Would you still play sPvP (or GW2 at all) if the only "ranked mode" option was organised 5v5?

[Devilman.1532]

5 man ques should have never been removed, but it's kind of irrelevant now since the game mode is a complete tire fire. Not even this would save it.

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"Airdive.2613" said:

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > @"Airdive.2613" said:

> > > > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > > > > @"Spoichiche.1290" said:

> > > > > > > I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of playing in a team with 4 other players once in a while for AT but i'm a soloQ player.

> > > > > > > I get more enjoyment playing in soloQ, in a more casual environement, with no need to make calls, order people around or follow someone else's call. It may sound stupid but i prefer playing alone in a team rather than being inherently part of the team. I prefer making my own decisions based on what informations i can gather and let my allies make their own decisions based on what they can gather.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You want casual play in a ranked, competitive and rated game mode instead of in an unranked, casual and unrated game mode?

> > > > > > Makes perfect sense.

> > > > >

> > > > > Casual doesn't mean bad.

> > > > > While a 5v5 premade match tests your communication skills and your team synergy, a solo queue match emphasizes your adaptability, comprehension skills and quick decision making. You can't say the former are somehow "better" or more important than the latter, they're just different experiences.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Im sorry but this is just plain bull.

> > > > You do realize this is a team-based game?

> > > > What do you imagine will happen if you pit a 5-man premade against a team of 5 randoms? Do you seriously think that in a premade there is less quick decision making? You think they discuss things mid-match? O_o. Have you ever watched a 5v5 game? go ahead and try.

> > > > Casual doesnt mean bad...but I have a weird feeling you have no clue what the word actually means, it means NOT competitive...it means you are NOT doing all you can to win.

> > > > Try to think of the difference between casual soccer and competitive soccer.

> > >

> > > *There are teams in the game, yes. However, this is not a "team-based" game.* If the game were team based, classes would be far less "Swiss Army Knife" and able to do just about everything.

> > >

> > > **As to "competitive," there is nothing inherently more competitive about playing on a team than there is playing solo.** That's a myth, as any swimmer, surfer or racing sailor could tell you. **The ability to think and act alone is very important.**

> > >

> > > The other reality is that teams would lead to people, ( like myself, ) being excluded. That's not healthy for the game.

> >

> > But It's not something a footballer, basketball player, or rugby player would say.

> > I doubt those guys would want an untested random when their prestige is on the line

>

> These are games with long history, they have a strong tradition of teams.

> Also, somehow individual player's ratings are derived in these "strictly team-based" games, which would imply the community *cares* about solo performance, after all.

 

Season mvps are voted by coaches and/players

 

Other derived bests are on stats. Best at receptions, best at passing, most scores.

 

Hardly anyone would ever agree on a GOAT when labeled just a player.

 

No, normally they are best at a certain thing.

 

Are you saying we should have top spots by the top stat holders?

[Poledra Val.1490]

To be blunt 5v5's team arenas whatever you want to call them wont happen now since the population is very low in pvp. So all this is rather irrelevant. Anet will not probably devote time and resources for this really.

[Ithilwen.1529]

@"Amaranthe.3578"

 

The fact that a game is multi player does not in any way make it "team based." To illustrate the point, consider Poker. It's a multi player game.

It is certainly not "team based." ( Though, there are variations. )

 

GW1 is a "team based" game. Each class has clear weaknesses. These are compensated for by the other players or Heroes/henchmen. GW2 is not "team based." Each class is fully capable of operating solo ( except in circumstances that specifically require teams. )

[Spoichiche.1290]

> @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > @"Spoichiche.1290" said:

> > I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of playing in a team with 4 other players once in a while for AT but i'm a soloQ player.

> > I get more enjoyment playing in soloQ, in a more casual environement, with no need to make calls, order people around or follow someone else's call. It may sound stupid but i prefer playing alone in a team rather than being inherently part of the team. I prefer making my own decisions based on what informations i can gather and let my allies make their own decisions based on what they can gather.

>

> You want casual play in a ranked, competitive and rated game mode instead of in an unranked, casual and unrated game mode?

