Guild Wars 2

I don’t have the time to participate in paid tPvP so im asking those that do:

Have we seen any creative team builds gain traction yet?

Any janky combinations of weapons and skill sets that created a new and unique approach to defeating your enemy?

Like, can you hear that a good team is running ladder with a solid healing testicle and have your team roll ranger interupt or mesmer drain to snipe them?

Or even say some small team variances, like in GvG where you could swap an emo runner for a cs ranger if you knew the enemy was using a heal monk instead of double boon prot. Or use 3 warriors if you thought youd play a team whos positioning was sometimes poor. O
rOr a hex necro if you were facing a 3 war build like war machine always ran.
Or is the game still… a care bear pve game with pvp modes thrown in as an after thought but hyped as a aaa esport material predecessor to gw1?

At least blizzard had the decency to admit fault and appologize, allbeit they fed up worse at launch.

I run d/d necro in paids but had to switch to condi, people don’t want the meta to change. You see the same builds all day.

All guilds run the same: 2 bunkers, 1 portal mes, 1 condi pressurer, 1 burst damage
Quite said.. I miss GW1 PvP, and all the different team builds.

It seems a bit insane to talk about a meta when there are only a handful of teams actually taking this game seriously at the moment.

Atlas.6901:

It seems a bit insane to talk about a meta when there are only a handful of teams actually taking this game seriously at the moment.

This excuse is getting old, really.

Mrbig.8019:

Atlas.6901:

It seems a bit insane to talk about a meta when there are only a handful of teams actually taking this game seriously at the moment.

This excuse is getting old, really.

Explain what it’s an excuse for, then explain how it makes sense to discuss a meta given the size of the population. While, meta defined broadly can mean any second- or third- level decisionmaking based on what you see your opponent doing, it’s typically used to describe the ebb and flow of established strategies that trickle down through the community as a whole. Right now, there’s not much to discuss.

Mrbig.8019:

Atlas.6901:

It seems a bit insane to talk about a meta when there are only a handful of teams actually taking this game seriously at the moment.

This excuse is getting old, really.

it’s true though, there are maybe 8 legit teams on NA if that

Probably because GW2 doesn’t encourage TPvP at all.

EU players are actively trying to develop their meta, but with the current systems and designs in place I don’t see much room for it to evolve. Everything’s balanced around point holding. There can technically be many strategies and builds revolving around that, but it’s still only one narrow objective and the current maps don’t allow for much variance in achieving it.

Atlas.6901:

Mrbig.8019:

Atlas.6901:

It seems a bit insane to talk about a meta when there are only a handful of teams actually taking this game seriously at the moment.

This excuse is getting old, really.

Explain what it’s an excuse for, then explain how it makes sense to discuss a meta given the size of the population. While, meta defined broadly can mean any second- or third- level decisionmaking based on what you see your opponent doing, it’s typically used to describe the ebb and flow of established strategies that trickle down through the community as a whole. Right now, there’s not much to discuss.

i would say…

Rika.7249:

Probably because GW2 doesn’t encourage TPvP at all.

And anyway, there’s no need for “thousands of players” to develop a meta. A meta is about OP stuff ( in a team play environment) and counters to them, and you don’t need tons of player to estabilish a meta.

usually the meta develops into “coutners and counters to counters”, in GW2 there’s no effective counter to anything , simply a “counterbunker” and “counterpressure”, in order to avoid full bunkers or full burst teams.

In other words, the meta is stagnant into the “2 bunker+mes+roamer+necro” design due to lack of sinergy/efficiency of balanced builds, due to lack of viable balanced builds and due to the very game mode nature ( conquest, awarding fast capping-killing- and bunkering).

the meta was there from the start, we all knew bunkering and roaming would rule supreme, and we hoped aNet would be able to find a way to avoid this boring meta to develop.

Actually they’re failing hard on it, and the lack of build divesity, incentives to play tPvP and OP comps abused to their maximum are really driving away players from tPvP, also making the game to struggle on its e-sport nature.

This is coming from a S/D thief, which build was totally destroyed by a senseless nerf that only polarized the already poor thief profession into 2 viable playstyles whose all players all complaining about.

If the game doesn’t encourage me to play tPvP, if current balance doesn’t encourage me to play tPvP, i simply won’t.

it was a very bad move releasing point control mode instead of team DM. i think that decision in itself killed tpvp.

conquest doesn’t get played in high level fps tournaments because the mode has little strategic depth. it’s boring.

I think the thing that makes LoL popular to watch is that every match is a build up in terms of power and escalation of the map all heading for the finish.

It’s like a story where a character starts weak, trains to gain more power and is finally able to overcome his enemy at the end.

When you watch LoL you are watching for small good plays at first and to see who might get an advantage or take a lead.

