PvP Discussion: Miscellaneous

[Allarius.5670]

> @Ithilwen.1529 said:

> The second misconception is the idea that the group fight at mid is the most important thing. I know that many on the forum would disagree with me on this point, but team death match and mass slaughter is not what is going to serve this game well. Here's why;

>

> It chases away new people, who naturally die very quickly in such games.

>

> It narrows the range of usable classes and builds.

>

> GW2 itself is not set up or themed as a mass slaughter game. You're taking a Dressage Horse and trying to make it into a Polo Pony.. not gonna work.

 

As much as I might enjoy them, I won't disagree that deathmatch or various iterations (arenas) could be problematic for new players. That said, I think team fighting is critical to emphasize to improve accessibility while still allowing free-form/non-mandatory splits for harassing and ganking.

 

1) It decreases the impact of hard counters on singular builds (balance and skill/build diversity, less punishment for learning and experimentation)

 

2) ‎It promotes increased inter-player interactions to support one another (approachability, improved role emphasis)

 

3) ‎It allows generalist builds without overemphasizing them, allowing players to focus on more dedicated roles (build diversity, refined focus allowing for fewer factors to consider for new players without inhibiting individual impact through game sense)

 

4) ‎Player impact on game outcome is easier to read for newer players (gameplay feedback)

 

I suggest that the nature and mechanics of conquest and previous iterations of alternative gamemodes are the cause of your point of view. Consider a gamemode and/or mechanics that are less punishing to individual deaths such that dying is a set back but not unduly so.

 

For example, what would the impact be on approachability of our previous deathmatch gamemode if the respawn timer was completely eliminated? I agree that deathmatch is probably not the solution, but hopefully these thoughts are something to consider in theorising an improved game.

[Volrath.1473]

If anet wants pvpers to spend money on gems I'll tell you what we buy.

We buy

- Outfits

- Weapons skins

- Finishers

.

.

Some suggestions.

- give us build templates

- let us glide in Spvp

- talk about balance! (I don't understand why balance is left out of this thread or doesn't have it's own...)

- bring back the on point stream.

- bring back the q&a streams with devs and top players.

- implement small patches/hot fixes regularly instead of piling all up in one single patch that takes forever to arrive and leaves as all in despair...

- do not allow 2 of the same profession on one team nor ppl changing to a profession already represented in the team. (3 scourges anyone?)

- allow spectators in unranked. (Spectator mode was introduced to help new players learn how to play. If all they can spectate are the custom arenas they will learn nothing and drag they're team down wen they queue...)

 

That is all I can think of atm.

Tyvm for taking the time to read this. :)

[Vaeo.4097]

What I'd like to have in sPvP:

 

1. Health bars above allies heads to simplify healer job.

 

2. When someone writes something in /team chat show text bubble above his head (of course, visible only for teammates). Now it works only for /say chat (or may be I'm missing smth). And I forced to swap to /say chat to say my teammate words like: "go, i'll cap". Very annoying.

 

3. Please, add "Dismiss" button to "Map results" dialog (i mean this one: https://imgur.com/2nkm4Fs). Sometimes I'm dueling on arena waiting for match, sometimes even doing some PvE. And this window blocks my screen for 15 seconds, though I already made my choice.

 

4. "Clear chat" button in chat. Sometimes I have "toxic" conversation with someone. But even if I block him I still see his nasty words in chat. So I'd like to have an option to just clear may chat.

 

A bit more tricky requests:

 

5. Short predefined notifications among team members like it's done in Overwatch. Like "heal me", "incoming far", "go", "portal" (for mesmers), etc...

Overwatch implementation of this feature is ideal (especially icons above head). But if it's too difficult it can be just message in /team chat paired with some "beep" sound to notify teammates to look at chat.

 

 

 

 

[Kuya.6495]

Reiterating two good suggestions i saw:

 

1. yes to adding an option to turn off pings for your local client. I've had matches where a person decides to grief by spamming pings and obscuring the map.

