PvP Discussion: Game Modes

[dragonkain.3984]

Problems with pvp game mode development:

 

1. Intruducing new game mode(stronghold) but ignoring the problems that players pointed out with it and instead of fixing them, simply removing it from ranked.

2. No desire to introduce other game modes which people wanted for a very long time like deathmatch for example.

 

I don't need to say anything more, now go analyze your own development plans in reflection to what I've just stated devs.

[Ziggityzog.7389]

Why was the decision made to go from a workable competitive pvp game mode like in guild wars 1. To a uncompetitive game mode where speed matters more then skill?

 

Why change something that wasn't broken? If pvp was kept the same as guild wars 1 and conquest was never introduced then pvp wouldn't be as bad as it is right now.

 

Just gotta ask why?

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

> @Saiyan.1704 said:

> > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > > @Saiyan.1704 said:

> >

> > > My question is, are there going to be in-game rules for a 2v2 game mode when that tournament releases? I feel it's imperative there are in-map rules much like how [other games] has their 2v2 game modes setup.

> >

> > Could you clarify what you mean by in-map rules?

>

> Unsure how the soon-to-be 2v2 Tournament will be incorporated but will you have these specific in-map items.

> * 15 minute time limit **or** Rounds incorporating a best out of 3, with each round having a 5 minute limit. _(latter is preferred)_

> * Lowest reached health as well as "Downs" on either team will be tallied and notarized by the map so that the game can settle Stalemated rounds when nobody dies.

 

The 2v2 Tournaments would have rules similar to what we've done in custom arenas:

* Best 2 of 3.

* 2 minute rounds

* At the end of time healing and stealth disabled.

* At the end of time the playable space starts to shrink to force an end to the match.

 

[Xillllix.3485]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @Saiyan.1704 said:

> > > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > > > @Saiyan.1704 said:

> > >

> > > > My question is, are there going to be in-game rules for a 2v2 game mode when that tournament releases? I feel it's imperative there are in-map rules much like how [other games] has their 2v2 game modes setup.

> > >

> > > Could you clarify what you mean by in-map rules?

> >

> > Unsure how the soon-to-be 2v2 Tournament will be incorporated but will you have these specific in-map items.

> > * 15 minute time limit **or** Rounds incorporating a best out of 3, with each round having a 5 minute limit. _(latter is preferred)_

> > * Lowest reached health as well as "Downs" on either team will be tallied and notarized by the map so that the game can settle Stalemated rounds when nobody dies.

>

> The 2v2 Tournaments would have rules similar to what we've done in custom arenas:

> * Best 2 of 3.

> * 2 minute rounds

> * At the end of time healing and stealth disabled.

> * At the end of time the playable space starts to shrink to force an end to the match.

>

 

These rules punish light classes with low hp...

[Cynz.9437]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @Saiyan.1704 said:

> > > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > > > @Saiyan.1704 said:

> > >

> > > > My question is, are there going to be in-game rules for a 2v2 game mode when that tournament releases? I feel it's imperative there are in-map rules much like how [other games] has their 2v2 game modes setup.

> > >

> > > Could you clarify what you mean by in-map rules?

> >

> > Unsure how the soon-to-be 2v2 Tournament will be incorporated but will you have these specific in-map items.

> > * 15 minute time limit **or** Rounds incorporating a best out of 3, with each round having a 5 minute limit. _(latter is preferred)_

> > * Lowest reached health as well as "Downs" on either team will be tallied and notarized by the map so that the game can settle Stalemated rounds when nobody dies.

>

> The 2v2 Tournaments would have rules similar to what we've done in custom arenas:

> * Best 2 of 3.

> * 2 minute rounds

> * At the end of time healing and stealth disabled.

> * At the end of time the playable space starts to shrink to force an end to the match.

>

 

Isn't it punishment for low HP classes (especially those rellying on stealth?)

 

Why not add orbs that spawn periodically after 2 min marker allowing you to see and target stealthed players for x seconds as well as reduce targets healing if you hit them?

