Which sPvP game mode should be supported the most in the future?

[thundermarch.5643]

Add some new game mod in player versus player , i'm bored in conquest game mod , we need diversity ! No more roaming ! No more decapping ! Let's give us some kind of new PvP objective maps !

 

----------------------------

 

1) capture the flag game mod : flag in middle people need to bring back to their base. Player who hold the flag cannot fight (?) and need to be bumped to drop it

 

5v5 game

 

--------------------------------

 

2) escort :

(like the game ''team fortress 2''* )

 

One team should be next to one caravan on order to make it move , enemy should push them back. If the caravan is in the opponent team they win ! 5v5 game

 

*hat not included

 

-----------------------

 

3 Siege mod :

 

(like the game ''chivalry'' or ''mordhau'')

 

In 3 point to hold.

 

ennemy should take the strategic objectif against defender in order to attack their base and kill lord.

 

It will be a bit like stronghold but with only one side and ennemy should hold point enough time in order to go forward

 

 

10v10 game

 

----------------------------

 

4 soccer death match

 

One ball in the middle of the ring that can only be controled by cc. Should be pushed in the other goal. When the score reach 7 goal the team win

 

A 5v5 game in team deathmatch

 

 

-----------------------

 

I think this could adds a lot of fun and a lot of new build

[Axl.8924]

I voted stronghold just to see what it is, it sounds interesting.

 

Having more variety could help keep the game alive

[avey.4201]

do balance, then all modes are supported.

[Kyraios.8954]

I hope they bring back Jade Quarry in the cantha expansion! That game mode was always packed in Gw1.

[DoomNexus.5324]

> @"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.

[Cynz.9437]

> @"DoomNexus.5324" said:

> > @"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.

 

Ok. Let's stay by thief: til now the class was balanced around decapping/+1 (althrough given recent nerf rather debatable). Due to that "idea" thief wasn't allowed for most part to be a bruiser/high damage, bunker or a support (any build that could be somehow used as such have been removed pretty quickly). Now if Anet "supported" different kind of mode they would have make the class (and other as well) somehow viable in those game modes which would lead to rather unintended and probably really "unfun" consequences. Let's take 2v2: thief is a joke there. You can argue about it but it is just not the best class for such small party death match given players have same levels of skill. 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. Thief would probably turn into shiro rev right after HoT-release if someone remembers it. As far as i recall community hated it. With passion. The nerfs that followed were so hefty that there was no rev for really long time in pvp. Not sure it is great idea to force other classes into that same kind of dynamic.

[Axl.8924]

> @"Cynz.9437" said:

> > @"DoomNexus.5324" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> Ok. Let's stay by thief: til now the class was balanced around decapping/+1 (althrough given recent nerf rather debatable). Due to that "idea" thief wasn't allowed for most part to be a bruiser/high damage, bunker or a support (any build that could be somehow used as such have been removed pretty quickly). Now if Anet "supported" different kind of mode they would have make the class (and other as well) somehow viable in those game modes which would lead to rather unintended and probably really "unfun" consequences. Let's take 2v2: thief is a joke there. You can argue about it but it is just not the best class for such small party death match given players have same levels of skill. 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. Thief would probably turn into shiro rev right after HoT-release if someone remembers it. As far as i recall community hated it. With passion. The nerfs that followed were so hefty that there was no rev for really long time in pvp. Not sure it is great idea to force other classes into that same kind of dynamic.

 

Personally and i'm not a thief main but still i think they shouldn't have touched thief in some of the ways they did.

 

Touching damage so much and all that broke them. Thats just my opinion though, since thiev should have some extra roles for 2v2 5v5 and so on.

[DoomNexus.5324]

> @"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.

[Cynz.9437]

> @"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.

[DoomNexus.5324]

> @"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.

[Lonami.2987]

> @"Multicolorhipster.9751" said:

> > @"Lonami.2987" said:

> > Courtyard is [Murderball](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Murderball), not [Team Deathmatch](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Team_Deathmatch). The name of the game mode was changed a few years ago.

>

> I mean using the Courtyard map for 3v3/2v2 TDM. Unless its already like that, Idunno. I don't even play Ranked anymore.

 

Courtyard has two versions, one for Murderball (the original) and one for Team Deathmatch (introduced later).

 

None of them are available through either ranked, unranked, or public arenas; they can only be played through custom arenas purchased by players.

 

> @"Clipzy.9483" said:

> 3 words. Capture the flag. I voted for 3s deathmatch tho because they should balance the game around 3s. Would make balancing easier in my opinion.

 

I completely agree. When you start balance at the lower levels, the higher levels (5v5, 10v10) will become easier to balance.

 

> @"DoomNexus.5324" said:

> 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.

 

I think unranked is a waste of time, since ranked gives you far more money. Unless you really care about your rank, I'd never do unranked.

 

In fact, I wish unranked was replaced with a 3v3 Team Deathmatch ranked queue. I wouldn't touch Conquest ever again if I could 3v3 all day long.

 

> > @"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.

 

I don't even remember, but they mentioned they were having problems with the UI. Few PvP map prototypes were datamined as well.

 

My guess is that we'll see something with the third expansion, but no idea what to expect.

 

> @"thundermarch.5643" said:

> Add some new game mod in player versus player , i'm bored in conquest game mod , we need diversity ! No more roaming ! No more decapping ! Let's give us some kind of new PvP objective maps !

>

> ----------------------------

>

> 1) capture the flag game mod : flag in middle people need to bring back to their base. Player who hold the flag cannot fight (?) and need to be bumped to drop it

>

> 5v5 game

 

[spirit Watch](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Spirit_Watch) already works that way, too bad it was abandoned and removed from ranked. Hope they rework it some day :anguished:.

 

> @"Axl.8924" said:

> I voted stronghold just to see what it is, it sounds interesting.

>

> Having more variety could help keep the game alive

 

It's already in the game, since 2015 to be precise lol. Only available through public and unranked arenas.

 

> @"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 loathe the nerf mentality. In many cases, the solution for imbalance is to introduce counters, not to nerf everything into the ground.

 

And let's face it, most people doesn't know how to rotate properly (and many don't even care). It's more of a Conquest problem rather than a thief problem.

[ellesee.8297]

If you didnt vote 2v2 or 3v3 arenas you are wrong. Nobody cares about conquest

[TheQuickFox.3826]

I would love a full remake of Fort Aspenwood as Stronghold map and the ability to play / choose stronghold in ranked. (Because many rewards and achievements are only granted in ranked.)

[Loboling.5293]

I think Conquest is great in itself, and besides adding a few new maps with some interesting mechanics. I'm not for abandonning conquest, since it's the only thing keeping this game mode afloat.

 

And because of that, I think it would be great if ANET could make new engaging gamemodes for pvp. Stronghold mostly sucks, although I would love to see a revamp there too, since as it is now, it's virtually pointless to exist at all. They really just needed to copy the MOBA formula, towers that kill creeps, continuous creep spawns. Battles to push lanes, with special bonuses you can pick up mid for cool effects. Like bloodlust for your creeps for 30 seconds, or a buff that makes your damage to creeps x5 for 1 minute, etc.

 

I lose faith at times they have it in them to develop an engaging new mode, but if I could have my wish, they would either make a new one or redo Stronghold into something fun.