2v2 hot-take

[Swagg.9236]

> The 2v2 "deathmatch" mode is basically a bad, 5v5 side-node fight that you can't leave.

 

To elaborate, first ask the question: what establishes the conditions of a "bad, 5v5 side-node fight?" The answer is generally: it's wasted time because the build match-ups are bad. In GW2's 5v5 Conquest mode, one of the worst things that a player (or players) can do is be in a spot which will not contribute to the score counter. This sort of situation can often be circumvented by just using the minimap, thus making it very easy to identify what might be called a "bad rotation" into an unfavorable match-up. Again, since much of this information is freely and gratuitously given via the minimap (which also displays class icons), many classes will outright avoid certain areas of the map based on where certain other classes are. This interaction not only highlights one of the more fundamental issues of GW2's PvP (the overbearing nature of hard-counter dynamics which often suppress player creativity), but it also sort of shows why and how a GW2 PvP, 2v2 deathmatch mode is inherently a bad idea pushed (and to an extent accepted) out of desperation for something other than more Conquest.

 

Effectively, the current 2v2 deathmatch mode in GW2's PvP is a one-way ticket to the **one situation** which anyone playing Conquest **wants to avoid most.** This, however, is **not because it's actual fighting** rather than just doing a maypole dance around the points; the reason why people in Conquest avoid "bad rotations" is because "bad rotations" inherently mean that you're probably going to end up being forced to "fight" someone with a build that is either going to instantly kill you without any effort or a build that will just press buttons and never take any damage from your attacks. It's not a fight; it's a waste of time, and most importantly, **it's entirely dictated by build match-ups**. What this means for 2v2 itself, is that the entire game-mode is just build match-ups. No creativity, no terrain gimmicks, no real strategy. Just builds. Which probably explains why it's dominated by such a tiny number of optimal team set-ups and single builds (because, knowing full well, that you're about to be teleported into an inescapable side-node fight, wouldn't you probably choose the most generically powerful build possible?).

 

> GW2's 2v2 mode kills creativity and gameplay variance by smothering player game-sense

(or what little game-sense you can develop after having your hand permanently held by a super-generous minimap) with a bland buffet of samey builds that all more or less do the same thing, just to a degree that makes them out-compete others in simultaneous self-healing, damage-mitigation and outgoing damage. You'll never have anything but a tiny collection of one-man-armies running around and slapping each other with noodles until somebody makes a mistake. It's a game mode that is not about initiative or maneuvering, but one which digs deep at one of GW2 PvP's biggest flaws: hard-counters conquer all when creative PvP tech options run consistently shallow; and you can't really fight the build that is effectively just your build but better. GW2's 2v2 deathmatch is just the worst part of Conquest.

 

That said, a 3v3 scale might be *slightly* better (and possibly even palatable) for a GW2 "deathmatch" mode, since you get a little more team-play with that size. You can stop with the Best of 5, though. That's tortuous.

 

# Don't wall fashion behind this garbage, by the way, thanks.

[Tman.6349]

Do you play a build that generally has high mobility and allows you to choose weak matchups and quickly beat them into submission or be be on your way to 'win' in some other way elsewhere as you desire if things might go sideways?

[Swagg.9236]

> @"Tman.6349" said:

> Do you play a build that generally has high mobility and allows you to choose weak matchups and quickly beat them into submission or be be on your way to 'win' in some other way elsewhere as you desire?

 

I play core, DPS staff elementalist.

[bigo.9037]

Just delete necro and fb from 2v2 then it works fine and is fun to play

[Swagg.9236]

> @"bigo.9037" said:

> Just delete necro and fb from 2v2 then it works fine and is fun to play

 

You're basically reinforcing my point by condensing the mode's issues down to "delete build X and Y." It's not a matter of which builds are dominant in GW2 2v2 PvP; it's the fact that BUILDS RULE EVERYTHING. There is no room for player creativity, expression or initiative in that mode. It's just a drunken slap-fight with pre-fight build set-ups determining advantage and victors. Delete necro and fb from 2v2, and you'll just have two other builds rule it instead.

[Fueki.4753]

> @"bigo.9037" said:

> Just delete necro and fb from 2v2 then it works fine and is fun to play

While you are at it, banish all thieves and skills that apply stealth from other professions as well from it as well.

