DoomNexus.5324

Btw thanks for the positive comments, I already saw that there were some replies but I've avoided reading them due to fully expecting an absolute kittenshow in the comments ngl. > @"Megametzler.5729" said: > It is not that easy. 1-3-1 is a quite popular opening, possibly even 1-2-2 with 2 taking far. It depends on your composition and the enemy's. Going far during the game can additionally depend on the overall map situation, respawns and builds. Don't "never go far" just as don't "always fight on point". Learn when to go far and when to draw enemies somewhere else. Learn when to stall on point and when to disengage. And, most importantly, learn which composition works how and act accordingly. Exactly. I've tried to elaborate on this a bit further in my second comment (just a minute posted before your one :D )

> @"Psycoprophet.8107" said: > I've noticed going far at match start is a popular strategy to some for players for some reason in plat 1 and g3, I don't understand the reasoning unless I'm missing something, all it does is leave mid 3v4 which ends up the enemies owning far and mid cuz 9/10 times the player that ran far dies to the enemy on far then shortly after mid is 3v5 or at best 4vs5 or that enemies just goes to ur home and decaps it lol. > Who started this going far at start tactic? This actually works because of what I was saying here: > @"DoomNexus.5324" said: > Zerg down the one or two guys on close (or whatever point) and use that 5v4 / 5v3 to your advantage.. You kill the guy at far, usually either by sending a side noder (that's expected to win a 1v1) or 2 guys to far.. alternatively you are lucky and their thief went to their close then it should be an easy job.. that's actually a good reason to NOT send thief to close at start. High risk, medium reward imho.. Thief will obviously be a tiny bit faster at close and can join the mid fight a bit faster but on the other hand you are almost guaranteed to lose close if the enemy sends someone. It's pretty unlikely for the thief to win a 1v1 let alone a 1v2 so it is almost always a waste of time to stay. That's actually another advice I would give any thief in this situation: just disengage to mid and +1 there.. Like I said in my opening: > @"DoomNexus.5324" said: > Know your matchups and disengage and be useful somewhere else, instead of wasting your time, waiting for your team to come and help you.. That's honestly a mistake I've made two matches ago (prior to writing this) so.. yea, I don't claim to be perfect and on legendary skill level or anything but I know a bit of stuff too and at least I'm recognizing my mistakes and try to improve on it (I don't think it's worth anything tbh but I used to be top 250 for several seasons around the time of season 16 with peak into top 100 if someone's interested - never managed to actually end the season there so yea.. unfortunately no achievements or titles) Anyway: For this whole far-at-start-tactic to work you obviously need to win the far fight (fast), that's why often times there's a "team fighter" (basically any class other than teef tbh) or side noder and a +1 who roams off to mid as soon as far goes down. Close may stay open, depending on the matchup.. Forcing a 2v1 on far and trying to stall a 3v4 on mid.. sometimes one of the opponents will also go far in this scenario then it's probably a 3v3 on mid which is even better. With far being "secured" the roamer can go +1 mid and you essentially gain early map dominance. The key obviously is to keep it, this needs reactive play and good game sense/decision making on what to def and where to go after the enemy comes out of the spawn again. Another approach for the far-at-start-tactic is to go there as a bunker and immediately waste someone's time because especially at the start people tend to overstay on the node they want to cap (like I did as previously mentioned). As a friendly reminder tho since I've just discussed this topic with a streamer: I'm not saying "NEVER GO FAR!!1!1 OMEGALUL".. There are obviously numerous exceptions like the early far strat, side noder, decapping as roamer, ... maybe you can roam off to far because mid won't be attacked for a while because opponents are on respawn and your roamer is caught up in a +1 on close or something.. but they all have something in common: There's reasoning behind it. If someone's just going far because there's no ally already then that's a bad reason.. That's what my first couple lines tried to clarify: As long as you know what you are doing it's fine. Always have an eye on the map and roughly keep in mind when enemies will come out of their spawn after you've won a team fight.. Sometimes you can kill one or two pretty early in the team fight but the third one can face tank a lot more or kite or whatever.. Happened a lot of times too that when the last guy finally died, team mates instantly roamed off to far or close because there was no enemy at mid _**at the moment**_. As soon as they went off node the respawned opponents reached mid and were able to decap..

