Q:
Deathmatch & KingoftheHill: coming, but when?
They should have kittening scrapped conquest ages ago.
If they threw GW2 into a token MMO map, people would still be playing the game.
GW2 would actually be a fun game, with a few tweaks most notably to particle effects, to play group v group.
It’s their own stubborn fault this game is dead.
(edited by garethh.3518)
They should have kittening scrapped conquest ages ago.
+1
no idea why people think this is a good main game mode never has been in any MMO I have played.
Xomox ~Human Necro/Engineer ET
Conquest was a solid decision for a first game mode. Among other things, it encourages:
1. Team splits. These are necessary for professions that excel in smaller engagements.
2. Build variety. Without the trinity, a pure teamfight mode would generally have two roles: group support (guardians) and group dps/control (warriors, necros). Conquest creates the role of roamer, bunker, and nodefighter, while keeping the roles of group support and group dps.
3. Mobility. Some professions have better mobility than others; this needed to be rewarded without being overpowered. Conquest does that.
New modes will be fun as well, but I don’t think it’s a simple as “Here’s king of the hill guys! Have fun discovering which three professions are best at it!” Nor is it simply a matter of homogenizing all the professions so they’ll all be equally good at it.
Conquest was a solid decision for a first game mode. Among other things, it encourages:
1. Team splits. These are necessary for professions that excel in smaller engagements.
2. Build variety. Without the trinity, a pure teamfight mode would generally have two roles: group support (guardians) and group dps/control (warriors, necros). Conquest creates the role of roamer, bunker, and nodefighter, while keeping the roles of group support and group dps.
3. Mobility. Some professions have better mobility than others; this needed to be rewarded without being overpowered. Conquest does that.New modes will be fun as well, but I don’t think it’s a simple as “Here’s king of the hill guys! Have fun discovering which three professions are best at it!” Nor is it simply a matter of homogenizing all the professions so they’ll all be equally good at it.
Oh sure it was a solid idea… IF the dev team could build on it.
In an ideal world sure they would be able to retain depth and engagement while having those splits in a completely unique map type (build variety is unrelated)
BUT, and it is a big but, the devs have to keep up.
Conquest, this conquest, it forces splits, which means characters have to have MOBA level depth to make it work. In MMOs the skills tend to be shallow and poorly thought out because they can get away with it, in typical MMOs maps are based around ‘team on team fights’ and that innately makes depth and teamwork…
GW2 tossed that…
For nothing…
It wasn’t a bad idea in literally every regards, but few idea are…
Conquest is a bad idea because it kills GW2, plain and simple.
It could have merits, but in the end those merits are only drawbacks because they cause people to hesitate when deciding whether or not to toss this atrocity of a game-style…
Classes aren’t made with the depth and teamwork to make this conquest work.
The devs have shown time and time again that they can’t make classes like that.
Conquest has to go.
(edited by garethh.3518)
Conquest was a solid decision for a first game mode. Among other things, it encourages:
1. Team splits. These are necessary for professions that excel in smaller engagements.
2. Build variety. Without the trinity, a pure teamfight mode would generally have two roles: group support (guardians) and group dps/control (warriors, necros). Conquest creates the role of roamer, bunker, and nodefighter, while keeping the roles of group support and group dps.
3. Mobility. Some professions have better mobility than others; this needed to be rewarded without being overpowered. Conquest does that.New modes will be fun as well, but I don’t think it’s a simple as “Here’s king of the hill guys! Have fun discovering which three professions are best at it!” Nor is it simply a matter of homogenizing all the professions so they’ll all be equally good at it.
1. Secondary objectives. Also I do not understand how one can sanction the current “meta” where the common 1v2 situations on nodes are essentially a pre-determined fight unless a massive skill difference between players exists.
2. That works on paper, but in reality a too great focus on role specialisation is detrimental.
3. Again, secondary objectives.
Consider that what you wrote mostly reflects current map design dogmas, and doesn’t take into account secondary mechanisms like shrine rezes which would spread the players out in TDM.
In any case, conquest doesn’t have to be taken out. But the decision of ANet to make it the main (only) gamemode was hugely misguided.
New modes will be fun as well, but I don’t think it’s a simple as “Here’s king of the hill guys! Have fun discovering which three professions are best at it!” Nor is it simply a matter of homogenizing all the professions so they’ll all be equally good at it.
It must be taken into consideration that all KotH is essentially, is a Conquest with a single cap point instead of 3. It also rotates that cap point around to different locations, being the same locations that current Conquest points are. So, it definitely fits the scheme and still retains the same type of meta required in the current Conquest.