2. yes to eliminating class stacking but do so by limiting one elite spec per team ie: matchmaker will never put two firebrands together but it will allow a team to have one firebrand, one dragonhunter and one core guardian, etc. do this for all game modes, especially tournaments and leagues.

 

 

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

> @Exedore.6320 said:

> **Communication about Balance**

> Would it be possible for ANet Devs to comment on balance-related PvP concerns at a high level when problems arise? Just a simple acknowledgement of the problems the players are posting about is fine, and maybe some ideas on what needs adjusted broadly. For example, "Scourge can apply too many conditions too quickly; we're looking at smoothing the damage out over a longer period of time."

>

> **PvP Stat System**

> Can we move to a multi-item stat system, such as an amulet and two rings (50/25/25 or similar split)? It has so many advantages and no appreciable negatives:

> * More customization to better fit builds. Low HP professions can get some extra HP; you can get a little toughness instead of none or a ton, etc.

> * Less stat combos needed overall

> * 4-stat items and their power creep (+220 stats over 3-stat amulets) can safely be phased out

> * No less confusing than the current PvP gear system

> * Overly defensive builds can still be restricted by limiting what combos are available in what slot.

>

> Is there a design reason that the current amulet system is favored?

 

We've talked about it before. Most recently a couple months ago. There is a lot of internal debate on whether it would really gain us more build diversity or if people would just use the same builds. The proposed idea we had was that we'd reduce the stats of amulets by some percentage and then add a second item with the same stat combinations that people could mix and match.

 

Some of the feedback we received was that we could also do this by adding more amulets. Though, in my opinion, the new system might be easier to maintain. It's just a fair amount of up front work.

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

> @jebro.6370 said:

> Hey Ben! Great posts!

>

> Playing tonight I had two games in a row with dcs back to back (Not the good back to back Like the Dr).

>

> Just wondered if there was a chance we can have a surrender or feature to allow all four players to withdraw after the 2 mins. In ranked you dont lose any rank points anyways if a team mate DCs for 2 mins and 99.9% of the time youll lose that match. It just means sitting back and getting a lil mad whilst you wait it out rather than having a quick exit match option to get you right back into some 5v5.

>

> Will leave feedback relevant to other things on other threads. Cheers for putting these threads up!

>

> Jebro

 

It's something we can talk about. I've been resistant to a surrender feature with no limitations, since I feel people will just attempt to surrender as soon as they feel the game is going poorly. But a surrender option that pops up after a 90 second DC might be more reasonable.

 

I'll add it to our list of things to discuss internally.

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

> @bluri.2653 said:

> Is there anything regarding pvp rank? Right now it doesnt really do anything except up to r80

 

We haven't talked about it since making the original change to display ranks above 80. I had an original design from right around when I joined the PvP team do some additional markers on your dragon icon, but in the end felt like I was starting to add complication with little gain.

 

What kind of things would you guys like to see?

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

> @Crinn.7864 said:

> > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > > @Vancho.8750 said:

> > > Will there be new amulets, sigils and runes any time soon?

> >

> > We just released a batch of new amulets not too long ago. And did a big sigil rework in May. I'm sure we'll do additional revisions, but not in the near future.

>

> Can you elaborate why Rune of the Scourge was not included with the other profession runes?

 

The tier 6 bonus of Gain a barrier when you are struck while below the 50% health threshold. We didn't want to add more passive buffs to PvP.

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

> @Cynz.9437 said:

> Are there any plans for dueling in this game?

> I am talking about dueling anywhere, everywhere ( i mean pve zones/HotM/cities). Example wow: you can right click a person and invite them to a duel. If they accept, you and your opponent become hostile to each other (other players obviously can't attack or support you) and duel ends when one of you got killed, ran out of duel area bounds (XY units from dueling point start) or typed /forfeit.

