Guild Wars 2

Just wanted to see people opinion on forcing us to play in team of 5 (in official version of the game).
My view is that this is very bad for casual gamer and bad game design.
Game should not be something person dedicates life to, but rather something you come to for relaxation even for 5-10 min.
Now, if you drop into the game you should be able to just jump into ranked 1v1 que and play game or two (spend 5-10 min).
Or you see a buddy of yours who is free and you two make a team and join 2v2 que (or 3v3 if there are 3 of you).
Coordinating with 5 decent players to make decent team of 5 is super painful. You will spend more time making team than actually playing (which is why I do not even try) unless people just dedicated life to this game (which most of the normal people are not prepared to do). People not online…people online but some of them already joined other groups… group made, but soon someone has to go…etc.

Some people say ‘join the dedicated team that has a schedule’….really nonsense, who wants to organize his life around the schedule he obliged to in the game????

People dedicated to playing ‘all weekend (day/night)’ and 2,3,4 hours a night every other day at pre-specified times are people who dedicated life to the game pretty much. It is really funny that anet provided infrastructure for such people only and left the rest of us (casual gamer) without appropriate infrastructure to enjoy the game.

I think that game designers should stop pretending ‘they know the best what is fun and what is not fun’ and just provide decent infrastructure and let people decide what is fun to play/watch.

Really, this is one big fail point of the game. We do not want to be forced to play in teams of 5 players, we just want to have fun whenever we have some time to play games and we want to decide for ourselves what is fun. Stop treating us like idiots.

I think that game designers should stop pretending ‘they know the best what is fun and what is not fun’ and just provide decent infrastructure and let people decide what is fun to play/watch.

THIS x 1000000000000000000000000.

I’ve felt the same way forever.

Someday a great MMO is going to release that actually gets it. Give us the means of having fun on our own time and contraints when it comes to group configuration. Every MMO forces you into 5 man, 10 mans, 15 mans, etc. How about variable? Make a system that scales difficulty/rewards/content based on how many players you have.

This isn’t really the type game you play for 5-10 minutes a day.

It take 5-10 minutes for me to form up a whole group while I can do other stuff during that time and each tournament takes like 30 minutes.

Or you could just hotjoin which is intended for casual play hop in/out whenever.

This isn’t really the type game you play for 5-10 minutes a day.

You’re right, it isn’t. There’s no infrastructure for it. Hence the OP’s post.

It take 5-10 minutes for me to form up a whole group while I can do other stuff during that time and each tournament takes like 30 minutes.

That’s the problem. If there were 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3, particularly death-match and not conquest, tournament games would be shorter.

Or you could just hotjoin which is intended for casual play hop in/out whenever.

Ah, there it is. The other thing no MMO company has seem to figure out. There are players out there that aren’t casual, that are skilled, but who don’t have the time nor interest of finding a bunch of anons to play with and would rather play with a small group of friends or solo — but still compete competitively in the ladders.

LoL figured it out. We just need the LoL developers to make a PvP MMO.

Raytek:
1. You can play however you want. Let me play however I want. I do not tell you ‘do not play 5v5’ if you find that fun. I do not tell people ‘do not play all weekend night/day’ either, play as much as you want, it is your life. But, you do not tell me what to do either. I want solo (1v1) ranked que to be matched with people of similar skill level whenever I feel like jumping into game. I have a right to an infrastructure that matches me with players of similar skill level, the same as you. And I want to be able to jump out of the game whenever I feel like without affecting enjoyment of the game of anyone else. So I will join 5 player team when I have few hours to dedicate, and when I have few minutes, I will do just solo que and jump out whenever I feel like. Fair enough?
2. I do not want to waste 10 minutes forming a group, I have other things to do in life.
3. Tournaments also need to be changed into single match ranked games (random maps). Tourney system is not appropriate for every-day que.
4. No, once ranking system is out I want to be ranked too (and I do not really want to play 5v5). I bought the game, I deserve infrastructure support. Just because I am casual and do not want to waste time on making team of 5 or organize my life around game-schedule, it does not mean I should be forced to play in nonsensical and boring hotjoins. I should be able to join solo que and play people of similar skill level as myself in the game mode I find fun (thus one of the points mandating the need for 1v1 solo que).

What they are afraid of with 1v1 ranking is that it will show how bad class balance is in the game. But they should not be afraid of it but embrace it, because it is essential part of good balancing system (which I will explain in another post when I find time to write it up).

Have to agree with a majority of points raised in this post not sure if 1v1 will show the classes are unbalanced and even if they were the idea of embracing it is just that. Otherwise that whole “hai guys, esportz?” thing is out of the window.

What they are afraid of with 1v1 ranking is that it will show how bad class balance is in the game. But they should not be afraid of it but embrace it, because it is essential part of good balancing system (which I will explain in another post).

This is part of it.

Realistically, the development cost is the major issue. GW2 probably already has such a deeply-engrained infrastructure that such changes would require massive rewrite of code. In other words, it’s the kind of features you need to build from the ground up — like when developing a new game. I’m not hopeful of GW2 having traditional death-match style arena brackets.

As for class balancing and 1v1, there is literally no historical data that 1v1 would impede balancing for other game modes. Why? There is no evidence for it. There is no MMO that has 1v1 PvP brackets, at least no mainstream MMO. Everyone who claims 1v1 would impair balancing has no concrete proof, only theory.

Gilgamesh.2561:

What they are afraid of with 1v1 ranking is that it will show how bad class balance is in the game. But they should not be afraid of it but embrace it, because it is essential part of good balancing system (which I will explain in another post).