> Makes perfect sense.

 

To clarify my stance :

I play for 2 and only 2 things, to relax and have fun. That to me is casual play. Ultimately, i couldn't care less about where i place on the leaderboard, i don't care if i end up in plat3 or silver2. Winning or losing have no effect on my personal notion of fun. That said, my personal notion of fun do include trying my best to win and improve myself. I love the moment to moment gameplay of gw2's pvp and playing it to its fullest and getting better at it is what i find fun and relaxing.

However, while i can also find organized 5v5 fun, i don't find it relaxing one bit. The constant need for communication and making calls is tiring to me.

 

Now you could wonder why would i want to play a team based game. And the reason to that is because it's a lot more fun to me. Having to take 9 other players into account when making my decisions is what i find fun. If it wasn't for that, the game would quickly bore me.

And the reason i play in ranked even though i don't care about the competition is because i care about constantly improving myself, and ranked just so happen to be by far the best place for that simply given the nature of the ranking system (and also, better players).

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> @"Amaranthe.3578"

>

> The fact that a game is multi player does not in any way make it "team based." To illustrate the point, consider Poker. It's a multi player game.

> It is certainly not "team based." ( Though, there are variations. )

>

> GW1 is a "team based" game. Each class has clear weaknesses. These are compensated for by the other players or Heroes/henchmen. GW2 is not "team based." Each class is fully capable of operating solo ( except in circumstances that specifically require teams. )

 

[unranked_and_Ranked_Arena](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Structured_PvP#Unranked_and_Ranked_Arena "https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Structured_PvP#Unranked_and_Ranked_Arena")

 

This says it consists of "**teams**" of 5

 

 

TEAMS of five

 

# teams of 5

 

 

my echo got louder...weird

[Ithilwen.1529]

You're confusing two different senses of the word "team." I would point out to you that a "pickup" game of volleyball or basketball or whatever is still considered to have "teams."

 

Yes there are sides or teams in a casual sense.. but that does not make the game "team based" in the sense that it's designed for organized teams.

[BeLZedaR.4790]

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> I can't help but to wonder if the majority of the "No" votes is comprised of people who don't quite understand exactly what is happening. It's kind of like when someone votes for a candidate because they liked his attitude, but they have little understanding of government functions.

 

So because people disagree with you they are clueless?

Nah I understand what's down. Here's a thing though. If I want to play 5 man matches, I'm not gonna do that on ranked anyways when there's ATs. Granted there needs to be more than 4 ATs a day, but AT is a better format for 5 man queing.

Also I like to play alone here and there. Don't see a reason to block off that option.

[Griever.8150]

> @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> The 2nd option makes zero sense...if you have a network of friends you just queue up with whoever is on or just grab people from LFG.

> If you just want to do you own thing why do you care if its unranked? your are clearly not trying your best to win/improve/compete.

> Would you feel the same if the rewards from that unranked/solo-queue were the same or almost the same as the rewards from ranked? I would bet that this is a reward issue...which really shouldnt be the reason people go to play ranked.

 

The second option makes perfect sense. Its entirely possible to have a network of friends and only occasionally be able to line up your schedule to do something with them. As a matter of fact its almost unavoidable as you go through life. Its a common and documented phenomenon which applies just as much to online friendship as real life ones.

 

Besides if you have to resort to LFGing randoms to fill your group, how is that any better than what we have now?

 

And yes i would care if the only SoloQ system was unranked because...hell have you played unranked at all recently? Its a flustercuck. There's no rhyme or reason as far as matchmaking goes so game quality is pretty much a roller-coaster. My enjoyement from ranked isn't just from the reward, its also from playing more games (its far from being a 100% ratio i'll admit) that somewhat feel "right".

 

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> Let us not forget GW1, a huge success that did what you tried to snarkily negate.

> Owned

 

You do understand how different the gaming landscape was back then right? At that time what were your option for a "PvP RPG?. GW1, WoW battlegrounds (who had a sub fee) and Diablo 2 duel rooms pretty much lol.