>

> Reasoning for it:

> - no need for dueling servers anymore -> no need for instances -> no issue with full dueling servers.

> - dueling is usually the first step into pvp. I have played many games in the past and it was always the same, people watch other duel, get interested and try it themselves. Then they get friends from dueling, get introduced to pvp and play matches together -> more players in pvp. The nice thing about it, you can do it to have some fun in main cities and for entertaining purposes as well as to kill time between matches.

 

We talk about it every once in a while. Most of us aren't opposed to it. We'd have to do it in a way that doesn't become disruptive, so I don't think I'd want it enabled everywhere. It's also more work than people realize, so continually gets backlogged before we start thinking about it more seriously.

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

> @MarshallLaw.9260 said:

> Hopefully this discussion is still being reviewed by devs.

>

> The main idea/concept I am currently interested in putting forward would be the addition of an "avoid" list functionality. I am aware that blocked players can still be randomly placed in sPVP match-ups on the same team. When having to que without a full party - e.i. in ranked - it is often frustrating if you end up with the same player in your team who you have not enjoyed playing with previously.

>

> Don't get me wrong, this is not exclusively because people are toxic or "useless" - there are also occasions where people on your team simply don't want to work with others and as a result I'd rather just avoid being matched up with those.

>

> I would be more than happy to wait longer for a match-up - 50% longer, maybe up to 100% - as long as I am guaranteed not to have endure a match with a teammate I don't like.

 

A feature like this would likely open us to more abuse. Rather than using it to avoid toxic players, I can see a lot of people using this for match manipulation.

[Morwath.9817]

Ben, Quaggan wonders if we could get casting bars, like we had in GW1.

Quaggan believes there are many reasons, why we should get them:

1. They make game more clear*.

*Even if Quaggan could recognize all animations in 1v1, he won't be able to do so in larger fights, especially with so many red circles and special effects.

2. They are good for learning for new players.

3. They make spectating and commentating much easier** and interesting.

**Quaggan does remember when during one of World Series, commentator (was it Jebro?), at certain moment was like "what has happened?", same consternation was on twitch chat...

[Chrury.4627]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @Crinn.7864 said:

> >

> > Can you elaborate why Rune of the Scourge was not included with the other profession runes?

>

> The tier 6 bonus of Gain a barrier when you are struck while below the 50% health threshold. We didn't want to add more passive buffs to PvP.

 

Are you considering removing other similar runes then? Rune of Earth, Forgeman, and Svanir apply Magnetic Aura, Protection, and Frost Aura respectively at the same health threshold and similar cooldowns/durations. That's also ignoring the more offensive runes that instead steal health or apply a Fire Aura.

 

I'm pretty sure they aren't used too often but the apparent inconsistency in rulings mess with my OCD a bit.

[Cynz.9437]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @MarshallLaw.9260 said:

> > Hopefully this discussion is still being reviewed by devs.

> >

> > The main idea/concept I am currently interested in putting forward would be the addition of an "avoid" list functionality. I am aware that blocked players can still be randomly placed in sPVP match-ups on the same team. When having to que without a full party - e.i. in ranked - it is often frustrating if you end up with the same player in your team who you have not enjoyed playing with previously.

> >

> > Don't get me wrong, this is not exclusively because people are toxic or "useless" - there are also occasions where people on your team simply don't want to work with others and as a result I'd rather just avoid being matched up with those.

> >

> > I would be more than happy to wait longer for a match-up - 50% longer, maybe up to 100% - as long as I am guaranteed not to have endure a match with a teammate I don't like.

>

> A feature like this would likely open us to more abuse. Rather than using it to avoid toxic players, I can see a lot of people using this for match manipulation.

 

Could the avoid function only be used when forming my team? E.g. i put player X on my "avoid" list. I can still end up with that player in the same match but they never would be on my team?