[Alatar.7364]

EDIT

Ops. Moved my Question to a more appropriate Thread.

[Ryuk.6840]

> said:

> > @Placentlad.9742 said:

>

> >

> > **The main issue currently IMO is the decreasing PVP population due to the recent ranked queue changes**. Probably the easiest and least difficult solution to this will be using the old ranked queue system during vanilla GW2 which was ranked team queue: 1-5 players & Solo and/or duo ranked queue.

> > i think this will cover most of the pvp players concerns with not wanting to play into a premade when soloing, and also not been able to playing with friends in a competitive environment as the ranked queue is currently solo/duo ONLY ( **this is probably the main reason of the recent pvp population decrease**).

> >

>

> The problem with splitting the queue is that our data doesn't show that 2 separate queues for ranked would work. To put things in perspective, 92% someone queues it's queuing solo. The team queue would have horrendous wait times. And when a match finally popped, difference in team skill would likely be rage inducing.

>

>

 

How about using the ability to que up with your friends , from your guild UI .

For ''random lootboxes'' and after 3 games the system awards/removes randomly ''cough'cough'' Ratings on each person on your team (35% less gained than a Solo player) ,

 

 

Each solo oponent that face you dont get punished , but instead they can ''sign'' up in the nearest npc to ''gamble'' to loose 1 Rating for the ability to get 1 random Lootbox (max 6) if they dont :

a) win

b) get 300+ teamscore

c) get Top Stats

 

 

[Kapax.3801]

I think you should start experimenting using unclassified games.

 

**Deathmatch:** 5 vs 5 and 10 vs 10, when the enemy dies, leaves a kind of "badge" floating on the corpse, if the enemy manages to take the insiginia will be added to your score, an ally could also take the badge to prevent join the opposing team ... the first team that manages to accumulate between 65-100 interiors wins the game ... this game mode should have a time of 8 min. We are talking about fast games. Once you die, you reappear anywhere on the map with 5 seconds of invulnerability.

 

**Capture the flag:** 5 vs. 5 or 10 vs. 10, 15-minute games, the one that captures 3 times the opposing flag wins the game (or the one with the most captured flags until the time runs out). I think that for this you will need to create 1 or 2 new maps that adapt to this type of game, so it can take a long time.

 

**Fun modes:**

**Total blindness:** using the same technology used in the fractal of snow blindness. Limit the range of vision to 10 meters, in the game you can light blazon to illuminate a large area, deathmatch style between teams of 5 vs 5. If you are more than 5 seconds close to an ally one of the two will be teleported to a random area of the map (to avoid that they are always together). I think it would also need a new map, but you can use the silent storm map and modify it.

 

**Total blindness part 2:** This time a night map, and it's raining. Limit of vision range of 5 meters! every 15 seconds a beam in the sky illuminates the map completely for 5 seconds and see where all the allies and enemies are !!! Again it would be in deathmatch mode of 5 vs 5, only that here only add the deaths. duration time no more than 6 min.

 

Well, that would be some of the ways I would suggest, as you may notice, I'm trying to focus on people who want to do PvP fast and in a fun way, these modes I think would be unfeasible for a tournament or Ranked Games.

 

But, if they modified the old system of ranges (you already know that of rabbit, deer, dragon, fenix, etc etc) and converted it into a "prestige" mode (Yes, like the CoD) they could work.

 

Now, any mode 15 vs 15 or 10 vs 10 will be a total failure, why? because they will become combats of "Mini-zerg vs Mini-zerg", and the team that will achieve the most conditions will win the opposing team. I'm sorry, but you should give up on that idea if you do not really go with the balance between the classes ... You do not even need to do an experiment on this, just see how these battles are developed in WvW and you will see that basically it explains it, it will only be the constant clash between two large groups and the one that will achieve the most conditions will get the opposing team.