> @"Cynz.9437" said: > Thing is, i am a veteran player, i know how to play this game, i have plenty of things that i don't need to grind. I generally don't face issues that new players do. Every time i get on my alt account to mess a bit on core build i realize HOW powercreeped this game became Really? I also have an alt account where I have purely PvP'd so far, I actually made it so I was able to queue with some friends who just got into guild wars 2.. I was comfortably sitting in plat 2 at the moment and didn't want to ruin my rating on it so yea.. created a new account to queue with them.. Unfortunately with only one at a time obviously so everytime they were online at the same time I had to sit in discord, doing something else on my main or do Unranked.. Still don't like the lack of full team queue or basically any reason why communities/guilds should form within pvp. But I'm starting to get my first char to Lv 80 (obv. without HoT/PoF since no char could've unlocked any of it) and I don't feel underpowered or anything tbh. I'm also playing teef because I like thief in open world the most. So how comes you realize how powercreeped the game is now? I mean.. obviously it actually is but I don't feel a big difference when swapping from my main to alt account other than the better equip aka higher stats (which is a thing, even when downscaled). Btw, I hopped into Guild Wars 1 yesterday and to my surprise there were STILL GvG going on where I could even spectate! Mind blown.. (and yet GW2 requires you to be Anet partner to spectate.. what a kitten) There were several GvG taking place at the time I logged in and one guild was even rank idk.. 240 or something.. Sooooo.. at least this many guilds are actively fighting GvGs apparently? Really mind boggling imho.. Feels like Guild Wars 1 still has a bigger PvP community than GW2 lmao.. On the other hand GW1 also offers sufficient PvP content and enough incentives to actually engage with one another.. even tho there haven't been any changes for years (other than slight skill changes veeeery occasionally) I don't know why I'm so surprised by this tbh, maybe because some of the other game modes are practically dead.. But even for them I knew that there are still some communities which regularly schedule queueing up.

> @"Kuma.1503" said: > What if Anet updated poison with a new effect. Reduces healing by 33%, further increased to 66% against downed targets. I actually like that idea.. Or just lower any healing a downed player receives by 33% or something.. from every source no matter if it's rezzing, aoe heals, ... I've always disliked how some specs could just facetank any damage in a team fight. Or maybe even only allow rezzing while out of combat. Or remove downstate completely in sPvP. At least when I'm thinking about WvW I had the most fun during those No Downstate events. For PvE, especially open world, it's nice to have downstate but imho it doesn't really work anywhere else.. > @"snoow.1694" said: > Meanwhile ArenaNet is working on new chair skins lmao. Guild Wars 2 always had potential, but the devs have the wrong priorities. Yea.. because the art team is also invovled in software development and designing game features.. duhh.. You do realize that the gemshop team(s) are not only financially sustaining themselves but also sustain the rest of development right?

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said: > You know how I know this is troll? Because you don't allow /rank or /gloat in active combat. What an argument. 10/10. > The consoles for FFA need to go. Don' support bullying anet, you are better than that. I honestly didn't know that there are consoles... who is taking FFA serious anyway? > Stop forcing the 50% win rate. That's literally what any matchmaking system on earth is designed for and supposed to do. I don't understand the criticism, it's the actual purpose of having mmr, skill groups, etc. > It is likely that the true average, without the psuedo fluff you added, is around silver. Players wont fall into the middle of you imaginary line. Yea, that's where the volatility is supposed to kick in.. You start with (1200 + [previous season mmr]) / 2 when coming into the next season.. And you can actually look up your rating gain/loss for your placements at for example gw2efficiency. This season for example my very first win got me +88 rating and in one of the previous seasons my very first match was a loss, which cost me -98 rating. This is meant to bring people to their appropriate skill group (a lot) faster and I think it works quite well tbh. The only problem I see with it are acutally related to sPvP-issues in general and not with the volatility/placements, like being matched together with people who simply don't understand conquest and throw the game by poor decision making. While I can actually understand the essence of this thread, I think it's complete nonsense, sorry.