While it was stated that CS and class balance issues are not to be discussed, issue of trolling/afking is pretty widely spread. And CS can tell us all they want that they look into it, we still see same players over and over and over again in our matches, ruining it for everyone. It gets really bad once you get to higher ratings where population is already pretty low so it turns into hot potato lottery "Who gets the troll next match".

 

To prevent that someone never gets queues, the avoid list could be limited to 3? players?

[Morwath.9817]

> @Cynz.9437 said:

> > @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > > @MarshallLaw.9260 said:

> > > Hopefully this discussion is still being reviewed by devs.

> > >

> > > The main idea/concept I am currently interested in putting forward would be the addition of an "avoid" list functionality. I am aware that blocked players can still be randomly placed in sPVP match-ups on the same team. When having to que without a full party - e.i. in ranked - it is often frustrating if you end up with the same player in your team who you have not enjoyed playing with previously.

> > >

> > > Don't get me wrong, this is not exclusively because people are toxic or "useless" - there are also occasions where people on your team simply don't want to work with others and as a result I'd rather just avoid being matched up with those.

> > >

> > > I would be more than happy to wait longer for a match-up - 50% longer, maybe up to 100% - as long as I am guaranteed not to have endure a match with a teammate I don't like.

> >

> > A feature like this would likely open us to more abuse. Rather than using it to avoid toxic players, I can see a lot of people using this for match manipulation.

>

> Could the avoid function only be used when forming my team? E.g. i put player X on my "avoid" list. I can still end up with that player in the same match but they never would be on my team?

> While it was stated that CS and class balance issues are not to be discussed, issue of trolling/afking is pretty widely spread. And CS can tell us all they want that they look into it, we still see same players over and over and over again in our matches, ruining it for everyone. It gets really bad once you get to higher ratings where population is already pretty low so it turns into hot potato lottery "Who gets the troll next match".

>

> To prevent that someone never gets queues, the avoid list could be limited to 3? players?

 

Quaggan believes, you could form premade this way, if you and your friends would put all other "top" players in your ignore list, because system would exclude all other possible team mates for you and them.

 

Edit: With only 3 players to ignore, it could be useful feature.

[Morwath.9817]

double post, Quaggan is really sorry.

[Aden.9306]

So this is probably a ambitious idea, but Discord released this Gamebridge kit for game developers. This could potentially bring a higher level of play to games of all skill levels. With the added bonus of stronger players being able to direct/educate the weaker/newer players, helping them get better faster. Now, knowing Guilds Wars 2 being 5 years post release; this might not be possible. But if possible, could this be integrated into Spvp Ranked Queue? Or perhaps have greater game applications?

 

Link: https://discordapp.com/gamebridge

[Crinn.7864]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @bluri.2653 said:

> > Is there anything regarding pvp rank? Right now it doesnt really do anything except up to r80

>

> We haven't talked about it since making the original change to display ranks above 80. I had an original design from right around when I joined the PvP team do some additional markers on your dragon icon, but in the end felt like I was starting to add complication with little gain.

>

> What kind of things would you guys like to see?

 

How about a title that is your rank number?

 

So the title would be like "rank 165" and the title updates everytime you go up in rank?

 

[Gandarel.5091]

**Shout/voiceline fix?**

 

Voicelines have mapwide range and can be heard by both sides, which is probably unintended. For example I'm fighting a Holosmith, they go into stealth and I can more or less know what they are doing because they'll shout "switching to holo mode!"

 

Other example is stealth rez. When I'm cleaving a downed body in stealth and hear "feeling better!" I know they got the rez, when I probably should not be able to access this information.

 

It's been like this for quite some time, any plans to fix this?

[Kerivek.5740]

> @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" said:

> > @Cynz.9437 said:

> > Are there any plans for dueling in this game?

> > I am talking about dueling anywhere, everywhere ( i mean pve zones/HotM/cities). Example wow: you can right click a person and invite them to a duel. If they accept, you and your opponent become hostile to each other (other players obviously can't attack or support you) and duel ends when one of you got killed, ran out of duel area bounds (XY units from dueling point start) or typed /forfeit.