The one that’ll be really different and really be a ‘wrench tossed in’, will be Team Deathmatch. That itself will push out a lot of builds and marginalize available options. Even some classes might get pushed out of being useful in this mode (expect Thieves to prosper).
snip
Agree to both, although KotH will be plenty different.
Classes aren’t made with the depth and teamwork to make this conquest work.
The devs have shown time and time again that they can’t make classes like that.
Can’t agree there. There are many top-tier builds yet to be discovered, and additionally many that will become top-tier after small fixes/changes to balance. If you don’t like GW2 at the base design level—i.e. you dislike every profession—no new game mode will ever make it enjoyable for you. If you just like debating on the forums of a game you know you’ll never enjoy, I’m happy to oblige but question your decision.
1. Secondary objectives. Also I do not understand how one can sanction the current “meta” where the common 1v2 situations on nodes are essentially a pre-determined fight unless a massive skill difference between players exists.
2. That works on paper, but in reality a too great focus on role specialisation is detrimental.
3. Again, secondary objectives.Consider that what you wrote mostly reflects current map design dogmas, and doesn’t take into account secondary mechanisms like shrine rezes which would spread the players out in TDM.
In any case, conquest doesn’t have to be taken out. But the decision of ANet to make it the main (only) gamemode was hugely misguided.
1. Yes, conquest does encourage 1v2s to a certain extent. They’re far from pre-determined, unless you just mean the single player will probably not kill both attackers. That would be true. Secondary objectives are a good way to encourage team splits but would need to be carefully designed, thus the reason I said the devs couldn’t just slap a KotH map together and call it good.
2. What specifically is detrimental about having role/build variety?
3. Again, secondary objectives take time to design. Shrine rezzes wouldn’t spread out a team in TDM because 5v5 is better than 4v5 with one teammate at a shrine somewhere.
It’s becoming really hip to devbash/conquest bash. The game launched a bit prematurely, at least for PvP, which is why the PvP section of the game has been a bit underdeveloped. Underdeveloped is not the same as poorly developed.
While I would also love to see new game modes being implemented in this game, and therefore the pvp population being given the chance to revive from the coffin it has been heading into as of late, there is a number of assumptions that are rather wrong in this topic, and the whole forum.
1) Conquest IS the most competitive game mode. It has the highest skill cap, most strategic depth and complexity. The one thing ANet has done wrong was not launching it together with a supplementary “fun” game mode for more casual players to enjoy themselves, like deathmatch.
2) It is not conquest per se that’s killing gw2. The main culprit has always been the lack of features and balance updates. It has been a year and we still do not have a way to view our rating in-game. We still lack any incentive to give up going to fractals, and instead go do a few pvp matches. Most importantly though, we absolutely despise the meta-game that has been present for the past few months, many of us being unable to play the professions we like, because they would get completely destroyed by the fotm classes.
3) Game depth and complexity: although there are some broken mechanics that need either fixing, or complete rework, this game is ultimately one of the most complex and engaging MMOs to ever come out. There is plenty of build diversity and depth to the game, people just prefer to copy-paste the builds a few top players like to use (not to mention there truly is just a handful of those players present considering the point 2), instead of making their own. In reality there are dozens of viable builds for each and every class ranging from the low skill tier to top, from team arenas to solo queue, it’s just that people tend to think they are competing at the top level where they need to keep everything optimized for a specific purpose, when they don’t even truly understand the purpose itself.
4) Teamwork and dynamics: it has been the forum whiners that have killed the so-called moba depth and dynamics in this game. Remember the times when you could still adjust your build/amulet/utilities in the middle of a tpvp match to face your opponent better? That was the MOBA depth that could have been engaging in this game. But it’s gone, because of forum whiners who can’t adjust. Simple as that. And this game holds the potential for most rewarding and fun teamplay ever to be seen with the mechanics of combo fields and finishers, they just need some tweaks to be better (and some aoe skills need a major nerf to be in-line). Half of the people on this forum whine about trinity being better, and I can only say I hold such people in very low regard. Trinity doesn’t encourage teamwork, it encourages tunnel vision (read as brain dead) play with each aspect of a fight being dedicated to only one specific role. GW2’s system offers so much more…
The base of this game is incredibly good, it has potential to deliver everything we want it to, but the real problem isn’t core mechanics, or gameplay or any major design flaw, but the inability to build upon that base. In a year, we have seen the meta-game change ONCE in a big manner (some minor team tweaks cannot be considered a meta change), and the change was very forced and not welcome, we have seen but a small number of features being introduced, most of which should have been present in the game at launch, and half of which are still barely usable if at all. I still hold hopes for the future of this game, I just don’t think those hopes will come true anytime soon.