If you do not want to desist from this idea, without achieving a balance, you should then start looking for the way for these large groups to break and go for a little more individual combat, for example, penalties if there are more than 3 players together in a 100-meter radius, random reappearance on the map, only one player can reanimate another, among others.

 

Finally to say that the Tournaments and Ranked are not everything, I think that the E-sport of this game is very far away, so they should focus on the players who are looking for another kind of experience in PvP.

[LUST.7241]

Fix the core problems with the current modes as a priority:

* Decapping points is far easier than capping points (takes significantly less time to decap).

* Any thoughts on being able to capture a point quicker if there are more players on the point (like PvE/WvW does...and almost every "capture" game)?

* Currently if someone is capturing a point alone and uncontested the map icon shows the point contested on the map...which misleads some people (who don't pay attention or have communication) to thinking a point is being contested when it is not. Is there a way to change the icon so it doesn't show as contested if an enemy is not say 1000 range from the point (for allies only, enemies will always see a point not being captured by them as contested)?

[sephiroth.4217]

You make a thread about game modes and instantly side track it about Tournaments....

 

Clever misdirection. Silly me thought you guys were about to cater to a lot of players and bring life into the game mode rather than saying "we don't want to split what's remaining of the conquest queue".

 

Maybe I'm just salty because I have never done an AT and never intend too.

[Crab Fear.1624]

Does the competitive player population (players that queue for spvp) increase during seasons? If so I would wager that it is because of the nice rewards and loot, glory, or a blend of both.

 

What if during the seasons the modes were just something like Gold or Glory? For instance if you chose Gold you could do repeatable chests, but if you chose Glory you could by winning more than losing (kind of similar to the old pip system)climb tiers that would ultimately give you a cool "Gloat" emote based on your tier at the end of the season. (this would not be an item, or any type of boost, just a PVP recognition device of sorts) Perhaps this might separate the different types of competitive players

 

I think when some people see the the Season is on...they think of a harvest, as in harvest all this easy loot and get some ascended gear. Others actually want to measure their keyboards and mice against others.

[Ashyri.5426]

It would be cool to have those silly festivals pvp thingies integrated to the mists. I mean those pvp Halloween and Christmas instances, just an entrance would be cool, but it would be better to have themed and different pvp maps during the festivals just to play around :)

[Vagrant.7206]

Poor matchmaking + Lack of game mode diversity = Continually dropping player population

Continually dropping player population = No game mode diversity

 

Cue vicious downward cycle.

 

I don't get it -- conquest is boring. Almost everybody who has left PvP says this. Conquest is boring and stale. That's why a lot of people left in the first place. Splitting the population is risky? You haven't taken enough risk, and it has resulted in this low population.

 

We've literally had conquest since day one. We've had stronghold for maybe one season, and a poorly implemented deathmatch before that. If the player population has been dropping, what has been the common factor? Conquest. For the love of god, introduce new game modes to spice it up.

[Sinid.7460]

> @Vagrant.7206 said:

> Poor matchmaking + Lack of game mode diversity = Continually dropping player population

> Continually dropping player population = No game mode diversity

>

> Cue vicious downward cycle.

>

> I don't get it -- conquest is boring. Almost everybody who has left PvP says this. Conquest is boring and stale. That's why a lot of people left in the first place. Splitting the population is risky? You haven't taken enough risk, and it has resulted in this low population.

>

> We've literally had conquest since day one. We've had stronghold for maybe one season, and a poorly implemented deathmatch before that. If the player population has been dropping, what has been the common factor? Conquest. For the love of god, introduce new game modes to spice it up.

 

How is conquest boring and stale? Stronghold appeared and it was never popular. At all. Same with deathmatch, I believe most people disliked that one as well. Fun modes for sure, every now and then. But people saying that conquest is boring and stale blows my mind because it's the only mode that doesn't promote zerging....

[Keesh.5689]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> We do have some balance concerns with 2v2's. I think when we have our first special 2v2 tournament, it will teach us a lot.

