of their biggest streams ever being a final match in which 2 bunker Guardians just LITERALLY sat down on the point together to keep it neutral because there was no possible way for them to kill each other. That's a horrible look to outsiders in a top ranked game is 2 players basically AFK on a point.

2 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

This is anecdotal at best…And circular reasoning. In fact you actually gave no reason for why downstate is not competitive…not to mention “being competitive” is a vague and a nonsense statement to begin with.

 

Edited July 19, 2021 by Luclinraider.2317

[Khalisto.5780]

I think it's ok, i don't even think this will split the player base, cuz all the ppl i heard that actually enjoy 3v3s won't even form a match if they aren't all online.

 

i'd certainly not play it, maybe this would actually be a good thing, cuz bots would move there because it's a faster goldfarm mode.

[Avatar.3568]

I said it multiple times and say it again, make 2vs2 and 3vs3 as second q, they could change every 2 weeks or whatever. 

Most players play either conquest or 2v2/3vs3, it wouldn't split it that hard and people that like both can choose whenever they want 

[Lonecap.4105]

They should remove downstate. Would fix a lot

[Bazsi.2734]

Thief, warrior and ranger are designed to be roamers/duelists, while necro, guardian, revenant and elementalist excel more at teamfights. Well guess what, 3v3 is a teamfight. Until most classes get a huge rework, team deathmatch will never be a truely competetive mode in this game.
So given the fact they barely even maintain the main gamemode(conquest), it would be extremely unexpected for them to do anything with 2v2 and 3v3.

[DoomNexus.5324]

1 hour ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

Thief, warrior and ranger are designed to be roamers/duelists, while necro, guardian, revenant and elementalist excel more at teamfights. Well guess what, 3v3 is a teamfight. Until most classes get a huge rework, team deathmatch will never be a truely competetive mode in this game.
So given the fact they barely even maintain the main gamemode(conquest), it would be extremely unexpected for them to do anything with 2v2 and 3v3.

I don't get the argument tbh. Why is it mandatory to make every class viable in every pvp mode? I'm not crying for a massive rework to thief just because I want to have a viable wvw zerg build. Some classes are just better suited by design/mechanics than others, I don't see a reason to change that. And what do you mean with "competitive mode" anyway? Is your definition of competitiveness that every single build choice must be at least viable in every single scenario?

 

Apart from the fact that I've been successful with thief in several 2v2 and 3v3 off-seasons against team comps you would - by that definition - expect to win, so the argument doesn't even hold true.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

5 hours ago, DoomNexus.5324 said:

I don't get the argument tbh. Why is it mandatory to make every class viable in every pvp mode? I'm not crying for a massive rework to thief just because I want to have a viable wvw zerg build. Some classes are just better suited by design/mechanics than others, I don't see a reason to change that. And what do you mean with "competitive mode" anyway? Is your definition of competitiveness that every single build choice must be at least viable in every single scenario?

 

Apart from the fact that I've been successful with thief in several 2v2 and 3v3 off-seasons against team comps you would - by that definition - expect to win, so the argument doesn't even hold true.

This^ funny thing is that most thieves not only do not ask to be better in zergs but they also seem to ask for nerfs on other classes far less.

Thieves kno that due to their design they make great roamers, so that's what most do and when the want to zerg they do the best they can and just do with what they have and kno they won't rival the zerg classes and that it's ok. On the flip side a zerger class/build gets caught in a roaming situation and downed by a thief in its domain and oh oh better go spam nerf thief threads, to op.

 Half the reason this games balance is as bad as it is and pvp is as dead as it is is because anet listens far to much to bias minorities that scream/whine the loudest instead of actually knowing their own game and balancing it properly.

[Unknown.6851]

Yes, you can see a perfect example of this on the forums. The squeaky wheels keep begging for more grease while everyone else suffers. I think we all know who these Hand Full of players are that think they are the moderators of GW2.