This is part of it.

Realistically, the development cost is the major issue. GW2 probably already has such a deeply-engrained infrastructure that such changes would require massive rewrite of code. In other words, it’s the kind of features you need to build from the ground up — like when developing a new game. I’m not hopeful of GW2 having traditional death-match style arena brackets.

As for class balancing and 1v1, there is literally no historical data that 1v1 would impede balancing for other game modes. Why? There is no evidence for it. There is no MMO that has 1v1 PvP brackets, at least no mainstream MMO. Everyone who claims 1v1 would impair balancing has no concrete proof, only theory.

^
Agreed as it’s pretty much truth, especially about the class balancing. People like spouting the whole myth that it’s “impossible” or would “ruin the game” because it’s “bad for MMO’s” but it’s a bunch of hooey. Every time people post about how 1v1 balance would ruin teamplay I would sincerely like to point out every competitive FPS that has ever existed throughout time.

Even TEAMFortress 2, which is massively popular still, has “classes” within it and yet still maintains perfectly viable 1v1 balance between them.

Braxxus.2904:

Gilgamesh.2561:

What they are afraid of with 1v1 ranking is that it will show how bad class balance is in the game. But they should not be afraid of it but embrace it, because it is essential part of good balancing system (which I will explain in another post).

This is part of it.

Realistically, the development cost is the major issue. GW2 probably already has such a deeply-engrained infrastructure that such changes would require massive rewrite of code. In other words, it’s the kind of features you need to build from the ground up — like when developing a new game. I’m not hopeful of GW2 having traditional death-match style arena brackets.

As for class balancing and 1v1, there is literally no historical data that 1v1 would impede balancing for other game modes. Why? There is no evidence for it. There is no MMO that has 1v1 PvP brackets, at least no mainstream MMO. Everyone who claims 1v1 would impair balancing has no concrete proof, only theory.

^
Agreed as it’s pretty much truth, especially about the class balancing. People like spouting the whole myth that it’s “impossible” or would “ruin the game” because it’s “bad for MMO’s” but it’s a bunch of hooey. Every time people post about how 1v1 balance would ruin teamplay I would sincerely like to point out every competitive FPS that has ever existed throughout time.

Even TEAMFortress 2, which is massively popular still, has “classes” within it and yet still maintains perfectly viable 1v1 balance between them.

This is incorrect. TF2 doesn’t have 1v1 balance, and I don’t know how you got that impression. For instance, scouts are significantly better at 1v1 then medic, pyro, demo man, sniper, and spy. It’s kind of like a fancy, skill based rock-paper-scissors.

Couldn’t agree more with you this is the main reason im leaving pvp and just doing casual Pve, completing maps and stuff, which i can do any time i want the amount of time i want, instead of this silly 5v5 system where i have to find people and play for hours obligated.
I guess that was one of the main reasons WoW pvp got so popular, you could just log into the game, find an online friend, do a few arena matches and leave easily.

this is the reason 5v5 arena in wow was least played. really hope anet figures this out

Mufa.1326:

I have a right to an infrastructure that matches me with players of similar skill level, the same as you.+

You have no rights regarding anything in the game. The devs decide what should be put into the game, no one else. You can suggest things, but saying you have a right to something makes you sound like an entitled brat and makes your entire argument seem ridiculous.

As to the problem with 1v1 balance, I gave a rough explanation for why it won’t work in a different (now locked) thread. Simply put: 5v5 demands an entirely different approach to gameplay than 1v1 or 2v2. Skills that are balanced or even weak in 1v1 or 2v2 can be gamebreaking in 5v5 and vice versa. And changing it so that is balanced in the other form might make it useless or gamebreaking in the other.

Vayra.3290:

Mufa.1326:

I have a right to an infrastructure that matches me with players of similar skill level, the same as you.+

You have no rights regarding anything in the game. The devs decide what should be put into the game, no one else. You can suggest things, but saying you have a right to something makes you sound like an entitled brat and makes your entire argument seem ridiculous.

As to the problem with 1v1 balance, I gave a rough explanation for why it won’t work in a different (now locked) thread. Simply put: 5v5 demands an entirely different approach to gameplay than 1v1 or 2v2. Skills that are balanced or even weak in 1v1 or 2v2 can be gamebreaking in 5v5 and vice versa. And changing it so that is balanced in the other form might make it useless or gamebreaking in the other.

Well, with such a crappy attitude (ignoring what large majority of customers want and hurting casual player) devs will certainly lose the following and then good luck selling games in the future.

The explanation you were given is absolute nonsense.
The devs (or whoever sold you that nonsense as ‘explaination’) are obviously clueless how system control works. I will explain later how to balance everything from 1v1 to 5v5.
Here is a hint:
1. You define balance as equal representation for each class in TOP X players in certain setting (such is 1v1 death match, or 5v5 etc).
2. you do not touch great group abilities to balance 1v1 (people will not even use them in 1v1 setups; something that escapes guy that sold u BS). You balance 1v1 by tweaking dmg of the class. You make class pay for CC (or other advantages they have such us great mechanics or great 1v1 utilities) by tweaking their dmg until they are balanced with other classes (See above for definition of balance).
3. Once you have 1v1 balanced, you tweak combo fields to get 2v2 and 3v3 into balance because combo fields are difficult to use too much on single class, but can become very powerful in team of 2 or 3 (just think ele dropping water field and 2 thieves blasting into it).
4. Also you use great group utilities (like powerful group buffs etc) to control 3v3 and 5v5 balance because that is where these will show their power the most (as someone correctly stated, something that is fine in 1v1 may become too powerful in 5v5; incorrectly he sold you that correct statement as an excuse for lack of 1v1 balance). For example if some classes show up too much in 5v5 and 3v3 top rankings but are otherwise balanced in 1v1 and 2v2, you know it is some group utility they bring…is it a teleport, is it 10 sec group haste, is it too powerful rez, too much group healing, too much group might….you look at their builds and you hit appropriate utilities with nerf bat. You do not fumble in the dark like they do now (For example, tou do not tweak dmg of the class in order to balance them in 5v5 setting).