 

There's a reason why people back then also enjoyed spending 4 hours, 4-5 days a week in Molten Core or in my case, just running Meph Runs or Baal Runs in Diablo 2 while blasting some Linkin Park/Simple Plan/Avril Lavigne (don't judge me) for entire evenings. The gaming offer was much smaller.

 

Now there's literally a dozen of game people can switch too (in many cases with no barrier of entry) if they get sick of this game or feel its not worth playing anymore.

 

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:

> I can't help but to wonder if the majority of the "No" votes is comprised of people who don't quite understand exactly what is happening. It's kind of like when someone votes for a candidate because they liked his attitude, but they have little understanding of government functions.

 

I imagine you refer to the fact that a lot of top players (Chaith and Phantaram for example) quit or are wanting to quit due to poor game quality. Its definitively something i want to see fixed and would completely support any efforts Anet would do to create a better environement for that caliber of player as i love watching high level games. Except killing SoloQ, because it makes everything worse for basically everyone else.

 

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

 

> > @"Sampson.2403" said:

> > 5 man team requirements belong in a tournament game mode

>

> you are right.

> and, when they release swiss/on-demand, ranked will simply be a better paying warm-up

>

 

I have no real issues with that.

 

 

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"Griever.8150" said:

> > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > The 2nd option makes zero sense...if you have a network of friends you just queue up with whoever is on or just grab people from LFG.

> > If you just want to do you own thing why do you care if its unranked? your are clearly not trying your best to win/improve/compete.

> > Would you feel the same if the rewards from that unranked/solo-queue were the same or almost the same as the rewards from ranked? I would bet that this is a reward issue...which really shouldnt be the reason people go to play ranked.

>

> The second option makes perfect sense. Its entirely possible to have a network of friends and only occasionally be able to line up your schedule to do something with them. As a matter of fact its almost unavoidable as you go through life. Its a common and documented phenomenon which applies just as much to online friendship as real life ones.

>

> Besides if you have to resort to LFGing randoms to fill your group, how is that any better than what we have now?

>

> And yes i would care if the only SoloQ system was unranked because...hell have you played unranked at all recently? Its a flustercuck. There's no rhyme or reason as far as matchmaking goes so game quality is pretty much a roller-coaster. My enjoyement from ranked isn't just from the reward, its also from playing more games (its far from being a 100% ratio i'll admit) that somewhat feel "right".

>

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > Let us not forget GW1, a huge success that did what you tried to snarkily negate.

> > Owned

>

> You do understand how different the gaming landscape was back then right? At that time what were your option for a "PvP RPG". GW1, WoW battlegrounds (who had a sub fee) and Diablo 2 duel rooms pretty much lol.

>

> There's a reason why people back then also enjoyed spending 4 hours, 4-5 days a week in Molten Core or in my case, just running Meph Runs or Baal Runs in Diablo 2 while blasting some Linkin Park/Simple Plan/Avril Lavigne (don't judge me) for entire evenings. The gaming offer was much smaller.

>

> Now there's literally a dozen of game people can switch too (in many cases with no barrier of entry) if they get sick of this game or feel its not worth playing anymore.

 

Then who cares?

Honestly. Do you**?** When the game is dead, it will be dead. You want solo, I want teams. We both have suggested our valid reasons. Neither one is wrong or bad in anyway.

 

Nothing personal about it. We probably have even had civil games together and against.

 

More than likely, it will stay the same. I will be SOL.

 

That's life. Thats GW2

 

[Griever.8150]

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > @"Griever.8150" said:

> > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > The 2nd option makes zero sense...if you have a network of friends you just queue up with whoever is on or just grab people from LFG.

> > > If you just want to do you own thing why do you care if its unranked? your are clearly not trying your best to win/improve/compete.

> > > Would you feel the same if the rewards from that unranked/solo-queue were the same or almost the same as the rewards from ranked? I would bet that this is a reward issue...which really shouldnt be the reason people go to play ranked.

> >

> > The second option makes perfect sense. Its entirely possible to have a network of friends and only occasionally be able to line up your schedule to do something with them. As a matter of fact its almost unavoidable as you go through life. Its a common and documented phenomenon which applies just as much to online friendship as real life ones.