 

[Tman.6349]

> @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > @"Tman.6349" said:

> > Do you play a build that generally has high mobility and allows you to choose weak matchups and quickly beat them into submission or be be on your way to 'win' in some other way elsewhere as you desire?

>

> I play core, DPS staff elementalist.

 

Ah yes I see. Basically the same problem but just from the other extreme. 2v2s is definitely gonna favor bruisers. Ele probably has better access to this than some others but their need to specialize presents the same problems.

[bigo.9037]

> @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > @"bigo.9037" said:

> > Just delete necro and fb from 2v2 then it works fine and is fun to play

>

> You're basically reinforcing my point by condensing the mode's issues down to "delete build X and Y." It's not a matter of which builds are dominant in GW2 2v2 PvP; it's the fact that BUILDS RULE EVERYTHING. There is no room for player creativity, expression or initiative in that mode. It's just a drunken slap-fight with pre-fight build set-ups determining advantage and victors. Delete necro and fb from 2v2, and you'll just have two other builds rule it instead.

 

From my experience so far? There is a variety of builds that can work as long as you don't have to think about "can it win vs fb and necro".

 

Every time I did a 2v2 post patch and it wasn't either of those it was 1, a lot more fun and 2 way more balanced and you really felt like it could go either way at least if both teams were equally skilled.

So yea while it might be a bad way to go about it, fb and necro are what is limiting creativity because they are so oppressive.

[Swagg.9236]

> @"Tman.6349" said:

> > @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > > @"Tman.6349" said:

> > > Do you play a build that generally has high mobility and allows you to choose weak matchups and quickly beat them into submission or be be on your way to 'win' in some other way elsewhere as you desire?

> >

> > I play core, DPS staff elementalist.

>

> Ah yes I see. Basically the same problem but just from the other extreme. 2v2s is definitely gonna favor bruisers. Ele probably has better access to this than some others but their need to specialize presents the same problems.

 

And that sort of response again sort of just reinforces my main point in the same way that:

 

> @"bigo.9037" said:

> Just delete necro and fb from 2v2 then it works fine and is fun to play

 

By instantly defaulting to "it's a build problem" response ("bruiser" being a term for "generic DPS lad who self-heals and mitigates damage while doing damage rotations"), you're mostly just reconfirming how GW2's 2v2 PvP is so build-centric that it drowns out player expression and creativity (even moreso than 5v5 already does).

 

> @"bigo.9037" said:

> > @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > > @"bigo.9037" said:

> > > Just delete necro and fb from 2v2 then it works fine and is fun to play

> >

> > You're basically reinforcing my point by condensing the mode's issues down to "delete build X and Y." It's not a matter of which builds are dominant in GW2 2v2 PvP; it's the fact that BUILDS RULE EVERYTHING. There is no room for player creativity, expression or initiative in that mode. It's just a drunken slap-fight with pre-fight build set-ups determining advantage and victors. Delete necro and fb from 2v2, and you'll just have two other builds rule it instead.

>

> From my experience so far? There is a variety of builds that can work as long as you don't have to think about "can it win vs fb and necro".

>

> Every time I did a 2v2 post patch and it wasn't either of those it was 1, a lot more fun and 2 way more balanced and you really felt like it could go either way at least if both teams were equally skilled.

> So yea while it might be a bad way to go about it, fb and necro are what is limiting creativity because they are so oppressive.

 

GW2 is not a game of deep mechanics and player creativity. Being so soon after the patch drop, things are still in flux, but the nature of this game has always been to settle with a very narrow meta of optimal builds which mostly just do the same thing. This patch didn't really change anything aside from the cadence of GW2 PvP combat. This game has no more roles or unique mechanics than it did pre-patch, and that's ultimately going to be the determining factor for what the meta line-ups become in the weeks going forward. Things might look different, but they are quite effectively still the same. Kill fb and necro, and something else is waiting in line right behind it. Kill those, and you'll get something else. If you want to avoid this carousel, you need actual roles in your role-playing video game.

[bigo.9037]

> @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > @"Tman.6349" said:

> > > @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > > > @"Tman.6349" said:

> > > > Do you play a build that generally has high mobility and allows you to choose weak matchups and quickly beat them into submission or be be on your way to 'win' in some other way elsewhere as you desire?

> > >

> > > I play core, DPS staff elementalist.