I'd appreciate a dedicated balance subforum but not limited to plat1/2 or above. I've played a couple seasons in ~plat2 (was even top100 at some point and played against sindrener and other legends/high plat) and I can say that even in there, there are still quite a few people who just don't know how to play conquest. Additionally I think a huge issue of getting out of gold/into plat is actually poor understanding of conquest or bad luck. Mainly poor rotations and decision making in general or just being unlucky and getting into a bad matchup (your team comp having a hard time against the enemy comp, not actually because of unbalanced player skill). Bad matchups being the easier one to fix by just swapping classes that play better into the enemy team but... meh. All of which has nothing to do with balance. Actually I don't think there's no big difference in how mechanically skilled players are between gold 2 and plat 2. It mainly comes down to someone in your team having "superior tactics" like constantly contesting far while they have a roamer in the team and failing to recognize that they actually deny their own roamer by actively pulling attention to all 3 nodes, making it impossible to sneak-decap and return to the team fight, while also leaving the rest of the team outnumbered on the other 2 nodes. Stuff like that. Also: In my experience matchups in silver/gold to some extent are completely different. Often people q_q about condi meta for example with other people dismissing everything by stating that it's (still) a power meta.. I think that mainly stems from different skill groups. There simply are a lot more condi builds in silver/gold than there are in plat. I don't want to theorize why this is or whether or not this is true for a large sample size/across the entire population but I've definitely felt like this is the case. So this is just a thing to keep in mind and also a question of opinion. You could argue that a competitive game (mode) should always be balanced to the top 1% of the game where everyone below should strive to get as good as them and utilizing a class' full potential and where every complaint they have can be downgraded to a l2p-issue. Alternatively: You could also argue that since GW2 is primarily focused on pleasing casuals and Anet showing no interest in keeping their playerbase active, that they continue following their own paradigm and balance according to the vast majority of players which would be mainly silver3-gold2. I'd definitely prefer the first option but this is probably just not how GW2 works and Anet envisions their game to be.

> @"Cynz.9437" said: > Reality is (...) the game is old I never understood that kind of mentality. It's a mmo after all, not a call of duty with a 1 year life cycle. WoW is almost 18 years old and still going strong. Content and population wise. I know I know, everybody's mind after reading that is probably "U CAN'T COMPARE F2P/B2P MMO WITH SUB".. sure I can.. not only are some f2p games generating a lot more cash (why do you think most online games nowadays went or are directly released as f2p in the first place?) than WoW but I'd argue that if a game studio can't sustain its games then it either needs to shift the business model/something about generating cash in general or just shut it down.. A lot of game studios are developing some cash grab mobile shit and compensate their relatively low revenue from other projects via that.. Diablo Immortal, Fallout Shelter, The Elder Scrolls: Blades, Call of Duty Mobile, Black Desert Online Mobile, ... "basically every major ip atm" mobile, .. just to name a few. Either as a direct mobile port or some form of spinoff garbage with the franchise tagged onto it so people are interested. I'm genuinely surprised it took Riot so long to push LoL to mobile. Not all are complete garbage tho, I've heared that CoD mobile is actually enjoyable since they don't push a new game every year but actually maintain the one game.

> @"Math.5123" said: > I liked pvp more when Rev wasn't part of it. Excuse me? Just as a reminder: Rev (Herald) caused massive q_q on the forums with several heavy nerf hammer even before 2020.. The S/S Herald was perceived as extremely oppressive pre-Shiro nerf and Shackling Wave nerf. Back when Renegade wasn't even considered viable.

> @"anjo.6143" said: > Do you have any solutions? Give PvP guilds a reason to exist again, for example introduce a separate(!) full team queue in ranked.. Just one of many ideas.. Unranked and occasional ATs are just not sufficient or enough. By having guilds dedicated to PvP newer players can get into small communities where they can get "training". Because no matter how much you play sPvP (aka increase required rank or whatever) you will never figure out how to kite effectively, use LoS to your advantage, rotate in such a way that it fits with your team comp, etc etc.. Being mechanically skilled is only one part of the equation, I've lost countless matches because 1 guy effectively turned the game into a 5v4v1 by forcing some stupid strategies. I think this would also help a lot with those l2p issues. Currently there's not really any instance where you can go to and ask/learn how to deal against a certain build for example other than 1v1 arenas if you are lucky and happen to find someone who's willing to practice with you. I've seen so many Q_Q threads and chat messages ingame that are just l2p issues, people complaining about a spec being too strong against them when actually THEY are supposed to be counters to what they are complaining about for example.. I was in a PvP guild (somewhat recently) but left it really quickly after the guild leader blamed and insulted me for not helping him against a bunker and losing the match because he just kept on going into an unwinnable matchup. And I think the guild doesn't exist anymore either. It was a plat2+ guild btw. (Quick tip: don't engage in bunkers, especially if they are built to facetank especially your kind of build, it creates a 5v4 on the other 2 nodes in your favor so just stick with the rest of the map and leave them alone.. punish it if they leave the node but don't waste time) So yea.. As long as we don't have any incentive for PvP guilds to form again (we had them in the past btw, lots of them..) or rather incentives to join one if you are not really involved into sPvP to begin with, I don't really see how sPvP should recover. Also population wise.. why should I get my friends to join sPvP if I can't even play with them? Or stay involved myself if I can't play with guys I know and am forced to rely on pugs? To me that's really the core issue.