Also, you can tweak fight durations (after balance is achieved) without affecting balance much. You monitor 5%-95% of duration of fights. If 90% of our fights end in 3 seconds, you know your dmg is too high relative to defense, so your main formula that determines dmg needs to be toned down. If 90% of your fights are taking over 10 minutes, then opposite is true…you need to change your main dmg formula so that you increase it over all classes. Of course you need to be careful (because relationship is very non-linear..etc).

In other words, you need to have a plan how to control the system, you have to ‘define what balance means’, you have to have ways of measuring it ‘rankings for each setting per player/class’, you have to know which levers to pull so that you are not disturbing multiple rankings with one lever (i.e. you need to have so to speak ‘independence’ between levers you pull).

This is not so complicated, except for developers of MMOs apparently.

Baam.2493:

This is incorrect. TF2 doesn’t have 1v1 balance, and I don’t know how you got that impression. For instance, scouts are significantly better at 1v1 then medic, pyro, demo man, sniper, and spy. It’s kind of like a fancy, skill based rock-paper-scissors.

Because I can 1v1 anyone on any class with any other class at any time purely depending on skill difference. The rock paper scissors is very very thin in TF2, probably by virtue of it being an FPS which immediately adds a level of balance far above any MMO style gameplay.

Vayra.3290:

As to the problem with 1v1 balance, I gave a rough explanation for why it won’t work in a different (now locked) thread. Simply put: 5v5 demands an entirely different approach to gameplay than 1v1 or 2v2. Skills that are balanced or even weak in 1v1 or 2v2 can be gamebreaking in 5v5 and vice versa. And changing it so that is balanced in the other form might make it useless or gamebreaking in the other.

And the thing was that you were wrong in that other thread too. It’s the same tired MMO “myth” about balance which is just a cop out excuse for lazy balancing teams and development.

Braxxus is completely right here. FPS games (let us ignore TF for a sec) PROVE (without any doubt) that 1v1 balance (which comes automatically) does not make 5v5 balance ‘impossible’ (actually it is prerequisite for it unless we want some classes to just be ignored (severely underrepresented) as is the case now).
So this issue should just be put to rest.
Sit in the corner for a second and think about it again:
FPS games PROVE (without DOUBT) that 1v1 balance does not make 5v5 balance impossible. DONE.
The claim that ‘1v1 balance makes 5v5 balance impossible’ should never ever be repeated again after you grasp above.
And also people who have trouble grasping the above, should not participate in discussions about balance, or design balance for games.

Just give us 1v1 2v2 3v3 and I’ ll call it a day.

@mufa yeah because fps and mmorpg are exactly the same thing

Mufa.1326:

Braxxus is completely right here. FPS games (let us ignore TF for a sec) PROVE (without any doubt) that 1v1 balance (which comes automatically) does not make 5v5 balance ‘impossible’ (actually it is prerequisite for it unless we want some classes to just be ignored (severely underrepresented) as is the case now).
So this issue should just be put to rest.
Sit in the corner for a second and think about it again:
FPS games PROVE (without DOUBT) that 1v1 balance does not make 5v5 balance impossible. DONE.
The claim that ‘1v1 balance makes 5v5 balance impossible’ should never ever be repeated again after you grasp above.
And also people who have trouble grasping the above, should not participate in discussions about balance, or design balance for games.

They don’t prove that at all…
Could you please explain what you think “balance” means? Because ATM its rather unclear to me what you think it is. I also think you don’t fully understand GW2 PvP, balance, and the meta; yet you talk like your opinion is fact. (no offense, but this is starting to kitten me off slightly, pet peeve of mine :P)

Baam.2493:

Mufa.1326:

Braxxus is completely right here. FPS games (let us ignore TF for a sec) PROVE (without any doubt) that 1v1 balance (which comes automatically) does not make 5v5 balance ‘impossible’ (actually it is prerequisite for it unless we want some classes to just be ignored (severely underrepresented) as is the case now).
So this issue should just be put to rest.
Sit in the corner for a second and think about it again:
FPS games PROVE (without DOUBT) that 1v1 balance does not make 5v5 balance impossible. DONE.
The claim that ‘1v1 balance makes 5v5 balance impossible’ should never ever be repeated again after you grasp above.
And also people who have trouble grasping the above, should not participate in discussions about balance, or design balance for games.

They don’t prove that at all…
Could you please explain what you think “balance” means? Because ATM its rather unclear to me what you think it is. I also think you don’t fully understand GW2 PvP, balance, and the meta; yet you talk like your opinion is fact. (no offense, but this is starting to kitten me off slightly, pet peeve of mine :P)

any class can beat any class 1v1 depending on spec, 1v1 would be fine/fun

Sprawl.3891:

Baam.2493:

Mufa.1326:

Braxxus is completely right here. FPS games (let us ignore TF for a sec) PROVE (without any doubt) that 1v1 balance (which comes automatically) does not make 5v5 balance ‘impossible’ (actually it is prerequisite for it unless we want some classes to just be ignored (severely underrepresented) as is the case now).
So this issue should just be put to rest.
Sit in the corner for a second and think about it again:
FPS games PROVE (without DOUBT) that 1v1 balance does not make 5v5 balance impossible. DONE.
The claim that ‘1v1 balance makes 5v5 balance impossible’ should never ever be repeated again after you grasp above.
And also people who have trouble grasping the above, should not participate in discussions about balance, or design balance for games.