> >

> > Ah yes I see. Basically the same problem but just from the other extreme. 2v2s is definitely gonna favor bruisers. Ele probably has better access to this than some others but their need to specialize presents the same problems.

>

> And that sort of response again sort of just reinforces my main point in the same way that:

>

> > @"bigo.9037" said:

> > Just delete necro and fb from 2v2 then it works fine and is fun to play

>

> By instantly defaulting to "it's a build problem" response ("bruiser" being a term for "generic DPS lad who self-heals and mitigates damage while doing damage rotations"), you're mostly just reconfirming how GW2's 2v2 PvP is so build-centric that it drowns out player expression and creativity (even moreso than 5v5 already does).

>

> > @"bigo.9037" said:

> > > @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > > > @"bigo.9037" said:

> > > > Just delete necro and fb from 2v2 then it works fine and is fun to play

> > >

> > > You're basically reinforcing my point by condensing the mode's issues down to "delete build X and Y." It's not a matter of which builds are dominant in GW2 2v2 PvP; it's the fact that BUILDS RULE EVERYTHING. There is no room for player creativity, expression or initiative in that mode. It's just a drunken slap-fight with pre-fight build set-ups determining advantage and victors. Delete necro and fb from 2v2, and you'll just have two other builds rule it instead.

> >

> > From my experience so far? There is a variety of builds that can work as long as you don't have to think about "can it win vs fb and necro".

> >

> > Every time I did a 2v2 post patch and it wasn't either of those it was 1, a lot more fun and 2 way more balanced and you really felt like it could go either way at least if both teams were equally skilled.

> > So yea while it might be a bad way to go about it, fb and necro are what is limiting creativity because they are so oppressive.

>

> GW2 is not a game of deep mechanics and player creativity. Being so soon after the patch drop, things are still in flux, but the nature of this game has always been to settle with a very narrow meta of optimal builds which mostly just do the same thing. This patch didn't really change anything aside from the cadence of GW2 PvP combat. This game has no more roles or unique mechanics than it did pre-patch, and that's ultimately going to be the determining factor for what the meta line-ups become in the weeks going forward. Things might look different, but they are quite effectively still the same. Kill fb and necro, and something else is waiting in line right behind it. Kill those, and you'll get something else. If you want to avoid this carousel, you need actual roles in your role-playing video game.

 

Yea but if you look at it in terms of power levels ( how strong a class or comp is ) then it's a little bit different. If we say fb + necro has power level of 100, necro + ele has maybe 90, and then a bunch of builds that include neither necro or fb are around the _same_ level. Say, maybe 80 or so.

 

You might very well have a new comp wait to be the best if you did remove fb + nec, but that comp most certainly would not be as oppressive as fb + nec currently is, leaving more room for counterplay options and actually being able to play something that isn't the best but still have a better chance of winning than you would if you tried something non fb + nec right now.

[Eurantien.4632]

You can build wars all you want but at a certain point you'll hit a ceiling... smart use of the terrain, actually communicating skill combos with someone else (used to happen pre-HoT), and improving your personal play is what's gonna get you past that ceiling.

[hotte in space.2158]

> @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > @"Tman.6349" said:

> > Do you play a build that generally has high mobility and allows you to choose weak matchups and quickly beat them into submission or be be on your way to 'win' in some other way elsewhere as you desire?

>

> I play core, DPS staff elementalist.

 

Now I understand why you dont like 2v2. If there is any class absolutely wrong choice for 2v2 then its core staff ele.

There are just two solutions for you :

1) Play another class instead of core staff ele

2) Dont play 2v2

btw I like miniseason, 2v2 can really be big fun

[Vancho.8750]

Best 2v2 2 water weavers. People will just quit the match up.

[White Kitsunee.4620]

Hard disagree here.

1.Variety is not a bad thing.

Having 5 game modes that all play the same is much worse.

 

2.While your point about build match ups is true to a certain extent its definitely not the only thing that determines matches.

Adaptation and team gaming is strong.

 

 

3.Build variety does not suffer when you take into context that many builds that don't work in conquest work in 2v2s and vice versa.

 

4.This is a side thing. The main attraction as far as PvP goes is still conquest.

A bad gamemode we can play for a month is good for variety.

[Swagg.9236]

> @"White Kitsunee.4620" said:

> Hard disagree here.

