Guild Wars 2

GW2 CONQUEST: THE SKILL-LESS SPAM CHAMBER
Typically, the effect that player skill has on a battle’s outcome is directly proportional to the players’ ability to move while in combat. The more movement available to combatants, the more opportunities available to the players to avoid incoming damage with light of sight, dodging or repositioning. When we reduce player in-combat movement to 0, we have Runescape. Capture point nodes push GW2 combat in this direction by naturally limiting the ability for players to move if they wish to contribute to their team’s score. This situation is exacerbated by the presence of AoE skills (many of which are able to affect an entire point or even more). Now, while it’s true that many AoE skills in general require some toning down or re-working, but for now we’ll focus on the issue that capture nodes innately decrease the effect that player skill has on a battle’s outcome with or without the presence of AoE.

To be frank, the simplest solution to resolve the issue of GW2 conquest mode passively decreasing the importance of player skill as fights approach points is to make the points themselves larger. Larger points means more room for defenders to move while also helping to deny the ability for an attacker to mindlessly dump attacks onto a point without worrying about anything not hitting a point-defender.

Furthermore, with more room on which to defend a point, point bunkers might not necessarily need to invest so heavily into defensive abilities provided that they can maintain good positioning while defending. Making point-defending more accessible to more classes in cases of emergency not only adds more dynamics to the conquest mode (a DPS roamer might be able to hold a larger node for a considerable amount of time provided that he/she has ample in-combat mobility or possibly CC), but it might also encourage more overall balanced team-specs (teams might not necessarily want to devote themselves to a few full bunkers with high DPS roamers, but rather might attempt to make a team composed of members that can rotate and take over point holding on the fly).

In any case, the nodes need to be larger. Larger nodes means more room to move. More room to move makes repositioning easier. Easier repositioning means that aiming and timing will become bigger factors in point-taking instead of simply how many AoE buttons one can spam. Aiming and timing supplanting spam as a means to kill players on a point means a more skill-based conquest game-mode overall for GW2.

CONQUEST RULE CHANGES

• Competitive match time-limit reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes.
• Points per kill vs players off of a point increased from 5 to 8.
• Points per kill vs players on a point increased from 5 to 15.
  • Capture nodes in GW2 Conquest now pulse a hidden, passive debuff to foes within their AoE. This debuff does not show up on a player’s status bar. This debuff pulses once each second and lasts for 1 second. Killing a player under the effects of this debuff earns your team 15 points.

BATTLE OF KYHLO
[Windmill] (north)

• Capture point width increased from 300 to 450.
• Capture point height increased from 300 to 450.
• The small wooden fence still defines the capture point’s north edge.

[Mansion] (south)

• Capture point width increased from 300 to 450.
• Capture point height increased from 300 to 450.
• The small stone wall still defines the capture point’s south edge.

FOREST OF NIFLHEL
[Henge] (west)

• Capture point radius increased from 240 to 450.

[Mine] (east)

• Capture point radius increased from 240 to 450.

[Keep] (north)

• Capture point radius increased from 240 to 450.
• This point’s position has been adjusted so that it does not allow players standing on the overlook from behind the point to contribute to point capture.

TEMPLE OF THE SILENT STORM
[Gate] (south)

• Capture point radius increased from 240 to 600.

[Altar] (west)

• Capture point radius increased from 240 to 450.

[Temple] (east)

• Capture point radius increased from 240 to 450.

[Stillness] (center)

• This buff no longer exists.
• This buff is replaced by a capture node for the entire duration of the map.
• This capture node has a 240 radius.

[Tranquility] (north)

• This buff no longer exists.
• This buff is replaced by a capture node for the entire duration of the map.
• This capture node has a 240 radius.

I’ve refrained from making changes to Spirit Watch and Skyhammer because the former can promote zerging and the orb can be overpowered in the hands of certain classes/builds, the latter is a garbage map and neither should be options for PvP outside of hotjoin. Even so, both of them would benefit from increased capture node sizes in the same manner as the above maps.

Swagg.9236:

GW2 CONQUEST: THE SKILL-LESS SPAM CHAMBER
When we reduce player in-combat movement to 0, we have Runescape.

LMAO you right

Larger points will break decap engi.

Veto’d.

But… Runescape has a much larger stream viewership for PvP than Guild Wars 2

bhagwad.4281:

Larger points will break decap engi.

Veto’d.

Decap engi is a low skill build and could use a few nerfs. This indirect one would be great.

bhagwad.4281:

Larger points will break decap engi.

Veto’d.

Larger points would reduce the effectiveness of a skill-less and overpowered spec for what it accomplishes in PvP. However, this sort of change would only indirectly nerf the overall effectiveness of the decap Engineer and would spare the individual skills that contribute to the overpowered spec from crippling nerfs. In the end, the exchange is a net gain for the community without it resulting in a simultaneous net loss for the decap Engineer.