They don’t prove that at all…
Could you please explain what you think “balance” means? Because ATM its rather unclear to me what you think it is. I also think you don’t fully understand GW2 PvP, balance, and the meta; yet you talk like your opinion is fact. (no offense, but this is starting to kitten me off slightly, pet peeve of mine :P)

any class can beat any class 1v1 depending on spec, 1v1 would be fine/fun

I’d prefer if Mufa answered, but I’ll discuss this one with you.

I think we’ve already achieved this, considering every class has a semi-viable spec to try to 1v1 with, and every class has a semi-viable spec you SHOULDNT try to 1v1 with.

Is the game 100% balanced though? I don’t think any MMO will ever be. Chances are, this isn’t th e def. of “balance”, or even close.

Baam.2493:

Mufa.1326:

Braxxus is completely right here. FPS games (let us ignore TF for a sec) PROVE (without any doubt) that 1v1 balance (which comes automatically) does not make 5v5 balance ‘impossible’ (actually it is prerequisite for it unless we want some classes to just be ignored (severely underrepresented) as is the case now).
So this issue should just be put to rest.
Sit in the corner for a second and think about it again:
FPS games PROVE (without DOUBT) that 1v1 balance does not make 5v5 balance impossible. DONE.
The claim that ‘1v1 balance makes 5v5 balance impossible’ should never ever be repeated again after you grasp above.
And also people who have trouble grasping the above, should not participate in discussions about balance, or design balance for games.

They don’t prove that at all…
Could you please explain what you think “balance” means? Because ATM its rather unclear to me what you think it is. I also think you don’t fully understand GW2 PvP, balance, and the meta; yet you talk like your opinion is fact. (no offense, but this is starting to kitten me off slightly, pet peeve of mine :P)

I explained it above, why do not you read?
First, all rankings need to be by account by class (so there is separate ranking for the same account when its playing thief vs when it is playing guardian).
Second, ranking must be similar to chess rankings, i.e. nothing like QP or ‘rank’ in pvp (or lvl in pve). It must be skill based (go up and down relative to how you do against others), and not have any ‘grind’ contribution.
Then, when you look at top 100 (for example) rankings for any setting (let us say 1v1 deathmatch, or 5v5 point capture, or …whatever setting ) each class should have the same (1/8) representation. So approximately 12 or so thieves, 12 guardians, 12 warriors, ….etc
That is what I suggested to be meaning of ‘balance’ in MMO (multiple classes) type of game.

Mufa.1326:

Braxxus is completely right here. FPS games (let us ignore TF for a sec) PROVE (without any doubt) that 1v1 balance (which comes automatically) does not make 5v5 balance ‘impossible’ (actually it is prerequisite for it unless we want some classes to just be ignored (severely underrepresented) as is the case now).
So this issue should just be put to rest.
Sit in the corner for a second and think about it again:
FPS games PROVE (without DOUBT) that 1v1 balance does not make 5v5 balance impossible. DONE.
The claim that ‘1v1 balance makes 5v5 balance impossible’ should never ever be repeated again after you grasp above.
And also people who have trouble grasping the above, should not participate in discussions about balance, or design balance for games.

Your grandiose claim about FPS games serving as proof is annoying enough for me to take a few minutes of my time and post in a thread that I don’t necessarily have much interest in. In the span of a few sentences you:

1. Make a claim that 1v1 is balanced in FPS, as well as 5v5.
2. State that because FPS can do it, MMOs can do it.
3. Insult everyone who thinks your line of reasoning is faulty by blindly stating they’re wrong because they don’t agree.

Note that we’re ignoring TF2, the only potentially reasonable link between FPS and MMO, and that’s a stretch at best.

When you give two people the same available weapons, health, movespeed, and controls, there’s balance. Sure. If you put 5 people against 5 people in the exact same scenario, there’s balance. Sure.

So tell me how, exactly, that relates to a game with as many potential customization options as an MMO?

Don’t get me wrong (you’re going to get me wrong, most likely), I would love to have at least better 1v1 balance in GW2. I’m a fairly well-rounded Warrior build at the moment with mobility and CC potential. I can provide good group support through creating chaos and controlling an area, and I can also hold my own in most 1v1 situations.

Most.

Sometimes, for whatever reason (Protection up-time (why is it 33% damage reduction again? why is the game balanced around such a drastic boon?), ability to spam Stealth, cripple/chill spam), I basically have no chance. If I play my kitten off, I can most likely make it a decent fight, but the only way I’m winning is if I way outclass my opponent.

I would love for there to be 1v1 balance, and I don’t think 1v1 balance necessarily means 5v5 balance is forfeit.

But you can get right out of dodge with your lame-duck analogy.

Also, I don’t think it’s the forcing a team of 5 that’s the problem. It’s the fact that you need what, 40 people to even start a tournament? I’m all for innovation, but the length of queue times and discouraging nature of such a beast couldn’t be something they didn’t see coming. Tournaments should potentially be something that are held at set times during the week that your team can “sign-up” for, potentially based on rewards earned in rating/match-ups/whatever. Some middle ground between thunder-pubbing in hotjoin and trying to make one’s way in a tournament would definitely be nice.