[Bazsi.2734]

7 hours ago, DoomNexus.5324 said:

I don't get the argument tbh. Why is it mandatory to make every class viable in every pvp mode? I'm not crying for a massive rework to thief just because I want to have a viable wvw zerg build. Some classes are just better suited by design/mechanics than others, I don't see a reason to change that.

 

 
Why wouldn't it be mandatory to make every class viable? For me PvP begins with a nice combat system(which this game has) and an at least somewhat maintained balance(meaning every class is viable in some form). Like this is the bare minimum, if we disagree on this we won't have any sort of common ground.

Also I am not advocating for class reworks. I'm jsut stating a reason why elevating 2v2/3v3 to a serious gamemode cannot happen. 
 

 

8 hours ago, DoomNexus.5324 said:

 And what do you mean with "competitive mode" anyway? Is your definition of competitiveness that every single build choice must be at least viable in every single scenario?

 

 

What even happened here? I was talking about classes and their viability, and you somehow ended up talking about builds. This is a strawmen, a positiion I do not hold, a position that no sane human holds... why?

 

8 hours ago, DoomNexus.5324 said:

 

Apart from the fact that I've been successful with thief in several 2v2 and 3v3 off-seasons against team comps you would - by that definition - expect to win, so the argument doesn't even hold true.

I also won against less skilled players who were playing a build that supposedly countered mine, so what? The statistics of most played builds/comps are still the same, and so are the matches where you lost because you played thief instead of a decent 3v3 class.

[DoomNexus.5324]

11 hours ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

I also won against less skilled players who were playing a build that supposedly countered mine, so what? The statistics of most played builds/comps are still the same, and so are the matches where you lost because you played thief instead of a decent 3v3 class.

This doesn't make any sense at all. What you are implying is that if I didn't play thief and instead opted for a decent 3v3 class I'd never lose a match ever again unless I'm out-skilled by the other team, which is obviously not true. I lose matches with a "proper" 3v3 class and I lose matches as thief, I don't see the distinction there.

 

11 hours ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

What even happened here? I was talking about classes and their viability, and you somehow ended up talking about builds. This is a strawmen, a positiion I do not hold, a position that no sane human holds... why?

How can you NOT talk about builds when discussing classes and their viability? The viability of a class/spec 100% relies on the build. I'm confused.

 

 

11 hours ago, Bazsi.2734 said:

 
Why wouldn't it be mandatory to make every class viable? For me PvP begins with a nice combat system(which this game has) and an at least somewhat maintained balance(meaning every class is viable in some form). Like this is the bare minimum, if we disagree on this we won't have any sort of common ground.

Also I am not advocating for class reworks. I'm jsut stating a reason why elevating 2v2/3v3 to a serious gamemode cannot happen.

Yea, I fully agree, we don't have any sort of common ground as I don't think this should be the standard. Specifically because I think every class can fulfill some roles better than others just by design alone. A class (or in GW2's context rather an e-spec) that's designed for single-target dps and mobility/avoiding damage will never perform as well in group content as a class that's designed for this. And honestly it shouldn't. Because in balancing things like that this just alienates the original class design and makes it overall worse. It may be more viable in group content after a balance patch but realistically there are only 2 options to get there: Simply make it overall stronger which means that it will also be even better in single-enemy encounters (which is not good for the balance either) or introduce trade-offs which in return makes it worse for single-enemy encounters which completely misses the point. And even if you could maintain the same single-encounter performance while buffing group content viability you would devalue classes that are specifically designed for that. And it would make everything go stale pretty quick.. if everything's equally viable and a (near) perfect balance has been reached there's no reason to change things because it would be objectively worse afterwards. Not a great attitude or expectation in my opinion. Pretty much my only requirement is that there are no select builds (or classes I don't even care, they are interchangebly in GW2 for me) that completely dominate everything else and pretty much has no real counters. 
Every build fulfills some role, even in GW2 without a classical holy trinity, and it 100% comes down to the build in that case because you can play necro as tank, dps or support, so again, I don't know how you could discuss viability without mentioning builds.

 

But yea.. since we definitely don't have a common ground I don't think it's worth continuing so.. have a good day and glhf.