I honestly don't think you can avoid having balance problems with 2v2. There's always comps in another MMO that has superior comps. In battlerite 2s has more to comps but it also suffers from same problem. 3s in both games are known to be more fair and allows for most classes/characters to be played in at least 1 comp. Also on a note I feel leader boards with details of professions should be something to look at. Even if it's on a website.

 

I think stronghold is honestly a rather decent map for an upgrade. Taking out the NPCs other than stationary ones in lords room, allowing us to destroy doors would make for a much funner experience and maybe upping the number of players so you have a viable option against a rush. I don't agree with the huge numbers people want(15v15) added to the map but I feel 8v8 or 10v10 would be number that creates enough strategy, less people for a quicker queue pops but also reduces stress and ridiculous particle affects enough you can understand what you're doing.

 

Also maybe in future a random game mode chooser that gives a boost to say how much pvp xp you earn or silver. So you're thrown say into a updated stronghold, conquest, deathmatch or some other kind of gamemode. Just so they little ones are kept populated.

[Vagrant.7206]

> @Sinid.7460 said:

> > @Vagrant.7206 said:

> > Poor matchmaking + Lack of game mode diversity = Continually dropping player population

> > Continually dropping player population = No game mode diversity

> >

> > Cue vicious downward cycle.

> >

> > I don't get it -- conquest is boring. Almost everybody who has left PvP says this. Conquest is boring and stale. That's why a lot of people left in the first place. Splitting the population is risky? You haven't taken enough risk, and it has resulted in this low population.

> >

> > We've literally had conquest since day one. We've had stronghold for maybe one season, and a poorly implemented deathmatch before that. If the player population has been dropping, what has been the common factor? Conquest. For the love of god, introduce new game modes to spice it up.

>

> How is conquest boring and stale? Stronghold appeared and it was never popular. At all. Same with deathmatch, I believe most people disliked that one as well. Fun modes for sure, every now and then. But people saying that conquest is boring and stale blows my mind because it's the only mode that doesn't promote zerging....

 

It's been considered the only "real" mode of play since launch (5 years now). There have been a grand addition of 2 maps, after one got removed. It's literally the definition of stale. If we ignore HoT/PoF for a moment (because of how elite specs affect pvp), it's objectively terrible. Most multiplayer games AT LAUNCH have more variety. We didn't even have that. We got some half-baked attempts to introduce variety, which failed because there wasn't enough effort to improve them.

 

And my point still stands -- They don't want new game modes because it's "risky." They haven't really taken any risk to this point. Stronghold could have been made better. TDM could have been made better. CTF or Assault could be realistically implemented.

[Lumines.3916]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

>

> That being said, as mentioned in the Tournaments thread, we do plan to support additional game modes, to some degree, with event tournaments. The frequency of these tournaments will be determined, in part, by how popular these tournaments become. Our first special tournament will likely be a 2v2 tournament. I also foresee the possibility of Stronghold and even Courtyard tournaments.

>

> In addition, we’re currently discussing the feasibility of adding custom arena support/special tournament support for large team (15 v 15?) elimination style matches. This does get a bit more complicated as the current UI breaks with anything more than 10 v 10.

>

> What other game modes would you like to see show up in tournaments? Keep in mind that any game modes requiring new maps would involve quite a long development time.

 

 

I love GW2's combat and am avid PvPer and thats why I hope this is a good opportunity to get some 2 cents in. When I played WoW, arenas were a major attraction for me and what I spent most of my time in. Even Blizzard couldn't do 2s balance right and eventually left it as a not officially supported mode. I feel like the way MMO class designs are in general, it's very easy to run into a rock-paper-scissors situation with a small number skirmish like 2s and unleash the floodgates more upon balance bitching. Just some precaution yknow.