Mufa.1326:

Baam.2493:

Mufa.1326:

Braxxus is completely right here. FPS games (let us ignore TF for a sec) PROVE (without any doubt) that 1v1 balance (which comes automatically) does not make 5v5 balance ‘impossible’ (actually it is prerequisite for it unless we want some classes to just be ignored (severely underrepresented) as is the case now).
So this issue should just be put to rest.
Sit in the corner for a second and think about it again:
FPS games PROVE (without DOUBT) that 1v1 balance does not make 5v5 balance impossible. DONE.
The claim that ‘1v1 balance makes 5v5 balance impossible’ should never ever be repeated again after you grasp above.
And also people who have trouble grasping the above, should not participate in discussions about balance, or design balance for games.

They don’t prove that at all…
Could you please explain what you think “balance” means? Because ATM its rather unclear to me what you think it is. I also think you don’t fully understand GW2 PvP, balance, and the meta; yet you talk like your opinion is fact. (no offense, but this is starting to kitten me off slightly, pet peeve of mine :P)

I explained it above, why do not you read?
First, all rankings need to be by account by class (so there is separate ranking for the same account when its playing thief vs when it is playing guardian).
Second, ranking must be similar to chess rankings, i.e. nothing like QP or ‘rank’ in pvp (or lvl in pve). It must be skill based (go up and down relative to how you do against others), and not have any ‘grind’ contribution.
Then, when you look at top 100 (for example) rankings for any setting (let us say 1v1 deathmatch, or 5v5 point capture, or …whatever setting ) each class should have the same (1/8) representation. So approximately 12 or so thieves, 12 guardians, 12 warriors, ….etc
That is what I suggested to be meaning of ‘balance’ in MMO (multiple classes) type of game.

Why does all this need to happen?

and why is a statistically low situation (there being a perfectly equal amount of each class in the top 100 ranking) constitute as balance?

Your arguments and suggestions don’t seem well thought out, but you still say they NEED to happen, or they MUST be as you say. Well I disagree, and feel that while your intentions are good, your ideas are terrible and ill-advised… Mostly because you say they have to happen, but you don’t say why.

Achieving “perfect balance” in an MMO, which is what people are jumping on Mufa about, is extremely hard sure. But it’s not that hard to achieve a close balance at all. MMO’s, from WoW to WAR, AoC and even SWTOR, have gotten really close to this at various points… and then for whatever reason the devs went all left-field and screwed it up.

In fact if you look at AoC, failed PvP title sure, there was a point before they added the emphasis on gear grinding (which was dumb) where they actually came really close to a nice balance between classes in PvP (open world, FFA gankfest. Couldn’t trust anyone, always had to be ready to get jumped everywhere… I loved it). It wasn’t “perfect”, but it was kitten close and every class had a viable chance in PvP versus anyone else.

Somewhere around the release of that asian expansion they got back to this close balance again… and then screwed the pooch again with the next few patches. Don’t know why, but whatever. Was EVERY spec viable? No. But every class had at least 3 different fully viable specs, often with fairly different feels and themes to them, both in 1v1’s and in groups without having to change a thing other than adjusting for the numbers via player input.

GW2 has some great models for how class viability should go and one of the big issues is this kitten focus on “stand the circle harder than the other guy” game mode. As much smack as people talk about WvW it truly does show what classes are truly capable of in PLAYER VS PLAYER situations, opposed to player vs circle, in a much better way than SPvP/TPvP. Most people aren’t going to be part of the “elite 1%” of “top tier tourney teams”. Not even close. And if PvP isn’t working for the masses there will be no interested population to ‘carry’ the e-sport part of the game.

Striving for a close balance with the classes is important because most people aren’t going to be taking the time and frustrating effort to form a “pro” team and eat, breathe, sleep, live and poo with them in order to be part of that 1%. They’re going to solo. They’re going to WvW. They’re going to run with guildies/friends. They’re going to run in small groups.

When people get to these areas and realize that their class is pretty kitten fubar against the god tier classes then that is demoralizing and especially when the “pros” tell them ‘l2p, your class is only supposed to do X… and be carried by a team". Who honestly likes that? I know some people defend it “for the group!!!!” but really now, most people don’t like being told that they have to be “carried” by other people to be viable. Or that they are destined to lose fights because the class “is ok in a group but gimp by itself.”

Despite ANet’s insistence that they “got rid of the holy trinity” they still have ‘roles’. Classes are severely imbalanced in the application and viability of these roles. That’s where balance lies. It might still be subjecting people to a cookie cutter iteration of the class but if every class has an equally viable:

Bunker
Roamer
Burst
Condition

spec to choose from then at least people can play the class they like, HOW they like. That kind of 1v1 balance is perfectly attainable.

Well-said, Braxxus.

@Baam.2493

First, read the word ‘approximately’, I said it for a reason.
It is statistically ‘low’ probability to have exactly 12 of each class among top 96. But it is statistically very high to have between 10-14 of each class among top 96 if classes are balanced.

What is statistically very low is to have balanced warrior class and only 5 warriors among top 100. It would indicate that skilled people do not play warriors. And even if that is the case, then you need to temporarily OP the class as to attract people to it and then tone them down if they ‘get out of control’ (you start seeing 15+ warriors among top 100 or 80+ among top 500).