You’re waiting for the big plays at the end and it’s all building up to the final rush to destroy the base.

It starts slow and it builds up and up in power and speed, an escalating story that finishes very quickly.

But, with a chance for the enemy team to turn it around near the end, it doesn’t happen too often but there is always a chance.

The take and hold of 3 bases doesn’t have any kind of momentum like this.

Essentially you both hold your home point and fight over a mid point, the one that holds the mid point the longest wins.
This is generally achieved with about 2 big fights at mid, the winner normally of 2 big fights normally having enough of an advantage to then just bunker down and hold on to the end.

GW2 doesn’t speed up and escalate all the way to the end for a fantastic finish, infact at the end it feels like it slows down, becomes cautious and safe. Like the slow steady Turtle racing the Rabbit.

The most popular CS map was the de_ (defuse maps) this also works in the same principle as the escalating story.

You start off with how people deploy and tactics, people take a few shots at each other and try to gain an early advantage. At some point the Terrorists rush to get the bomb down (full escalation of the story) and then it’s up to the CTs to finish them and defuse it in time. There are chances for last stands, turn arounds or all out destruction.

Now of course an FPS plays a little differently with the way one can kill 5 much easier, and no respawns.
But, the way the maps escalate and build up to an intense finish is what makes it fun to watch.

While GW2 remains in a state of bunkers to hold points safely and a game type of both hold 1 point, fight over the middle it will always be too cautious, this gametype promotes a cautious approach.

You watch people in sPvP try to take 3 points and leave the others wide open, it’s more active and exciting to play and watch but it’s a bad strategy because you get backcapped.

The way to win 3 point take and hold is to take 2 points and sit on them for as long as possible, playing defensively. (Boring to watch). An anti-climax.

If anything, Temple could be the most fun map to watch as the steady nature of 3 point take and hold, the current meta and the way the scores generally go up equally with a slowly increasing advantage held by the team that wins the few group fights can all be turned on it’s head by the buff that spawns to allow one team to claim all 3 points.
However, the problem is that if the enemy team is just safely bunkering those points like the gametype dictates that they should to win they will just neutralise them about 4 seconds later because they are already standing on them.

Take and hold 3 points will probably never end up as an exciting thing to watch because there’s no build up, no sprint to the finish.

Meta? What meta?

Kid Taylor.5479:

Meta? What meta?

Heavy bunker, back bunker with travel/port capability, roamer/support, burst roamer, condi roamer. It is a meta technically…

@OP: It’s stagnant and all the math and theorycrafting in the game only further reinforces the same stagnant meta unless some fairly sweeping changes occur. ATM each class only has 1-2 BiS builds, some classes are just crap all around compared to better choices from a paper theory/mathematical standpoint with a hypothetical equal skill level from all participants.

Patch tomorrow though, maybe we’ll be surprised.

I guess we live in an age where large companies typically admit fault and hustle to make things right, even if it means taking a small loss because maintaining the company name (and doing right by the fans) is more important.

Instead were seeing too few promises about how they’ll add the features it was glaringly missing 1/2 a year or more later. With no apOgy, no hustle to do right, and still leaving many complaints unaddressed even in promise let alone deed.

All this after what, 10 years?

This is george lucas status right here. Even the crystal skull was a less awful sequel. Im not talking about some dissapointed hardcore fan. Anet should run for congress.

Ezrael.6859:

I think the thing that makes LoL popular to watch is that every match is a build up in terms of power and escalation of the map all heading for the finish.

It’s like a story where a character starts weak, trains to gain more power and is finally able to overcome his enemy at the end.

When you watch LoL you are watching for small good plays at first and to see who might get an advantage or take a lead.

You’re waiting for the big plays at the end and it’s all building up to the final rush to destroy the base.

It starts slow and it builds up and up in power and speed, an escalating story that finishes very quickly.

But, with a chance for the enemy team to turn it around near the end, it doesn’t happen too often but there is always a chance.

The take and hold of 3 bases doesn’t have any kind of momentum like this.

Essentially you both hold your home point and fight over a mid point, the one that holds the mid point the longest wins.
This is generally achieved with about 2 big fights at mid, the winner normally of 2 big fights normally having enough of an advantage to then just bunker down and hold on to the end.

GW2 doesn’t speed up and escalate all the way to the end for a fantastic finish, infact at the end it feels like it slows down, becomes cautious and safe. Like the slow steady Turtle racing the Rabbit.

The most popular CS map was the de_ (defuse maps) this also works in the same principle as the escalating story.

You start off with how people deploy and tactics, people take a few shots at each other and try to gain an early advantage. At some point the Terrorists rush to get the bomb down (full escalation of the story) and then it’s up to the CTs to finish them and defuse it in time. There are chances for last stands, turn arounds or all out destruction.