> @"Yrch.5491" said: >Why they cannot fix tab targeting I have no clue, but it is easily the worst tab targeting I have ever played in a game. I honestly think the combat system in gw2 is perfect and the only reason why I haven't already given up on Guild Wars 2 after HoT came out and destroyed any sense of balance that was left at that point. I think it perfectly combines the fluidity of action combat with the comfort and straight forwardness of tab targeting. > Also the number of bugs and glitches that I keep running into, mastery or hero points not working, but then if you switch maps then all of a sudden they work is too much. I have numerous issues with gw2 but I think I never encountered any game breaking bug or glitch. Maybe once or twice in a fraktal or something but I can't remember anything really. > At first I was amazed by the trait system, there really seems like a lot of variety when it comes to builds, but so far of the dozen or so I have tried, they all boil down to one or two button mash fests or their rotations are stupidly long, still looking for that one in the middle. Not a fan of the gear system either. I'm again quite the opposite.. At first I didn't like the trait system and thought it lacked influence on the playstyle (maybe this was true before all the reworks, maybe I didn't understand the game back then idk) but now I think it offers a LOT of diversity, even if you use the same weapon sets. And I also like the gear system, the lack of vertical progression and constant gear grind is one of the other major aspects why I keep coming back to GW2. And it's actually one of the major aspects which keep me from getting into other games like ESO. The lack of dumb monster sets is a positive thing for me and splitting stat combos from effects (runes & sigils) is a far superior system imho that allows much more customization. Again, I have A LOT of issues with GW2 but none of your points. Actually quite the opposites, I think the stuff you've mentioned are the primary strenghts of gw2. How opinions can differ..

Make one stronger and the meta will evolve around it. Back in the days we basically had a Zerker only meta, then came a Celestial meta,.. I think viable stat combos are more diverse than ever.. Zerker, Marauder, Celestial, Viper, Carrion, Demolisher, Sage,... at least in sPvP a lot are actually used. No idea about PvE or WvW meta builds but yea.

> @"Styros.8931" said: > > @"CutesySylveon.8290" said: > > > @"Styros.8931" said: > > > can say 100 times more . If you playing d/p p/d stop crying, its broken af and you not supposed to cry about buff thiefs . If you playing non pistol weapon sets, ok understandable > > > > Once again, the guy with absolutely no understanding of thief is here to say pistol is the problem when both sets using the same weapon are completely different and have nothing to do with each other. > > yes its completly different , BUT . D/P is best power and P/D best condi , there no other weapon sets, literally because pistol giving too much impact in both ways Literally because core thief can only equip 4 weapon types in total.. With shortbow being the de-facto standard due to utility and the fact that thief doesn't really benefit from a second offensive weapon set there are literally only 6 builds that are available in total.. d/d and p/p which are gimmicky at best (btw, why is p/p not the meta if pistol is the problem?), d/p, p/d and s/d, s/p.. Also why is dagger not the problem? d/p and p/d also both use dagger and even the previous s/d meta uses dagger but no pistol.. Why the hate for pistol in the first place? I mean for d/p it's literally only there to enable stealth combo.. remove headshot, strip everything away from pistol#5 and you'd basically change nothing for d/p. And p/d is to be expected to utilize pistols more since there is one skill more available on mainhand -> 50% more skills! wow! + it's mainhand so they are actually used.. but even then it's basically the same as with d/p - but ranged.. #5 for stealth then stealth attack with some random #3 thrown into the mix.