[Path] of the Immortals – a guild for veterans – Join us
[S]illy [L]ittle [U]gly [T]rolls – our little dungeon forum community
“My mind has left, my body follows”
[S]illy [L]ittle [U]gly [T]rolls – our little dungeon forum community
“My mind has left, my body follows”
Classes aren’t made with the depth and teamwork to make this conquest work.
The devs have shown time and time again that they can’t make classes like that.Can’t agree there. There are many top-tier builds yet to be discovered, and additionally many that will become top-tier after small fixes/changes to balance. If you don’t like GW2 at the base design level—i.e. you dislike every profession—no new game mode will ever make it enjoyable for you. If you just like debating on the forums of a game you know you’ll never enjoy, I’m happy to oblige but question your decision.
Since you didn’t seem to read more than a line and then assume what the rest of my post said, I’ll try to make it more clear…
Yes I am criticizing the core design of GW2, no that doesn’t mean ‘no new map would fix that’… on the contrary it is exactly that…
‘More top tier specs’ means nothing.
Spirit rangers were top tier and EVERYONE thinks that hurt the game more than helped.
Undiscovered top tier specs are just as likely to hurt as help.
If you mean your waiting for some miracle spec, like the monk, to crop up and save the game; it’s a year into the game with most everyone gone, you’re praying for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow at this point.
Anyways, to have conquest as the main map, the classes have to be made EXTREMELY well. This conquest is based on scattered skirmishes, meaning the vast majority of the depth comes from what the devs built into your class.
You won’t be playing with allies, and for sure not the same allies all game…. to have teamwork, support need to be this general thing innate to most classes so there is the potential for teamwork and more depth throughout the game.
GW2 doesn’t have that.
To keep fighting dynamic in this conquest, classes have to be made to be extremely deep, more so than MOBAs, through skillshots and/or well made debuffs/counters…
GW2 doesn’t have that.
That doesn’t mean I hate GW2 in every way, it just means this conquest doesn’t fit GW2 in any way. If you read what I wrote, the solution is actually kind of clear…
Make teamwork more accessible.
Make the game have more depth.
A change in map is by far the easiest way to begin fixing the game.
Make GW2 more based off of team v team fights.
(edited by garethh.3518)
1) Conquest IS the most competitive game mode. It has the highest skill cap, most strategic depth and complexity. The one thing ANet has done wrong was not launching it together with a supplementary “fun” game mode for more casual players to enjoy themselves, like deathmatch.
Right. PvP launched at an under-developed state, not a poorly-developed state (except for possibly the original tournament system, which was a placebo meant to offset the lack of matchmaking…so again, under-developed, really).
That doesn’t mean I hate GW2 in every way, it just means this conquest doesn’t fit GW2 in any way. If you read what I wrote, the solution is actually kind of clear…
Make teamwork more accessible.
Make the game have more depth.
A change in map is by far the easiest way to begin fixing the game.
Make GW2 more based off of team v team fights.
I read all of what you wrote both times, but chose not to quote the entire article because it was unnecessary. In a similar fashion, I don’t feel it necessary to answer every issue you have with the game (I’m not getting paid here, I just find some strange satisfaction in this kind of stuff…)
Anet decided against professions having hard counters, as in traditional MMOs (i.e. a dps will beat a healer, unless a tank comes to counter the dps). That didn’t fit their vision for the game—anyone can do anything. If you don’t like that, it’s fine, but it means you shouldn’t ever expect to enjoy GW2.
Does that change the way teamfights work? Yes. Is that bad? Only if you want a traditional MMO. It seems that you want a specific type of “depth” that is based around teamwork and hard counters, like in trinity MMOs. GW2 will never have that. If you want to continue the discussion, you should focus on why you feel other types of game design are better than the path GW2 takes. The devs can’t change base-level design choices that were made five years ago. Again, if you’re just in it for the argument, that’s cool.
Yeah WoW started with a conquest mode called AB it was fun and popular for a time but right when it started getting too stale you also had Warsong capture the flag/flag runnng mode.
When WoW added Deathmatch arena that grew to a level of esport and MMO has never seen before and has not been seen after.
Deathmatch even in GW2 is more complex then people know… given pve stats the trinity is there just not in the same way people are used to there is complex flexibility and choices.
Such a shame some people in Anet has no clue it seems.