 

I love the idea of 15 v 15 or even the 10 v 10 matches. GvG and HA in GW1 was 8v8 and was really fun!! What I feel like GW2 really needs as far as PvP goes isn't another small scale option like 2s or more 5v5 conquest maps. I think right now what could really attract players is something in between WvW and SPVP kind of like the 15v15 you guys are already talking about. The bigger the fight (blob vs blob) the less personal impact and accountability you have in the victory or defeat of your team. That's why blob warfare turns some of us off and same with 1v1 and small scale, hitting an in between like WoW battlegrounds did I think could do really well with the combat already in the game and I hope you guys do follow through with 10v10 and 15v15s!!!

[shippage.1983]

I think it'd be better to remove Stronghold and change it to rotating unranked gamemodes where you test a new gamemode while also offering a tournament for it. Everyone is tired of Stronghold, yet this wouldn't split the queues anymore. You could turn an already existing queue into an Arcade Mode like in Overwatch. Even though Stronghold is a dead gamemode, queue times are still decent at around 5 minutes.

 

I think everyone else is tired of Conquest at this point. By doing this you could bring PvP players back, and find popularity in a new gamemode and slowly shift that to be a more permenant gamemode alongside Conquest.

 

Also, I agree that an 8v8 on a bigger map would be very fun, but it wouldn't feel very competitive. Honestly I would just want deathmatch back.

 

**Edit**:

I would love nothing more than a Request Duel with a player for open world 1v1s. That would be soooooo nice.

[Saiyan.1704]

> @Xillllix.3485 said:

> These rules punish light classes with low hp...

 

> @Cynz.9437 said:

> Why not add orbs that spawn periodically after 2 min marker allowing you to see and target stealthed players for x seconds as well as reduce targets healing if you hit them?

 

I would argue that any stealth class, [**Ranger**/**Mesmer**/**Engi**/**Thief**], can simply kite and stealth through the duration of the anti-stealth buff. Adding any other peripheral like an orb, creature, buff area, is simply too much time management for this specific game mode. I otherwise agree that we should have more in-game **"Play"** mechanic strategy but I can't think of anything that would benefit everybody.

 

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" - Thanks that answers a lot of my questions.

[Allarius.5670]

> @Sinid.7460 said:

> How is conquest boring and stale? Stronghold appeared and it was never popular. At all. Same with deathmatch, I believe most people disliked that one as well. Fun modes for sure, every now and then. But people saying that conquest is boring and stale blows my mind because it's the only mode that doesn't promote zerging....

 

I personally don't think conquest is boring or stale, though I do feel supported variety would be nice.

 

Do not forget to consider the context around why the alternative gamemodes suffered low popularity at their respective times. SPvP after HoT release was generally a hot mess and unenjoyable coupled with how stronghold had little follow up support or gameplay changes to address player concerns (of which there were a great deal many). Deathmatch had poor scoring and respawn mechanics for the gamemode and was implemented before alternative gamemodes could be specifically selected for queue, creating resentment among players who didn't want to play it or were frustrated from inability to quickly build swap.

 

The problem with conquest isn't that it is a bad gamemode or lacks in positive aspects, it's that despite this it suffers low popularity among alternative supported gamemodes in other games when available and is unintuitive and lacks approachability for new players, crippling a potentially larger player base.

[Ben K.6238]

To mitigate the risk of splitting the playerbase, is the introduction of Hall of Heroes as an element connected to the WvW game mode an option?

 

Specifically, this would be a tiered PvP system, inspired by the GW1 Hall of Heroes, that grants the world whose players currently hold the Hall an extra bonus of some sort that's meaningful to the WvW game mode.

 

The goal of this would be to draw on the WvW population to provide the fights-oriented guilds there with a venue to play slightly larger PvP matches on an even footing, with the winner's achievement being useful for, and recognised by, their home world.

[Cynz.9437]

> @Saiyan.1704 said:

> > @Xillllix.3485 said:

> > These rules punish light classes with low hp...

>

> > @Cynz.9437 said:

> > Why not add orbs that spawn periodically after 2 min marker allowing you to see and target stealthed players for x seconds as well as reduce targets healing if you hit them?