Like I said countless times on the forum by this time: I liked where the Feb-Patch, and maybe also the one or two following, were heading but where we have arrived now is absolute garbage imho. Just half-assed execution of the idea that was communicated and some very questionable changes (or lack of changes, depending on the class) throughout the year. I don't know if Anet (or CMC in particular) changed their criteria or weight of certain aspects they take into account when making balance decisions but if they did then it wasn't for the better, that's for sure.

> @"Cynz.9437" said: > > @"DoomNexus.5324" said: > > > @"Cynz.9437" said: > > > Ok. Let's stay by thief: (...) Let's take 2v2: thief is a joke there. (...)Theoretically the balance team would have to up survivability and damage from thief to be viable in that mode, maybe even support. Take a wild guess how it will affect conquest. > > > > That's exactly what I meant with my original statement (or rather one part to my idea): > > > @"DoomNexus.5324" said: > > > Imo people should stop expecting a perfect balance across all classes across all modes within any game mode. This is just in general not really feasible and even less so if they keep changing the balance.. which they have to do, otherwise it would become stale after a while. We will always some flavor of the month. > > > > I wouldn't force every class or even spec to be viable for every game mode and every mode within that game mode an so on.. That's just unrealistic and never going to happen. I know from personal experience that thief is at least "viable" in 2v2 and 3v3 with some builds and I think that's more than I would ask for a class. I mean like I said, I've played builds that were not even considered viable in the slightest, let alone a meta build and I 1) performed really well and 2) had a lot of fun playing it. > > I've also suggested in another post that anet could categorize classes/e-specs so they can balance them accordingly and justify everything instead of "We feel like this is too stronk so Nerf-Hammer". > > If they put daredevil in a Roamer-category then they have no obligations to make daredevil work for a team deathmatch kind of game mode and recent mobility nerfs would be unjustified where we as players also get some form of base to argue from too. However if they'd decide that Daredevil is supposed to be a Brawler then the mobility nerfs were appropriate and nobody could really argue against that.. Something like that.. If Anet just set specific roles a spec is meant for then everybody (community AND devs) would have a better guideline for judgement instead of just personal opinion. They don't need to be super one-dimensional and a roamer is not allowed to take part in team fights or bring anything else to the table but it allows everyone to put everything into perspective.. If a tank excels in mobility in such a way that they replace roamers then there's definitely something going on.. > > > > It would also open some possibilities for match making.. Instead of avoiding duplicate classes they could avoid duplicate roles or make them more unlikely or match two equally set up teams and stuff.. Like only match a team with support with another team with support, or something like that. > > Completely different approach to how Anet handles sPvP at the moment (and everything else basically since you could also extend that to PvE lfgs and stuff) but I think this could change and improve a lot.. just a couple constructive thoughts instead of the usual Q_Q in the forums. > > I think i disagree because i have played this for too long and have seen too much from Anet. I just have no reasons to be optimistic enough for the suggestions you make. Well, same.. I've been here since release and waiting for anything substantial since HoT ruined everything. I don't have much hope left for sPvP and GW2 in general tbh but.. I mean this thread is all about suggestions to sPvP so I try and provide some useful input, maybe someone at Anet will read it and it has some influence on future decision making or something. I highly doubt that too, but if I don't give any input then there's not even a small chance my opinion could have some influence.