Now of course an FPS plays a little differently with the way one can kill 5 much easier, and no respawns.
But, the way the maps escalate and build up to an intense finish is what makes it fun to watch.

While GW2 remains in a state of bunkers to hold points safely and a game type of both hold 1 point, fight over the middle it will always be too cautious, this gametype promotes a cautious approach.

You watch people in sPvP try to take 3 points and leave the others wide open, it’s more active and exciting to play and watch but it’s a bad strategy because you get backcapped.

The way to win 3 point take and hold is to take 2 points and sit on them for as long as possible, playing defensively. (Boring to watch). An anti-climax.

If anything, Temple could be the most fun map to watch as the steady nature of 3 point take and hold, the current meta and the way the scores generally go up equally with a slowly increasing advantage held by the team that wins the few group fights can all be turned on it’s head by the buff that spawns to allow one team to claim all 3 points.
However, the problem is that if the enemy team is just safely bunkering those points like the gametype dictates that they should to win they will just neutralise them about 4 seconds later because they are already standing on them.

Take and hold 3 points will probably never end up as an exciting thing to watch because there’s no build up, no sprint to the finish.

I agree with all that; conquest is anti-climactic. Instead of being awarded points and/or victory upon completion of a goal like most games, you’re awarded points gradually based on the current situation. There is no final objective to bring to completion, or really big scoring moments for people to stand up and scream GOALLLLL.

Instead of winning/scoring when you accomplish something significant like wiping out the other team, scoring a goal in soccer, diffusing the bomb, or capturing a flag, you accumulate points gradually by maintaining a slight advantage until your score reaches an arbitrary number and the game abruptly ends.

It is a game mode that encourages you to play to run out the clock. You win by taking a small advantage and holding it. Games like starcraft and mobas reward players for taking small advantages as well, but 1. you need to continue to accumulate small advantages throughout the game, and 2. you eventually need to use those small advantages to accomplish something more significant. Conquest has no second phase, you just get an early advantage at the start and then you sit on it while the other team runs out of time. It’s a very boring narrative.

15 second deathmatches arent interesting to watch either. We got a hint of what deathmatch playing is like on the NA servers, yuck

Powerr.3649:

15 second deathmatches arent interesting to watch either. We got a hint of what deathmatch playing is like on the NA servers, yuck

They might not be fun to watch, but they are fun as kitten to play.
I’d at least like the option of deathmatch tPvP + Tourneys.

Football can be about gaining a small advantage and running out the clock. It has lots of viewers.

The issue is in the lack of come-from-behind potential… but im not convinced this game lacks that. I dont have a team and even if i did id be farming free tournies to afford the paid tournies we usually lost.

I will say this game has less come from behind potential than any other spectated games which come to mind, but there might be enough to make it interesting.

I wouldnt know, i havent had the chance to spectate any games, because anet launched without a spectator mode, then made it illegal to monitize videos of their gameplay, so all teams worth watching quit. …

Someone at anet is a poop face, and i dont know who, but they smell awful

You can’t compare it to football.

I thought about this when writing the post and how football often can be a very slow paced and safe gametype. Those matches are often boring to watch and not exciting though.

But people still watch them, and care about them? Yes they do, but football is a real sport and it is like a way of life for many supporters. Football is the biggest sport around the world and you can’t compare video games to football.

Although we know real people are playing, we don’t really care. We know it’s only pixels and that when they win all that happens is that some pixels change.

Sport is real in every way that an e-sport isn’t.

E-sport is interesting when people are playing for real money yes and it can be exciting to watch big tournaments.

But you will never have the same comprehensive following and care for it as people will have for real sports because all aspects of real sports are real. On the pitch and off the pitch.

Video game tournaments need to be faster paced, exciting and end in climaxes or people won’t watch them.
They need to be explosive action movies, not steady documentaries.

Imagine a game of football with 3 goals, each team has a goalkeeper in 1 goal and the other goal is left free. The teams now play 4v4 around the 3rd goal.
Wait dammit no, football is always just more interesting.

if you scored points for holding the ball in football your analogy might have worked. In that case football would be horribly boring like gw2.

I wasn’t being serious with the analogy
Football and video games are two entirely different things and they simply can’t be compared.

All I’m aiming for is to say that GW2’s tournament gameplay just needs a more exciting format or change that causes the gameplay to escalate to a big finish and with a chance for the other team to mount a real comeback.

Right now it’s slow paced, safe and not exciting to watch.

imo they need bigger maps, more game types, and maybe even bigger teams for more excitement. 5v5 conquest with 3 points so close together is boring as hell. I don’t even bother watching the few videos that are out there between top teams. I’d rather watch wild bill or someone fighting 1v1s out in WvW.

There’s also too many spell effects, too much aoe, etc. I just don’t ever see it being an esport.