>

> I would argue that any stealth class, [**Ranger**/**Mesmer**/**Engi**/**Thief**], can simply kite and stealth through the duration of the anti-stealth buff. Adding any other peripheral like an orb, creature, buff area, is simply too much time management for this specific game mode. I otherwise agree that we should have more in-game **"Play"** mechanic strategy but I can't think of anything that would benefit everybody.

>

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" - Thanks that answers a lot of my questions.

 

So lets have mode that is purely filled with wars, guards and co. because those can stale fights for this long and don't get punished as much on 2 min timer....? Just wow.

 

 

As for conquest i disagree: the mode is fine and not stale for me, we just lack 3v3/2v2 alternative.

[lockheedlight.5910]

What would be the chances of a deathmatch pvp league season? Or maybe use it as a "in between" seasons thing? I would just like to play ranked pvp with a game style something other then capture and hold 3 points.

[Exedore.6320]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> The problem with splitting the queue is that our data doesn't show that 2 separate queues for ranked would work. To put things in perspective, 92% someone queues it's queuing solo. The team queue would have horrendous wait times. And when a match finally popped, difference in team skill would likely be rage inducing.

Do you have numbers from Season 1-4 where full group queuing was allowed?

 

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> The 2v2 Tournaments would have rules similar to what we've done in custom arenas:

> * Best 2 of 3.

> * 2 minute rounds

> * At the end of time healing and stealth disabled.

> * At the end of time the playable space starts to shrink to force an end to the match.

 

Special rules like this are never a good solution. For example, if a build works through lots of small heals, it's hurt heavily. But one that survives by evades or reducing damage is largely unaffected.

Do you plan to have special rules for things like Moa Morph?

[Trigr.6481]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> We still have no current plans to support additional game modes with a queue. The long and short of it is that we feel that splitting the population right now is really risky and could have a major negative impact on the game.

>

> That being said, as mentioned in the Tournaments thread, we do plan to support additional game modes, to some degree, with event tournaments. The frequency of these tournaments will be determined, in part, by how popular these tournaments become. Our first special tournament will likely be a 2v2 tournament. I also foresee the possibility of Stronghold and even Courtyard tournaments.

>

> In addition, we’re currently discussing the feasibility of adding custom arena support/special tournament support for large team (15 v 15?) elimination style matches. This does get a bit more complicated as the current UI breaks with anything more than 10 v 10.

>

> What other game modes would you like to see show up in tournaments? Keep in mind that any game modes requiring new maps would involve quite a long development time.

 

First of all thank you for responding. When it comes to adding new games modes, you guys simply can't use the "it will split the population" excuse anymore, back when the community was asking for a new game mode before stronghold was introduced you guys said the exact same thing. And the reason why it didn't split the playerbase was because stronghold was so unsuccessful that nobody played it, therefore no new fresh faces joined to experience it because why would they? When it comes to whether or not the playerbase would fragment is solely based off the implementation and how different your new game mode is from conquest. Personally I believe if you guys took the time to make a 3v3 deathmatch mode with it's own leaderboard, rank system, and maps specifically for it, then you would get a huge spike in the pvp population.

 

I know friends personally that specifically come back to gw2 if they were to arrange some type of small scale game mode that you could que as a group in a competitive setting. Furthermore the reason why conquest is still fading is because of the lack of direction on your guy's part. You have a game mode that's team based but yet don't allow team based play, it's absurd. It's like playing dodge ball with all your friends in the room but your teacher doesn't allow the students to pick teams, where is the fun in that? You guys have successfully drained the fun from your own game mode because of the vocal minority complaining about pre mades stomping everyone. This is what soloq conquest and team que for conquest was such a successful thing, it prevented such things from occurring.

 

TLDR: Conquest is on life support, and you need new variety. Please don't put time into stronghold like you did skyhammer, the time investment isn't worth it, and there's things that the community would rather see, and frankly needs then a poorly executed moba knockoff that nobody wanted in the first place.

 

Countless