> @"Cynz.9437" said: > Ok. Let's stay by thief: (...) Let's take 2v2: thief is a joke there. (...)Theoretically the balance team would have to up survivability and damage from thief to be viable in that mode, maybe even support. Take a wild guess how it will affect conquest. That's exactly what I meant with my original statement (or rather one part to my idea): > @"DoomNexus.5324" said: > Imo people should stop expecting a perfect balance across all classes across all modes within any game mode. This is just in general not really feasible and even less so if they keep changing the balance.. which they have to do, otherwise it would become stale after a while. We will always some flavor of the month. I wouldn't force every class or even spec to be viable for every game mode and every mode within that game mode an so on.. That's just unrealistic and never going to happen. I know from personal experience that thief is at least "viable" in 2v2 and 3v3 with some builds and I think that's more than I would ask for a class. I mean like I said, I've played builds that were not even considered viable in the slightest, let alone a meta build and I 1) performed really well and 2) had a lot of fun playing it. I've also suggested in another post that anet could categorize classes/e-specs so they can balance them accordingly and justify everything instead of "We feel like this is too stronk so Nerf-Hammer". If they put daredevil in a Roamer-category then they have no obligations to make daredevil work for a team deathmatch kind of game mode and recent mobility nerfs would be unjustified where we as players also get some form of base to argue from too. However if they'd decide that Daredevil is supposed to be a Brawler then the mobility nerfs were appropriate and nobody could really argue against that.. Something like that.. If Anet just set specific roles a spec is meant for then everybody (community AND devs) would have a better guideline for judgement instead of just personal opinion. They don't need to be super one-dimensional and a roamer is not allowed to take part in team fights or bring anything else to the table but it allows everyone to put everything into perspective.. If a tank excels in mobility in such a way that they replace roamers then there's definitely something going on.. It would also open some possibilities for match making.. Instead of avoiding duplicate classes they could avoid duplicate roles or make them more unlikely or match two equally set up teams and stuff.. Like only match a team with support with another team with support, or something like that. Completely different approach to how Anet handles sPvP at the moment (and everything else basically since you could also extend that to PvE lfgs and stuff) but I think this could change and improve a lot.. just a couple constructive thoughts instead of the usual Q_Q in the forums.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > I voted stronghold just to see what it is, it sounds interesting. > > Having more variety could help keep the game alive "Just to see what it is" - do you mean what the improvements would be? Or do you mean the mode in general? If the latter then just checkout Unranked, there's a game mode preference somewhere beneath the ranked queue button if I'm not mistaken.. you can switch between "Stronghold, Conquest, Both" and I think by default it's Conquest only. Stronghold is actually a lot of fun :) Always has been but coming from conquest only the majority of the playerbase didn't really know how to play it and went for a team deathmatch style of play. It was forced into ranked when it came out which probably really hurt its reputation due to being a huge clownfiesta.. nobody was playing the objective or seem to understand what to do. However the players queueing for the mode today are deliberately chosing it over conquest and it really shows because I have yet to come across a guy who goes afk, doesn't play the objective, is toxic, ... whatever.. It's just PvP as it should be tbh. > @"Cynz.9437" said: > Given their resources i would prefer they would stick to conquest. I can understand the appeal of 2v2 and 3v3 however they just can't balance all classes across all those modes - they can't even do it within conquest (not to mention pve and wvw). Imo people should stop expecting a perfect balance across all classes across all modes within any game mode. This is just in general not really feasible and even less so if they keep changing the balance.. which they have to do, otherwise it would become stale after a while. We will always some flavor of the month. I'm not saying you are but a majority of players in GW2 seem pretty obsessed with playing only meta builds. I can't fully agree, in some metas I had most fun by playing builds that were not even considered viable.. I comfortably sat in plat2 with those builds mind you. P/P Deadeye for example.. I've played this and quit gw2 way before it got hyped af just to come back to gw2 and see Unload getting nerfed into irrelevance in pvp. Kind of reminds me of cs:go where the AUG (a ct rifle) just sat there for years infront of everyone's eyes unchanged.. When Valve dropped the price, pro-players started buying it and it became meta FAST getting adopted by the entire community. After Valve then brought it up to its original price people started hating because "this price increase is not enough - it's op".. yea.. Or loadouts in rainbow six siege.. Because one pro guy decided to use a shield (I think it was, not sure) it became meta super quick.. You see, metas can be super volatile even without devs changing anything.. people will experiment and discover new broken synergies which may affect entire team compositions if adopted by the community. What kind of annoys me every time some new balance discussion is coming up that doesn't adress one of the fotm-builds is that a lot of people also seem to confuse "presence of X in mAT/winning mAT with X comp" with "being meta". But I guess my two examples above really underlines that this is not unique to gw2.. If "pro-players" use it then it must be good, right? I just don't think gw2 works like a shooter in this regard.. Small anecdote following my p/p deadeye story: I had a couple matches - this were in fact pretty much the only ones I've lost while playing the build - where at least one player in my team would go straight afk after noticing that I'm playing p/p and not a meta build.. Because it was so "not viable" they flat out refused to play even tho I usually stomped with it. I don't like the current meta either btw, just a little story and my opinion idk. > @"Kyraios.8954" said: > I hope they bring back Jade Quarry in the cantha expansion! That game mode was always packed in Gw1. Anything from Factions really :D Fort Aspenwood and the Alliance Battles <3 Really shows how great Guild Wars 1 when it comes to competitive content ^^ If you are interested there are communities for GW1 pvp queues btw.. they usually all login in on saturday evening or whenever there are enough people for a queue pop and just play gw1 pvp. I myself was in a discord server dedicated to Fort Aspenwood but I know that they also have a Jade Quarry discord.