You ask when and why this needs to happen, I am not sure what you are talking about (not sure you do either). I will try to answer anyway:
When:
It is supposed to happen as soon as there is significant number of games played as to have ‘confidence’ in rankings. If the class is too represented in for example 1v1 rankings it needs dmg nerf (on the main abilities its builds kill ppl with in top 1v1 games). Let us say take as an example two classes, mesmer and thief: Mesmer has a lot going for it besides dmg (CC, frequent invulnerability state, strong aoe spike on low tiemr, beneficial bugs, … etc), thief does too via stealth. It is difficult to say how much dmg each class should carry to balance them. So you let top players of each class duke it out aaaaand…..if you see 25 mesmers in top 100 (or 100 in top 500) and 12 thieves in top 100 (and equivalent representation in top 500), then you know that mesmer is out of whack, while thief is fine. So you make mesmer pay for whatever it is that makes him so strong by toning his dmg (on the skills they kill enemies with).
Essentially, if one wants to play class that has a lot of cheap access to CC, or a class that has a lot of cheap access to defensive capabilities, or stealth, or whatever it may be that gives class its ‘feel’, the class needs to pay for it in dmg. That way some people will play class that is very defensive with appropriately toned down dmg, some ppl will like to utilize cc (with appropriately toned down dmg), some people will utilize stealth (again appropriate dmg nerf), and some ppl will go for pure dmg without much subtlety. Classes will NOT be the same, but the fact that when you look at top 500 or top 100 you have ‘approximately’ the same chance of finding each class, tells you that you have ‘approximate’ balance.

Why:
Because among thousands (i.e. large number) of players that play any given class, you should have the same probability of finding top skilled player in each class (given that classes are ‘balanced’). And these skilled players should go to the top and represent their class at the top.
As a matter of fact how about this: if you are top player for your class, you should be up there in the top rankings, as simple as that. Why would 100-th best mesmer be ahead of the best (1st) ranked warrior? Do you think that is appropriate? I mean it is obvious that it is because mesmer is OP relative to warrior, not because 100-th best mesmer is more skillful than the best warrior. Warrior should be buffed to the point that at most 4-5 mesmers (if even that) are ranked better than the best warrior.
As I said earlier, even if class gets balanced, but you previously had it nerfed to the point where players avoid it, you need to temporarily boost it above balance point to attract players to it and then tone it down later. This is good for the game overall, to have diversity of (playable) classes.

Only thing I can say is I completely agree with the opener.

I play tons of hours, I play nearly everyday, but…

I have duties in my life to do, like I´m going to the university, I have a work as well.

There is no way I can compromise myself into playing every night, since some nights i´ll want to go out with my friends. That´s why it is so nonsense for me to get into any compromise, because I just can´t fill it.

I´m a rank 42, maybe the best ranger of my server, isn´t it a shame I won´t be able to get into monthly tournaments just because this game is designed to forcefully play with the same guys over months?

Is there any chance anet can understand the situation of players like me?

Gilgamesh.2561:

LoL figured it out. We just need the LoL developers to make a PvP MMO.

You mean ultra dull combat mechanics, 15 mins of whack a mole at the start of each game and raging 12 year olds…

Sylosi.6503:

Gilgamesh.2561:

LoL figured it out. We just need the LoL developers to make a PvP MMO.

You mean ultra dull combat mechanics, 15 mins of whack a mole at the start of each game and raging 12 year olds…

you ever listen to some of the elite teams streams in gw2? raging 12 year olds with accents. teldo ratings fits are my fav

Mufa.1326:

Raytek:
1. You can play however you want. Let me play however I want. I do not tell you ‘do not play 5v5’ if you find that fun. I do not tell people ‘do not play all weekend night/day’ either, play as much as you want, it is your life. But, you do not tell me what to do either. I want solo (1v1) ranked que to be matched with people of similar skill level whenever I feel like jumping into game. I have a right to an infrastructure that matches me with players of similar skill level, the same as you. And I want to be able to jump out of the game whenever I feel like without affecting enjoyment of the game of anyone else. So I will join 5 player team when I have few hours to dedicate, and when I have few minutes, I will do just solo que and jump out whenever I feel like. Fair enough?
2. I do not want to waste 10 minutes forming a group, I have other things to do in life.
3. Tournaments also need to be changed into single match ranked games (random maps). Tourney system is not appropriate for every-day que.
4. No, once ranking system is out I want to be ranked too (and I do not really want to play 5v5). I bought the game, I deserve infrastructure support. Just because I am casual and do not want to waste time on making team of 5 or organize my life around game-schedule, it does not mean I should be forced to play in nonsensical and boring hotjoins. I should be able to join solo que and play people of similar skill level as myself in the game mode I find fun (thus one of the points mandating the need for 1v1 solo que).

Please, get real you do not have a right to the company doing things for you. They might want to , or you might choose to leave if they dont. But its not a right.
Now, 1on1 ladder imo would be silly, its almost certaily to be dominated by a handful of classes in specific specs, like d/d elementalist.

HOWEVER. i do think a 3on3 ladder would be a great idea.