Xomox ~Human Necro/Engineer ET
When WoW added Deathmatch arena that grew to a level of esport and MMO has never seen before and has not been seen after.
One of the main selling points for the game was all the ways it was different from WoW. You’re criticizing them for literally their best decision. WoW is still available, btw. If you like it better, only a few bucks a week is keeping you from going back.
When WoW added Deathmatch arena that grew to a level of esport and MMO has never seen before and has not been seen after.
One of the main selling points for the game was all the ways it was different from WoW. You’re criticizing them for literally their best decision. WoW is still available, btw. If you like it better, only a few bucks a week is keeping you from going back.
Deathmatch is not a WoW trademark all the MMOs I have played on the PvP side deathmatch even fights is the highest level of play.
If you want to go down the path of WoWs major flaws it was gear grinding to do PvP.
GW2 now has the gear grinding just like WoW want top stats time to grind for ascended gear to WvW, you could make the argument GW2 has PvP conquest but its a trash boring gamemode no one plays.
What did WoW do right? Dueling, deathmatch, conquest, capture the flag, and even had zergy AV fights (alot like WvW zerging) WoW let the players chose what game mode would be the most popular, GW2 killed the best game mode they had GvGs to try and prop up the failed PvP conquest mode.
Xomox ~Human Necro/Engineer ET
Does that change the way teamfights work? Yes. Is that bad? Only if you want a traditional MMO. It seems that you want a specific type of “depth” that is based around teamwork and hard counters, like in trinity MMOs. GW2 will never have that. If you want to continue the discussion, you should focus on why you feel other types of game design are better than the path GW2 takes. The devs can’t change base-level design choices that were made five years ago. Again, if you’re just in it for the argument, that’s cool.
Yeah you are right, teamfights are different without the healer/tank/dps roles and that isn’t a bad thing.
But I didn’t even mention anything to do with that…
Here, I’ll try to make this as direct as possible.
Token MMOs, the maps are teamfight based.
GW2’s maps are scattered skirmish based.
GW2 has flopped.
GW2 isn’t getting better.
GW2 needs a substantial change and the devs don’t seem apt to much work into it.
That limits the games options substantially.
Does that mean GW2 has to try be a token MMO to do well?
No
Does that mean I want GW2 to play like anything with a healer/tank/dps trinity?
No
Does it mean GW2 can benefit from a tried and true MMO map style?
Yes
A map based on team v team combat, something that really drives other MMOs, is a solid step to fixing GW2. It helps cover up some of the biggest issues in GW2 (what I talked about in every other post) without massive amounts of work and is proven to work.
(edited by garethh.3518)
snip
snip
Later guys, I’m out. Thanks for a semi-fun discussion, but it has long since ceased to go anywhere interesting or constructive. I don’t want to be party to increasing the toxicity of the PvP forums, so I’m bowing out in the hopes that you guys will also lose interest. There’s obviously no common ground we’ll be able to reach, nor will there be any changes proposed that could be useful to the developers. Best of luck.
snip
snip
Later guys, I’m out. Thanks for a semi-fun discussion, but it has long since ceased to go anywhere interesting or constructive. I don’t want to be party to increasing the toxicity of the PvP forums, so I’m bowing out in the hopes that you guys will also lose interest. There’s obviously no common ground we’ll be able to reach, nor will there be any changes proposed that could be useful to the developers. Best of luck.
Well you did mention GW2 selling points….. and they did do a 180 on things like gear progression making it WoW 2.0 something I and others did not want at all.
So yes if you cant admit to that 180 we have no common ground.
Xomox ~Human Necro/Engineer ET
Offtop alert:
Guys, i have a proposal about Game mode: Loof at it if you are interested:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions/Game-mode-Control-over-Map/first#post2893978
Faeleth
So much whining over such trivial things.
WoW never had good PvP. Korean MMOs had good and complex pvp, which us western players would know nothing about, since cooperation and teamwork has always been their domain, rather than ours. The only thing WoW has ever managed to do for the western audience, was ruin the game model of MMO and twist it for many generations of players to come.
Trinity is a boring and stale system that encourages tunnel vision and makes the game not just boring to watch, but play for anybody who wants challenge as well. A trinity based game is like a dumb version of chess with only three types of figures…
[Path] of the Immortals – a guild for veterans – Join us
[S]illy [L]ittle [U]gly [T]rolls – our little dungeon forum community
“My mind has left, my body follows”
[S]illy [L]ittle [U]gly [T]rolls – our little dungeon forum community
“My mind has left, my body follows”