> 1.Variety is not a bad thing.

> Having 5 game modes that all play the same is much worse.

 

Again, what's so different about 2v2 from 5v5? What does 2v2 bring to the table that 5v5 doesn't? Why would anyone playing 5v5 want to get into the situation which is forced upon participants of 2v2? If 5v5 is so heavily controlled by builds and team-comps, how is 2v2 any different (or possibly even worse in this regard)? I don't hate game mode variety either, but GW2's 5v5 and 2v2 modes don't differentiate enough from each other to warrant support like this.

 

 

>

> 2.While your point about build match ups is true to a certain extent its definitely not the only thing that determines matches.

> Adaptation and team gaming is strong.

 

You will never adequately define "adapation" and "team-gaming" in a way which will allow a team of 2 rifle warriors with physical utilities to beat a team of 2 firebrands. I know that I'm drawing a hard line here, but it's for the purpose of establishing the point: GW2 hits a ceiling, after which, pre-game set-up is what determines a winner rather than the active decisions of a mid-match encounter. This is why, wherever you go in GW2 PvP (WvW, Conquest, Stronghold, 2v2), people using one build will groan at the sight of certain other builds or just attempt to avoid other classes entirely. This isn't like Team Fortress 2 or something, where you can pick up meme weapons and top a scoreboard with creative usage or just by being a god at movement; GW2's scoreboard will always consistently reflect the builds that people took into a match far more than how "good" a person is at GW2. In fact, it's far easier to base one's "skill" in GW2 by a metric of knowing good hard-counter match-ups more than mechanical or improvisational skill (because even a build in a hard-counter advantage situation can still lose to its prey if the normal predator just doesn't have cooldown buttons to press vs its opponent(s)).

 

And before you cry about how I used an FPS as an example for problems with a tab-target MMORPG, then, YES, think about that for a second: what sort of mechanics in GW2 REALLY separate the classes out? Who, in a 2v2 especially, brings something truly unique to the table which might adequately warrant a team-play partner build rather than just another copy of itself or another build which more or less just does the same thing? GW2 lacks class differentiation and role depth, and that's what hurts the 2v2 mode most of all: no class brings anything unique to the table in that 2v2 situation, so the mode is just ruled by the class(es) that best perform(s) in dealing damage while self-healing and mitigating incoming effects. There is no Mesmer, or FB, or Necro, or whatever; only "meta."

 

>

> 3.Build variety does not suffer when you take into context that many builds that don't work in conquest work in 2v2s and vice versa.

 

Then why do we have so many build options that don't perform well consistently? That's called bloat.

 

>

> 4.This is a side thing. The main attraction as far as PvP goes is still conquest.

> A bad gamemode we can play for a month is good for variety.

 

This is where I go back to how I said the "2v2 deathmatch mode is inherently a bad idea pushed (and to an extent accepted) out of desperation for something other than more Conquest." It's like everyone who plays GW2 just likes proving my points. And if it's a "side thing," why not just toss it into the unranked slot instead? Or, HEAVEN FORBID, why not ACTUALLY CODE a means of having 2v2 and Conquest both concurrently exist as activities which would contribute to a ranked ladder placement?

[Swagg.9236]

> @"Eurantien.4632" said:

> You can build wars all you want but at a certain point you'll hit a ceiling... smart use of the terrain, actually communicating skill combos with someone else (used to happen pre-HoT), and improving your personal play is what's gonna get you past that ceiling.

 

* There is so little terrain to use in 2v2 that it's laughable that you'd even try to make that point. Denying teleports and invalidating certain classes by standing on a planter just shows how much of a meme that GW2 high-level strategies are.

* Communicating interactions is one of the MOST BASIC THINGS that anyone could hope for from any group of people in any sort of vaguely cooperative environment. The fact that you're relying on this sort of thing as proof of GW2 having a decent skill ceiling is another travesty.