> >

> > Besides if you have to resort to LFGing randoms to fill your group, how is that any better than what we have now?

> >

> > And yes i would care if the only SoloQ system was unranked because...hell have you played unranked at all recently? Its a flustercuck. There's no rhyme or reason as far as matchmaking goes so game quality is pretty much a roller-coaster. My enjoyement from ranked isn't just from the reward, its also from playing more games (its far from being a 100% ratio i'll admit) that somewhat feel "right".

> >

> > > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > > Let us not forget GW1, a huge success that did what you tried to snarkily negate.

> > > Owned

> >

> > You do understand how different the gaming landscape was back then right? At that time what were your option for a "PvP RPG". GW1, WoW battlegrounds (who had a sub fee) and Diablo 2 duel rooms pretty much lol.

> >

> > There's a reason why people back then also enjoyed spending 4 hours, 4-5 days a week in Molten Core or in my case, just running Meph Runs or Baal Runs in Diablo 2 while blasting some Linkin Park/Simple Plan/Avril Lavigne (don't judge me) for entire evenings. The gaming offer was much smaller.

> >

> > Now there's literally a dozen of game people can switch too (in many cases with no barrier of entry) if they get sick of this game or feel its not worth playing anymore.

>

> Then who cares?

> Honestly. Do you**?** When the game is dead, it will be dead. You want solo, I want teams. We both have suggested our valid reasons. Neither one is wrong or bad in anyway.

>

> Nothing personal about it. We probably have even had civil games together and against.

>

> More than likely, it will stay the same. I will be SOL.

>

> That's life. Thats GW2

>

 

I'm not taking it personal, i'm just explaining my point of view on the matter, its kind of the point of a forum, lol.

 

 

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"Griever.8150" said:

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > > @"Griever.8150" said:

> > > > @"Amaranthe.3578" said:

> > > > The 2nd option makes zero sense...if you have a network of friends you just queue up with whoever is on or just grab people from LFG.

> > > > If you just want to do you own thing why do you care if its unranked? your are clearly not trying your best to win/improve/compete.

> > > > Would you feel the same if the rewards from that unranked/solo-queue were the same or almost the same as the rewards from ranked? I would bet that this is a reward issue...which really shouldnt be the reason people go to play ranked.

> > >

> > > The second option makes perfect sense. Its entirely possible to have a network of friends and only occasionally be able to line up your schedule to do something with them. As a matter of fact its almost unavoidable as you go through life. Its a common and documented phenomenon which applies just as much to online friendship as real life ones.

> > >

> > > Besides if you have to resort to LFGing randoms to fill your group, how is that any better than what we have now?

> > >

> > > And yes i would care if the only SoloQ system was unranked because...hell have you played unranked at all recently? Its a flustercuck. There's no rhyme or reason as far as matchmaking goes so game quality is pretty much a roller-coaster. My enjoyement from ranked isn't just from the reward, its also from playing more games (its far from being a 100% ratio i'll admit) that somewhat feel "right".

> > >

> > > > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > > > Let us not forget GW1, a huge success that did what you tried to snarkily negate.

> > > > Owned

> > >

> > > You do understand how different the gaming landscape was back then right? At that time what were your option for a "PvP RPG". GW1, WoW battlegrounds (who had a sub fee) and Diablo 2 duel rooms pretty much lol.

> > >

> > > There's a reason why people back then also enjoyed spending 4 hours, 4-5 days a week in Molten Core or in my case, just running Meph Runs or Baal Runs in Diablo 2 while blasting some Linkin Park/Simple Plan/Avril Lavigne (don't judge me) for entire evenings. The gaming offer was much smaller.

> > >

> > > Now there's literally a dozen of game people can switch too (in many cases with no barrier of entry) if they get sick of this game or feel its not worth playing anymore.

> >

> > Then who cares?

> > Honestly. Do you**?** When the game is dead, it will be dead. You want solo, I want teams. We both have suggested our valid reasons. Neither one is wrong or bad in anyway.

> >

> > Nothing personal about it. We probably have even had civil games together and against.

