Crinn.7864 Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 The problem with Annihilation as a game mode is that Annihilation metas always skew towards extremes. You tend to get metas built around either trying to instagib somebody in the first 15 seconds of the match. (since in Annihilation scoring a single kill is effectively a win) or towards a cheese stall strat where you just stall out the match until the timer and then abuse whatever the sudden death mechanic is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 I think 3v3 would be better. fights would imo last a bit longer due to more team support. sure you could argue that more people means less kill time, and that would be true sometimes. the game wasn't balanced around such small numbers, and I think 3v3 is the perfect in between number. the more people there are the more comps there potentially are as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova.3817 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 3v3 imo 2v2 is a bit to small to me and could be abused by say thief mesmer comps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Boyer.6524 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Sounds like a great idea to me. The only thing I have to add is that there should be quite a few different types of maps in the rotation for this mode. Different types of maps with different kinds of terrain can greatly change the outcome of a given 2v2. Having many different terrain types for different 2v2 maps would inherently increase the viability of different build structures for the 2v2 annihilation mode. Theoretic Examples: * 2 Mirages vs. 2 Spellbreakers. - Normally this would be pretty stalematish in a conquest game on a node. But in 2v2 the outcome of this match would be greatly effected by the terrain. IE: A big wide open area with only flat ground = Mirages can just disengage forever and there are no obstacles for the Spellbreakers to play around the shatters. But in a little tight enclosed room with lots of boxes to jump up and down = The Spellbreakers are gonna mulch the Mirages. * 2 Soulbeasts vs. Scourge & Reaper - In an open area with few places to hide from LoS, the Necros are gonna get mulched. But in like a forested themed area with lots of trees that were about as thick as the pillars in Eternal Coliseum, the Necros could safely advance on the Rangers. * 2x Core Guard vs. D/P Daredevil & Rifle Deadeye - The 2x Core Guards "if in voice with each other" would normally win this match easily with coordinated dual JI strikes that would insta-down the thieves as soon as they appeared, in a more open map anyway. However, if the map where something like Khylo, where there were multiple different elevations and lots of escape/hiding spots that prevented the Core Guards from so easily targeting them, the match would become quite balanced instead of a counter match. * ect.. ect.. I believe the success of any new game mode or even the further preservation of conquest, lies completely within the introduction of new maps that provide new environmental dynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeLZedaR.4790 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 On the one hand I can see this very enjoyable, if well made and correctly integrating a leaderboard (imo a seperate one to conquest). But on the other, how do you address stuff like FB scourge being unstoppable and ruining any sense of competition by turning it into the best comp wins? In conquest its already kind of true, but you have the potential to out-rotate to overcome such situations. In 2v2, I don’t see counterplay. Even if fb scourge is nerfed, the next best healer + dps will take its place. Or something like double bunker soulbeast. Bottom line It’s hard for me to not see it becoming extremely unfun with balancing that is aimed at conquest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider.5792 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 2v2 or 3v3 would actualy make me enjoy pvp alot more. I just want to be less dependant on people i get into my group. Heck, i would even prefer a 1v1 best 3 of 5. Due to balancing issues it could easily be made that a match would always be class VS same class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Boyer.6524 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 > @"BeLZedaR.4790" said: > On the one hand I can see this very enjoyable, if well made and correctly integrating a leaderboard (imo a seperate one to conquest). > > But on the other, how do you address stuff like FB scourge being unstoppable and ruining any sense of competition by turning it into the best comp wins? > > In conquest its already kind of true, but you have the potential to out-rotate to overcome such situations. In 2v2, I don’t see counterplay. > > Even if fb scourge is nerfed, the next best healer + dps will take its place. Or something like double bunker soulbeast. > > Bottom line It’s hard for me to not see it becoming extremely unfun with balancing that is aimed at conquest. Telling you, terrain differences. You don't see FB/Scourge roam duos in wvw for big reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeLZedaR.4790 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 > @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: > > @"BeLZedaR.4790" said: > > On the one hand I can see this very enjoyable, if well made and correctly integrating a leaderboard (imo a seperate one to conquest). > > > > But on the other, how do you address stuff like FB scourge being unstoppable and ruining any sense of competition by turning it into the best comp wins? > > > > In conquest its already kind of true, but you have the potential to out-rotate to overcome such situations. In 2v2, I don’t see counterplay. > > > > Even if fb scourge is nerfed, the next best healer + dps will take its place. Or something like double bunker soulbeast. > > > > Bottom line It’s hard for me to not see it becoming extremely unfun with balancing that is aimed at conquest. > > Telling you, terrain differences. You don't see FB/Scourge roam duos in wvw for big reasons. Kind of, but FB scourge still dominate zerg fights. They don’t roam because of 1) No chase potential. Any other roamer can easily choose to not engage. And likely will never go vs fb scourge. 2) No escape. Cannot survive zergs that choose to try and eat them. I agree open terrain in wvw helps vs scourge, but on the contrary the only 2v2 map we have is actually extremely tight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crinn.7864 Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 > @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: > > @"BeLZedaR.4790" said: > > On the one hand I can see this very enjoyable, if well made and correctly integrating a leaderboard (imo a seperate one to conquest). > > > > But on the other, how do you address stuff like FB scourge being unstoppable and ruining any sense of competition by turning it into the best comp wins? > > > > In conquest its already kind of true, but you have the potential to out-rotate to overcome such situations. In 2v2, I don’t see counterplay. > > > > Even if fb scourge is nerfed, the next best healer + dps will take its place. Or something like double bunker soulbeast. > > > > Bottom line It’s hard for me to not see it becoming extremely unfun with balancing that is aimed at conquest. > > Telling you, terrain differences. You don't see FB/Scourge roam duos in wvw for big reasons. And if you have terrain differences then every class that doesn't have vertical mobility is at a massive disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now