As this will be a Cantha expansion I'm almost expecting Anet to introduce more sPvP content. Expecting in the sense of "demanding" since Cantha was probably the single most impactful addition to Guild Wars 1. It introduced us to Luxon and Kurzick as PvP factions and for new modes there was Fort Aspenwood, Jade Quarry AND Alliance Battles... If Anet doesn't do anything for sPvP with EoD I'm deeply, deeply disappointed ngl. This would be their best chance to revitalize sPvP, if they miss it... idk... I actually still have _some_ hopes left for sPvP being improved so GW2 will not fail miserably with the steam launch. Even if it's just that, I'd be kinda happy tbh. Of course I'd also love to see some modernization/optimization/engine updates but that's not particularly easy and my guess is that Anet will ditch the engine for future projects and replace it with a proprietary one (just speculation tho). Another hugely anticipated feature for me would be player housing (since release and fun fact: Anet had housing on their "features we are planning to work on"-kind of list for years - but never came obviously). But only if it's good.. Something like the BDO system (it's only really p2w because of the investment system anyway which is not in gw2 so I don't think the BDO housing issues will apply in gw2) or lotro, ff14,.. something along those lines. I'd also just **_love_** to see some form of gardening or whatever where you can actually make at least _some_ profit without fighting 24/7. A node and trading system like in bdo would be a perfect addition but I realize that something like this will never come to gw2 (from a technical and return of investment point of view) so..... nevermind. I'd probably be most disappointed by another transportation method tbh. Completely unnecessary imho since the world already feels way smaller than it is.. Problem is: If you make travel even faster then the world's relative/perceived size shrinks even more and if the new transportation system is slower or equal then there's no point in wasting resources (man hours, money, ..) on making that alternative imho. Same goes for a new race and I highly doubt they will ever make another playable race.. Too much backtracking needs to be done due to **_every single_** armor piece needing an overhaul for the race with clipping in mind and whatnot.. Also it would break the personal story thing, the (probably?) main reason why Anet to this day didn't add a race change so.. I wouldn't have high hopes for a new race at any point in the life time of GW2 (and I hope they will never waste their resources on something like that).

> @"reikken.4961" said: > > @"Yasai.3549" said: > > Like if Inf Arrow was really a problem, why not BALANCE IT by reducing the port range to 600 but lowering cost to 5? > > > > pvp balance team can't change skills. reducing the range is a major change to the skill. How is changing (intiative) cost, duration, cooldown, damage coef, .... less of a change than the range? The only explanation I have is that they can't split base value of skills due to spaghetti code, only coeffs and stuff.. Because their initial plan on "not changing a mechanic's/skill's effect from game mode to game mode" isn't really true anymore right? Just look at Mirage's dodge for example. Or to stay with thief: Unload on P/P or inf arrow.. it's really weird to play with 6 ini in Open World but 8 ini in pvp matches. I mean, I'm not saying you are wrong btw, I just question that adjusting the skill range is more of a major change than other changes we've seen so far.. Especially since initiative has WAY more impact on every single aspect of thief than adjusting a single skill.. And I want to add that I think it's kitten stupid that the pvp balance team can't just make their own balanace (same goes for wvw I guess).. Just a statement/my opinion.