- larger capture points
- more pts for kill
- when standing on point you can’t knocked back, instead you get knocked down

infantrydiv.1620:

But… Runescape has a much larger stream viewership for PvP than Guild Wars 2

That is none of my concern—even if you are just being cheeky. I’m here to help GW2, not garner stream viewership or watch two stationary players slap each other until one of them dies from being unable to continue to stuff their face with sharks or whatever it is now that they’re eating.

I feel like adding more rails similar to Waterfall on Foefire on every side point across the each map would help significantly against builds like the Decap Engi. Also the side points on Foefire offer natural spots to line of sight attacks because the points are elevated somewhat. Perhaps more of this can be implemented as well?

Cynz.9437:

- when standing on point you can’t knocked back, instead you get knocked down

Why would you want to remove one of the best mechanics in GW2 from the only meaningful fights in the conquest game-mode?

Besides, I’d imagine that the coding for that would be tedious and unnecessary in the long run. In any case, with most capture node sizes normalized to what one might see on Foefire sides, removing foes from a node with pulls or knock-backs would be a feat in and of itself so long as the foe wasn’t hanging near the fringes of the node at all times—in which case then it’s the victory of the person using the movement-based CC.

tangatalaga.5943:

I feel like adding more rails similar to Waterfall on Foefire on every side point across the each map would help significantly against builds like the Decap Engi. Also the side points on Foefire offer natural spots to line of sight attacks because the points are elevated somewhat. Perhaps more of this can be implemented as well?

That’s a band-aid patch that doesn’t really solve the problem like increasing node-size would do. Putting baby rails around every node would also strangle player’s abilities to move/reposition with leaps and ground-traveling evasive retreats.

Introducing more elevation differences around capture nodes would be an interesting idea, though. I think it would be best to start out with simply increasing the node size and then discuss what kind of terrain options would be best for some nodes compared to others. Changing terrain height on a node like Niflhel middle might hurt the effectiveness of traveling around to the back of the node, or it could be redundant in the case of the Niflhel side nodes given that there are already terrain elevation differences present that ring around those nodes.

Cynz.9437:

- larger capture points
- more pts for kill

aye i agree with these 2.

Cynz.9437:

- when standing on point you can’t knocked back, instead you get knocked down

this one i do not agree.

Swagg.9236:

CONQUEST RULE CHANGES

• Points per kill increased from 5 to 8.
• Competitive match time-limit reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes.

why not double the points? make it 10 instead of 8
what if more team points are scored if player kills are made inside the capture points?

for example,

• 10 team points for each player killed outside capture points
• 20 team points for each player killed inside capture points

or we could intensify it more,

• 10 team points for each player killed outside capture points
• 15 team points for each player killed inside neutral capture points
• 20 team points for each player killed inside own capture points
• 25 team points for each player killed inside their capture points

larger point will make bunker harder to kill

Simon.3794:

larger point will make bunker harder to kill

well if we drastically increased the team points earned for kills made on capture points, people may zerg down the solo bunker maybe?

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

Swagg.9236:

CONQUEST RULE CHANGES

• Points per kill increased from 5 to 8.
• Competitive match time-limit reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes.

why not double the points? make it 10 instead of 8

An extra 3 points per kill adds up quick over the course of an entire match without necessarily overwhelming the points earned from capture nodes. It would give less node-centric teams a means to keep pace with bunker-heavy teams without necessarily just giving a team with a bunch of DPS roamers a free bone for getting kills here and there without actually playing the objective.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

what if more team points are scored if player kills are made inside the capture points?

This isn’t a bad idea, actually. I wouldn’t necessarily set the points earned to your suggested levels, but it would definitely add a new dynamic to the GW2 conquest game-mode and maybe even encourage more rapid exchange of capture nodes between teams with the new risk that dying on point might bring to the overall score/pace of the game.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

or we could intensify it more,

• 10 team points for each player killed outside capture points
• 15 team points for each player killed inside neutral capture points
• 20 team points for each player killed inside own capture points
• 25 team points for each player killed inside their capture points

The reason why I wouldn’t take it this far is because imagine the kind of point break-away that a team could get off of a single point capture if there was a bunker to kill on that point: 25 points for the bunker kill and then also a point capture. That could easily be game-ending right there. While I think it’s worth it to discuss additional points for killing players on a node, I’m not sure that the points should ever exceed 10 just for the sake of giving each team a window of opportunity for a come-back should they lose a point that was beforehand being bunkered by a player.

If killing a player on a point was worth too much, the GW2 conquest game-mode might develop into some sort of weird zerg v bunker game-mode in which the zerg plays tag with bunkers (with bunkers fleeing nodes under pressure for fear of giving the enemy team too many points) across the map instead of players on either side actually stopping to contest a node properly.