> >

> > More than likely, it will stay the same. I will be SOL.

> >

> > That's life. Thats GW2

> >

>

> I'm not taking it personal, i'm just explaining my point of view on the matter, its kind of the point of a forum, lol.

>

>

 

Oh yeah, I know. I respect your view. That was my tone. Hard to convey in typed words.

[Crinn.7864]

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > > they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

> > >

> > > you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

> > >

> > > cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

> >

> > Yes LoL, Overwatch, etc are massive failures by catering to anything other than full team queues and players who play for hours each day, whilst Wildstar was a huge success catering to hardcore players.

> >

> >

>

> Let us not forget GW1, a huge success that did what you tried to snarkily negate.

 

Anet ceased development of GW1 2 years after it released. GW2 is currently in it's 6th year.

 

You have a strange definition of success.

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"Crinn.7864" said:

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > > > they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

> > > >

> > > > you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

> > > >

> > > > cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

> > >

> > > Yes LoL, Overwatch, etc are massive failures by catering to anything other than full team queues and players who play for hours each day, whilst Wildstar was a huge success catering to hardcore players.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Let us not forget GW1, a huge success that did what you tried to snarkily negate.

>

> Anet ceased development of GW1 2 years after it released. GW2 is currently in it's 6th year.

>

> You have a strange definition of success.

 

In two years that crew got it right, and this one could not after six?

 

Brosef, two years?

Are you disabled?

[https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Beyond](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Beyond "https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Beyond")

[https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Winds_of_Change](https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Winds_of_Change "https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Winds_of_Change")

 

not even gonna count all the balance updates until GW2 came out.

 

Come prepared. or get blown away.

 

OWNED

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"Crinn.7864" said:

> > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > > @"zinkz.7045" said:

> > > > @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > > > they needed to work out past bugs, sure. but, making pvp a casual endeavor is what ultimately made it lose a lot of it's popularity.

> > > >

> > > > you can try to argue against it, but look at GW1 elite pvp. It was team required and was poppin all of the games prime life.

> > > >

> > > > cater to casuals in competitive environment and this is what we get

> > >

> > > Yes LoL, Overwatch, etc are massive failures by catering to anything other than full team queues and players who play for hours each day, whilst Wildstar was a huge success catering to hardcore players.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Let us not forget GW1, a huge success that did what you tried to snarkily negate.

>

> Anet ceased development of GW1 2 years after it released. GW2 is currently in it's 6th year.

>

> You have a strange definition of success.

 

I need to knock you out one more time.

 

So, in the short life of GW1 it had 3 main gmaes, 1 major XP, and two minor xps

 

six releases / how many years?

 

GW2 has 1 game, 2 xps, and 4 minor releases....

 

seven releases/6 years

 

"yo, ref...start the count"

[Tiah.3091]

> @"zinkz.7045" said:

> Yes LoL, Overwatch, etc are massive failures by catering to anything other than full team queues and players who play for hours each day, whilst Wildstar was a huge success catering to hardcore players.

 

As much as I did love Wildstar, look at where it is now (they are closing the servers). And look where LoL and Overwatch are now.

 

I'm not saying, that catering to the needs of hardcore players did it alone to Wildstar.

One can argument, that it was more of a poor marketing and zero advertizing fault. But what is a goal of advertizing an MMO? **To get more players, of course!**

 

And most players are in fact casuals. Casuals, that pay money. Without money flow every project will die eventually. Even as genius, as Wildstar ( best MMO in decades, IMO)

Devs can carry on on pure enthusiasm only that much (not much really).

 

LoL and Overwatch (and literally every other successul game) lives and breathes thanks **EXCLUSIVELY** to casual players.

 

----

Speaking of ranked 5v5:

I played in a semi-competitive team of 5 at the start of the game in 2012. It was fun sometimes, but I left eventually because of that.

Didn't want to follow orders and play builds/profs, that I didn't like, and which my team members were FORCING me to play.

It simply became unfun.

Plus schedules, plus drama.

 

Why you don't like the AT format, on the other hand, I don't understand.

Add a separate AT "ladder" and everyone's happy.