They did this kitten in Guild Wars1 for team arenas after factions came out. It killed TA PvP in that game. Terrible terrible idea.

daydream.2938:

Mufa.1326:

Raytek:
1. You can play however you want. Let me play however I want. I do not tell you ‘do not play 5v5’ if you find that fun. I do not tell people ‘do not play all weekend night/day’ either, play as much as you want, it is your life. But, you do not tell me what to do either. I want solo (1v1) ranked que to be matched with people of similar skill level whenever I feel like jumping into game. I have a right to an infrastructure that matches me with players of similar skill level, the same as you. And I want to be able to jump out of the game whenever I feel like without affecting enjoyment of the game of anyone else. So I will join 5 player team when I have few hours to dedicate, and when I have few minutes, I will do just solo que and jump out whenever I feel like. Fair enough?
2. I do not want to waste 10 minutes forming a group, I have other things to do in life.
3. Tournaments also need to be changed into single match ranked games (random maps). Tourney system is not appropriate for every-day que.
4. No, once ranking system is out I want to be ranked too (and I do not really want to play 5v5). I bought the game, I deserve infrastructure support. Just because I am casual and do not want to waste time on making team of 5 or organize my life around game-schedule, it does not mean I should be forced to play in nonsensical and boring hotjoins. I should be able to join solo que and play people of similar skill level as myself in the game mode I find fun (thus one of the points mandating the need for 1v1 solo que).

Please, get real you do not have a right to the company doing things for you. They might want to , or you might choose to leave if they dont. But its not a right.
Now, 1on1 ladder imo would be silly, its almost certaily to be dominated by a handful of classes in specific specs, like d/d elementalist.

HOWEVER. i do think a 3on3 ladder would be a great idea.

I am just giving you perspective of casual player. Casuals does not mean ‘no skill’, it does not even mean ‘low playing time’. It means that people do not want to organize their life around the game. They may spend 3 hrs today in the game, but in intervals of 15min here and 30 min there. What they will not do is dedicate 3 specific hours of the day to the game. They will also not dedicate entire weekend to the game. They may ramp up slower than more fanatical player, but they may have higher skill limit, and they will eventually surpass the fanatical player with lower limit.

You have to make game casual friendly if you want to have large audience (player base). Few fanatics, who sit there all day long and practice with the same 5 player team, the player base will not make.
The larger the audience that ANET makes happy, the bigger the game will become, which is better for everyone. Yes, they can just ignore me (and people like me), but is that good for the game? How many people do you think can dedicate to organizing their life around the game schedule needed to get team of 5 to operate in organized manner? Do you want to be the ‘champ’ of the empty game noone cares about, and ‘champ’ only because anet made the game so inconvenient to the majority of potential players, that they left and said ‘kitten’ ANET and their games?

Both 3v3 and 1v1 ladders are needed for player enjoyment (in the first place; face it…ppl just love good duel) and for proper balancing of the game (also necessary for proper enjoyment) because they carry different information about what needs to be balanced. You need to provide infrastructure and then see what is popular, not act as if you know it in advance (stop with the arrogance). They are just hurting their own game by not providing modes people really really want to play.

Just because 1v1 ladder would be initially dominated by few classes, it does not mean it is a bad idea; it just means some classes need to be nerfed dmg wise so they are not OP in 1v1 setting anymore (their dmg needs to be aligned with other aspects of the class like access to CC, HP pool, access to cheap defensive capabilities, access to healing, access to stealth, …etc). 1v1 ladder will make these things obvious.

Lucifer.3748:

They did this kitten in Guild Wars1 for team arenas after factions came out. It killed TA PvP in that game. Terrible terrible idea.

People should play what they enjoy, not what you enjoy (you should play what you enjoy). If you happen to enjoy mode that is boring to everyone else, too ‘kitten’ bad. ANET should not be forcing everyone to play what bores them just to make you happy.
Let them leave 5v5 point capture in the game, but also provide other modes (dm 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 5v5)…let us see then what people enjoy to play.
Arguing that 1v1 dm should not be allowed because it will ‘kill’ 5v5 point capture is ridiculous. You will not force ppl to play what bores them, you will just force them to leave eventually.

Agree with OP. Organizing 5 people is really lame. 2v2 and 3v3 is perfect for my playstyle/lifestyle, as well as everyone I know.

For e-sports 5v5 may be more interesting, maybe.

In my opinion if there is 1v1, it should not be rated. (Only for practice and messing around). The fact that some classes/builds do not match well against others 1v1 makes things more interesting in 3v3, 5v5.

I completely agree with the main point of this thread – that point being that if a player wants to be competitive at all in this game he is FORCED to find a team of 4 other players to play with. Not only that, but he’ll have to practice a ton to even stand a chance versus the top teams that he is stuck being pooled up against. It really sucks that I’ve seen plenty of teams just give up because at BEST they get to kyhlo in the paid tournament only to face lets say our team or another strong team like CN. Good players in a pug, no matter how strong they are have little to no chance versus a strong team.

I do however disagree with the ’’fix’’ you have in mind here, the 3v3/1v1 ques wouldnt really amount to anything, competitive people would treat it the exact same way they treat free tournament and hotjoin, they’d say ‘’Who cares? That’s not the serious mode in the game, go 5v5s if you wanna be skilled’’ and the problem persists, because the game is not and will never be balanced around those modes.

However, a very simple fix would be something I’m really wishing that arenanet will add, soloq with rating. Similiar to how free tournaments now work, you que up and match up with four players based on your rating and meet five enemies based on your rating. Winner gets rating, loser loses some.

Just like the soloq in league. The soloq in league is a SUPERB gateway to being competitive in it. I was the kind of player you describe yourself to be (a little bit more time to spare but still), and I had a complete blast getting to 1800 rating in the soloq system there. Furthermore, the ability to duoq enhanced the experience IMMENSLY.

That’s all we need right now. A soloque matchmaking where you do NOT match up with a full team and where winning/losing affects your rating. There will be bullkitten matches where an ally sucks, one dcs or whatever but it’ll keep people playing and let people be serious without having to spend every single evening with a team only to match up with teams that have been playing in those conditions for months.