* Personal play can be invalidated by build match-ups. More importantly, even in favorable or "even" build match-ups, there will be a CONSTANT stream of abilities which are just negated by things that a player cannot help (i.e. baked-in evades, dodges, stability, blocks, invulnerabilities) because if you go into a fight and, for some reason, refuse to use all of your best abilities either up-front or very reactively, then the guy on the other side who decides to use all of his best abilities up-front or very reactively will probably either outright win or just swing the momentum very quickly. The problem with GW2 players is that they will use these as arguments against someone's skill level ("Oh, you can't deal with someone negating your effects or attacks, you must be bad"), rather than wondering what things might be like if damage mitigation were something more universally accessible such as by using baseline movement or positioning abilities. As it stands, there is very little variety in gameplay mechanics from class to class in GW2, and what sets certain classes or builds above others is in how certain classes or builds just have more access to the best mechanics (i.e. teleports, damage negation, self-healing, and rapid outgoing damage). The only thing that "improving your personal play" in GW2 really earns anyone is a very passive attitude toward encounters; it turns people into cowards who only engage in fights that they know that they can win or escape from with relative ease.

[Tman.6349]

> @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > @"Tman.6349" said:

> > > @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > > > @"Tman.6349" said:

> > > > Do you play a build that generally has high mobility and allows you to choose weak matchups and quickly beat them into submission or be be on your way to 'win' in some other way elsewhere as you desire?

> > >

> > > I play core, DPS staff elementalist.

> >

> > Ah yes I see. Basically the same problem but just from the other extreme. 2v2s is definitely gonna favor bruisers. Ele probably has better access to this than some others but their need to specialize presents the same problems.

>

> And that sort of response again sort of just reinforces my main point in the same way that:

>

> > @"bigo.9037" said:

> > Just delete necro and fb from 2v2 then it works fine and is fun to play

>

> By instantly defaulting to "it's a build problem" response ("bruiser" being a term for "generic DPS lad who self-heals and mitigates damage while doing damage rotations"), you're mostly just reconfirming how GW2's 2v2 PvP is so build-centric that it drowns out player expression and creativity (even moreso than 5v5 already does).

>

> > @"bigo.9037" said:

> > > @"Swagg.9236" said:

> > > > @"bigo.9037" said:

> > > > Just delete necro and fb from 2v2 then it works fine and is fun to play

> > >

> > > You're basically reinforcing my point by condensing the mode's issues down to "delete build X and Y." It's not a matter of which builds are dominant in GW2 2v2 PvP; it's the fact that BUILDS RULE EVERYTHING. There is no room for player creativity, expression or initiative in that mode. It's just a drunken slap-fight with pre-fight build set-ups determining advantage and victors. Delete necro and fb from 2v2, and you'll just have two other builds rule it instead.

> >

> > From my experience so far? There is a variety of builds that can work as long as you don't have to think about "can it win vs fb and necro".

> >

> > Every time I did a 2v2 post patch and it wasn't either of those it was 1, a lot more fun and 2 way more balanced and you really felt like it could go either way at least if both teams were equally skilled.

> > So yea while it might be a bad way to go about it, fb and necro are what is limiting creativity because they are so oppressive.

>

> GW2 is not a game of deep mechanics and player creativity. Being so soon after the patch drop, things are still in flux, but the nature of this game has always been to settle with a very narrow meta of optimal builds which mostly just do the same thing. This patch didn't really change anything aside from the cadence of GW2 PvP combat. This game has no more roles or unique mechanics than it did pre-patch, and that's ultimately going to be the determining factor for what the meta line-ups become in the weeks going forward. Things might look different, but they are quite effectively still the same. Kill fb and necro, and something else is waiting in line right behind it. Kill those, and you'll get something else. If you want to avoid this carousel, you need actual roles in your role-playing video game.

 

Well tbh, my point was the idea of the game mode itself condoning use of particular builds. The EXACT SAME THING as conquest (although it does allow for more variety the roles are still best streamlined), WvW, and the varieties of PvE content.

 

My original dig at the idea that playing a thief or any other 'snipe' build is detrimental is the opposite end of the spectrum from staff Ele for a mode that is a close ranged battle to the death. Just as thief jumps in, cleans house (or gets dirty), and gets out was a contrast to staff Ele which is position dependant and would rather never have a direct engagement.

 

I know that if I was complaing about conquest and how my mid-bunker Mesmer or my backcapping Necro isn't holding up, you would surely tell me 'hey you're doing it wrong!'.

 

As I suggested though, surely Ele is flexible enough to come up with at least something productive here if you are. If not, maybe Ele isn't where it should be with some build craft and we can start a thread about that.

 

I didn't mean anything provocative or dismisssive ever. Good luck.