No shit, that's fun as hell nowadays. Nice quality matches without anyone going afk, crying about balance or about bad teammates or whatever.. The only thing I'd love to have are the league rewards. But eh... I wouldn't be too mad if this never comes (at least if that means that league rewards remain tied to ranked - more below), I'd rather keep the positive experience and the added bonus of not losing rating. Idk why but I don't mind losing in Stronghold nearly as much as in Unranked Conquest.. Maybe a new map or two would be extremely nice. That being said I also wouldn't mind any of the other options. Basically ANY attention to sPvP would be highly appreciated. In general I'd love to see some of the league rewards being either shifted into the reward track or redo the entire thing.. For WvW for example you can practically afk for 9min in your base then run out and cap a camp or something and you get maximum rewards. For sPvP I'm forced to do ranked clownfiesta, any other form of pvp excludes those rewards. Now don't get me wrong, please don't add new ones and I also don't think that stuff like Ascended Shards of glory should be moved.. But I'd appreciate getting at least the gold and maybe grandmaster marks. That way we could do full team queue without wasting time not getting anything done in the game.. I'm all for playing PvP because of fun and not for reward, it's just that if there's a really profitable sPvP mode around the corner with the exact same game mode, maps, etc it becomes a bit.. questionable. Now that I think about it, my only problem with unranked is that ranked is SO much more profitable.. It's virtually the same without the gold. I don't mind getting nothing out of a csgo match for example but in GW2, just because there's the alternative,.. idk, anyway.. a slight rework of the rewards would be nice. @edit: WAAAIT!... > @"Lonami.2987" said: > ArenaNet said they were working on a new 10v10/15v15 game mode. Reworks for the existing modes (redesign Stronghold into a 10v10 game mode?) could be possible as well. When did they say that? And is this still relevant or just some 2015 stuff they abandoned long ago ever since but didn't tell anybody to keep some hope in the community? Now that you mention 10v10 and stuff... I'd also extremely highly appreciate Guild vs Guild.. I am currently not in any active guild but if sPvP or GvG became viable to play with friends again I'd definitely go out and join one again.

@edit: Nevermind. But I can't delete the comment unfortunately. Or can I somehow? didn't find an option..

I was excited after the first and second big balance patch because I genuinely had hopes that Anet may improve the game.. I liked the direction they were taking but at some point they completely lost it and now sPvP is in the worst state ever... Heck I had even more fun with some meme builds in Scourge + Firebrand or bunker meta. Complete and utter joke, but I'm thankful for that move, now I am confident to never invest in Anet's project 3 thing.. Guild Wars 2 will forever be my last Anet title. Even if they make the new 2003 WoW (comparable hype and popularity), I simply lost all trust in the company to actually continue a good game. Not only in February 2020 but ever since HoT, the game's down periods of bad balance vastly overshadow the brief moments in its lifetime where I'd have considered the balance to be good.

> @"Obtena.7952" said: > I don't get why this is a problem for a NON-SUB game. Come back ... play it until you don't want to ... then leave. Nothing lost, other than some bandwidth. And time.. and all your hopes and dreams for a decent competitive mmorpg in 2021.

Just let it die guys.. There's no hope left.. Anet doesn't even care anymore so we will never return to a "pre-whatever was the least scuffed state of the game"-state.

Condi players incoming: "yOu ArE nOt SuPpOsEd To FaCeTaNk BuRn, YoU kNoW?!?11!" or "jUsT dOdGe!" Nah.. I know what you mean, my death info board is dominated by like 60k burn almost everytime I die.. I think burn is the single most broken thing in sPvP.. Way too many procs possible for some specs imho.. Like... I'm not requesting burn dmg nerfs across the board, just the burn stack output of some specs. But I don't think that's related to skyhammer tho. at least I don't see why the nodes there would be any different than on other maps, quite the opposite maybe, since you have kite and no-tp spots around every node it could actually be better than other maps.. You probably just got really unlucko with the enemy team stacking burn specs.

You basically told my story lol, even down to the game time. My only problem is that PvP in all the other mmos suck as well. Really hope 2021 will be a better year for competitive mmos, maybe New World brings some enjoyment.. or heck even Bless Unleashed.. It's really sad to see nobody in the industry giving a fuck about a good, structured, small scale pvp game mode.. It either gets destroyed by clunky movement/combat system or by carrying over PvE stat stuff (gear, buff food, ... ) into the game mode. Or balance with only one playable mode where you can't even queue up with friends.. Guild Wars 2 tought me a thing or two tho.. that is to not waste money in MMOs anymore since they can fuck up the entire game with a single patch and that's it. Another one is to just look at how good the PvP system is and you can basically conclude the rest of the game (at least I can since I'm mainly interested in PvP-only, PvE is only a bonus for added diversity)