> >

> > Reasoning for it:

> > - no need for dueling servers anymore -> no need for instances -> no issue with full dueling servers.

> > - dueling is usually the first step into pvp. I have played many games in the past and it was always the same, people watch other duel, get interested and try it themselves. Then they get friends from dueling, get introduced to pvp and play matches together -> more players in pvp. The nice thing about it, you can do it to have some fun in main cities and for entertaining purposes as well as to kill time between matches.

>

> We talk about it every once in a while. Most of us aren't opposed to it. We'd have to do it in a way that doesn't become disruptive, so I don't think I'd want it enabled everywhere. It's also more work than people realize, so continually gets backlogged before we start thinking about it more seriously.

 

I would also really love to see dueling added, and I know that most of my friends would as well.

 

Maybe allow dueling anywhere outside of main cities and within designated areas inside cities.

 

The current options for dueling are very lacking. The Heart of the Mists area for dueling is a mess. With it being a free for all there is no way to get a real duel more often than not. Also it is very small and has a number of collision issues. The guild hall is good but mostly useless because of the limitation on who can enter.

[Saiyan.1704]

Please please please fix the in-game map icons. It's annoying realizing it was a 2v1 on point because of a class icon covering another.

 

Last I heard, Anet wanted to fix this issue as well. That was 2 years ago.

[Allarius.5670]

> @Saiyan.1704 said:

> Please please please fix the in-game map icons. It's annoying realizing it was a 2v1 on point because of a class icon covering another.

>

> Last I heard, Anet wanted to fix this issue as well. That was 2 years ago.

 

Maybe they could put in some kind of effect that forces the icons to move away from one another a minimum distance such that they never overlap,. We aren't looking for exact location so much as general location, numbers, and profession.

[Cal Cohen.3527]

> @"Honest John.4673" said:

> For the Timeline feature at the end of a match I'd like to be able to zoom in to a more granular level and hover over to see who died and when. With it being so small (it doesn't auto-resize, it's always based off 15 mins) clumps of deaths and caps/objectives sprout up and it's difficult to make sense of what exactly happened and where, negating the helpfulness of the feature.

 

Resizing to the actual length of the game and allowing a more targeted zoom-in are both on our list of timeline polish items.

[Cal Cohen.3527]

> @Saiyan.1704 said:

> Please please please fix the in-game map icons. It's annoying realizing it was a 2v1 on point because of a class icon covering another.

>

> Last I heard, Anet wanted to fix this issue as well. That was 2 years ago.

 

This is definitely annoying. I'll add it to Ben's list of things to follow up on with programmers.

[kKagari.6804]

> @"Cal Cohen.3527" said:

> > @Saiyan.1704 said:

> > Please please please fix the in-game map icons. It's annoying realizing it was a 2v1 on point because of a class icon covering another.

> >

> > Last I heard, Anet wanted to fix this issue as well. That was 2 years ago.

>

> This is definitely annoying. I'll add it to Ben's list of things to follow up on with programmers.

 

Yesssssssssss thats what I said earlier but I guess Saiyan is just way more articulate!

[Kerivek.5740]

There is something I am actually curious about but I'm not 100% sure if it applies to this discussion, as it is somewhat balance related in a roundabout way. When you guys release patches what is the testing process for you? What is the general process and timeline of internal testing before it is decided that a patch is ready to roll out? Is there any reason you don't use a public test server with the latest updates so the community can help you find bugs or unexpected effects of changes made?

 

I only ask because it seems that a lot of things slip through the cracks. As someone who works in software I know this is unavoidable. You won't catch everything, but I think extra community interaction could go a long way in helping you guys polish updates before they go live. I think this would cut back on a lot of the salt on the forums and it would give the community more of a feeling that they are participating in the betterment of the game.