There is also the problem of there being absolutely no effective way to practice/tryhard when my team isnt on. The only way for me to practice in this game are either paids or duels atm. And paids only proc from 19 and tend to end 2.

In the previous state of the game interview jonathan said that he intended to mix soloq pool and premade pool in the same rating, this is one of the silliest ideas I’ve ever heard of. A collection of 5 great players have absolutely no chance vs 5 great players that play every day with eachother from 19-02.

Oni.5429:

I do however disagree with the ’’fix’’ you have in mind here, the 3v3/1v1 ques wouldnt really amount to anything, competitive people would treat it the exact same way they treat free tournament and hotjoin, they’d say ‘’Who cares? That’s not the serious mode in the game, go 5v5s if you wanna be skilled’’ and the problem persists, because the game is not and will never be balanced around those modes.

I don’t know. I’d guess that the majority of casually competitive players would flock to those modes and give a crap less about 5v5. Sure the 5’s teams would talk kitten, but it would be ok because everyone else would be having fun and the 5’s teams would need something to do while they spend hours in a Q anyways.

Oni.5429:

…I do however disagree with the ’’fix’’ you have in mind here, the 3v3/1v1 ques wouldnt really amount to anything, competitive people would treat it the exact same way they treat free tournament and hotjoin, they’d say ‘’Who cares? That’s not the serious mode in the game, go 5v5s if you wanna be skilled’’ and the problem persists, because the game is not and will never be balanced around those modes. ….

You are missing the point. What ‘competitive people’ (whoever that those are; I think we are all competitive) think is irrelevant. It is what masses want to play/watch/‘care about’. If masses find 1v1 or 3v3 more interesting to watch and play and give it their attention, then that determines what is ‘serious’ and ‘skilled’ not what some kids who turn off the rest of the life for the sake of the game think.

Trust me, many of those ppl love the artificial ‘severe inconvenience barrier’ that ANET put up by forcing us to play in team of 5. I can tell you, that excludes 99% of your skillful players from actually playing in ‘official’ mode and acutally competing for ranked spots (once rankings are out). So let me see, if I want to ‘compete officially’ I need to find 4 other guys and then practice team mechanic with them on regular schedule few hours at night and many hours on weekend, are you ‘kitten’ serious? Who needs additional obligations in his life???

And until they turn off auto-face on skills, we should really not use word ‘skill’ too much…people have their backs to me and then click on skill key and they autoturn and hit me….I know, it allows even ‘clickers’ to look like they have a clue, nice dumb-down anet….just my opinion.

Braxxus.2904:

Oni.5429:

I do however disagree with the ’’fix’’ you have in mind here, the 3v3/1v1 ques wouldnt really amount to anything, competitive people would treat it the exact same way they treat free tournament and hotjoin, they’d say ‘’Who cares? That’s not the serious mode in the game, go 5v5s if you wanna be skilled’’ and the problem persists, because the game is not and will never be balanced around those modes.

I don’t know. I’d guess that the majority of casually competitive players would flock to those modes and give a crap less about 5v5. Sure the 5’s teams would talk kitten, but it would be ok because everyone else would be having fun and the 5’s teams would need something to do while they spend hours in a Q anyways.

Yup lol…i wrote pretty much the same thing. Who cares what few ppl who dedicate their life to their gw2-5-player-team think?
Just give masses options (and among those options those that masses enjoy), give us good ranking system and let masses decide what is fun to watch and play. Then sit back and watch the pvp of this game take off and become popular.

Gilgamesh.2561:

Ah, there it is. The other thing no MMO company has seem to figure out. There are players out there that aren’t casual, that are skilled, but who don’t have the time nor interest of finding a bunch of anons to play with and would rather play with a small group of friends or solo — but still compete competitively in the ladders..

MY LIFE IN A NUTSHELL

Thanks for that.

I play WvW hardcore and sPvP casually. I might get more interested in sPvP, but I can play uncompetitive matches solo or coordinated matches with 5 people. What about playing with 1-3 friends before I dedicate myself to making a 5-man team?

It is actually amazing that people do not see how 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3 ranked ques would actually feed 5v5 que.

Imagine two good 1v1 players deciding to get into 2v2. Eventually they are really good in 2v2 and they join up with another 2v2 team and call another buddy from 1v1 to make 5 man point capture team and try to make 2-2-1 setup work. They tweak their 2v2 and 1v1 setups to be stronger in 5v5 battles but leverage off of their strong skills in 2v2 and 1v1 and try to spread the fight across the map by pressuring points.

Imagine now top 3v3 team experimenting by joining up with top 2v2 team and trying to make 3-2 work.
Or them picking up two top 1v1 players and trying to make 3-1-1 work.
Of course, every time there will be tweaks to make them optimal for 5v5, but the basis of strong 5v5 team is already there.
Imagine how much stronger it would make competition.

Then, inconvenience problem would be solved as well. You do not have to sit bored in mist while waiting for 4 buddies. You are alone..no prob, jump in 1v1 que and have fun for 10-15 min. Another buddy is online…go 2v2. 2 more join, then make another 2v2….after 45 minutes 5th one is in, great let us go 5v5.

@mufa i agree with you for the most part. The thing we have to realize and i knew of it but i hate to admit it. Most Mmo’s dont cater to pvp and this is no exception. Pve was first on anets mind. Pvp is still in a beta phase you could say. Gw1 had by far the best pvp in a mmo. I had much higher standards for this game because well…. Gw1 was awesome!