THEN AGAIN, the prospect of having two mobile bunkers and a constantly moving team-fight of sorts does sound a little more exciting to watch than what we have going for us now in GW2 PvP. I dunno, the debate is up in the air on that one.

There is also bad thing about larger nodes and thats bunker guards will be harder to bring down

Paragon.5479:

There is also bad thing about larger nodes and thats bunker guards will be harder to bring down

Yeah, kitten like that is why I don’t think this would make the game any more fun to play.
Sure there would be a lil more skill through kiting to survive… but it won’t be more fun to fight.

There will be cheese-kiting specs that will be nigh unkillable and just as fustrating.
Like the ranger, with sword he can lol-leap around the place and just passive heal up all the while. Thief can even do that decently well.

Swagg.9236:

In any case, the nodes need to be larger. Larger nodes means more room to move. More room to move makes repositioning easier. Easier repositioning means that aiming and timing will become bigger factors in point-taking instead of simply how many AoE buttons one can spam. Aiming and timing supplanting spam as a means to kill players on a point means a more skill-based conquest game-mode overall for GW2.

I don’t agree with EVERYTHING you said but this I’d happily sign my name under! All the most fun and intense fights I’ve had in GW2 spvp have been on Graveyard in Foefire. I’m not saying it’s JUST because it’s the largest capture point on any map, but I’m sure it’s a big part of why.

I don’t like Conquest as a game mode because it makes splitting the team the only available strategy. Contrast with GW1 gvg where you had the option to either split and do a sneaky backdoor gank, or to keep and try to faceroll the other team quickly.

I also hate that it encourages selfish builds: people tweak their character to be either as durable as they can possibly be, or to do as much damage as they possibly can. They give very little thought to bringing skills that’ll synergise with their teammates, and support builds are hugely underepresented. You see far too many bunkers whose job is to stand on a point as long as possible, or decappers whose job is to knock you off it so they can neutralise it – both builds whose usefulness in a straight fight would be extremely marginal. Oh, yes, and thieves with very high mobility, whose job is to just run to anywhere where there’s a 1v1 and turn it into a 2v1 – not that that’s not a sound tactical choice, movement is the cornerstone of every game unless the playing field is a tiny cubical room, but some matches it seems every fight goes that way, and it’d be nice to have the OCCASIONAL even fight!

However, despite all these flaws, Conquest could still be a lot more fun if all the points WEREN’T SO TINY! If they redesigned each map and make it so all the central points were as big as Graveyard and the side points were just a little bigger htan they are now, it would increase the fun factor five-fold!

Paragon.5479:

There is also bad thing about larger nodes and thats bunker guards will be harder to bring down

garethh.3518:

Yeah, kitten like that is why I don’t think this would make the game any more fun to play.
Sure there would be a lil more skill through kiting to survive… but it won’t be more fun to fight.

There will be cheese-kiting specs that will be nigh unkillable and just as fustrating.
Like the ranger, with sword he can lol-leap around the place and just passive heal up all the while. Thief can even do that decently well.

I’m not unaware of the fact that builds which survive for extended periods of time on the already tiny nodes would receive an indirect buff to a certain extent with the introduction of larger capture nodes. I’d be willing to work with ANet to appropriately adjust bunker-intensive builds and specific super-forgiving active abilities and play-styles so as to make node fights not necessarily all based on a player pressing buttons while running in circles. I’ve already put hours into reworking a lot of cheesy mechanics in the Profession Balance forums that could be applied to this sort of change.

The goal here is a more legitimately engaging PvP experience based on active positioning, dodging and timing instead of using builds and no-risk skills as a crutch that do all the work for the player.

Moreover, with larger nodes comes something more important that increased node-defender survivability: an increase in node assaulter skill required to de-bunk or kill a node defender. That’s the real goal here because it opens up the option of node defense to players who might not necessarily be geared as bunkers which can shift the meta-game considerably if teams begin running multiple players (not necessarily full bunkers but more DPS/support balanced specs) that can take over the job of node holding on the fly simply because they have more room to move around while defending the nodes.

Swagg.9236:

I’d be willing to work with ANet to appropriately adjust bunker-intensive builds and specific super-forgiving active abilities and play-styles so as to make node fights not necessarily all based on a player pressing buttons while running in circles.

And if you’ve fallowed this game at all, you should know that that’s not how this works.

These devs don’t work like that, they balance this game alone and do it through small changes between long periods of time to see how they play out.
That means if they did push out a patch to enlarge nodes they won’t, like there is no chance in hell, that they will couple that patch with adjustments to mobility. It will take them 3+ months to even address that problem and a year if not more to actually improve the situation.

garethh.3518:

Swagg.9236:

I’d be willing to work with ANet to appropriately adjust bunker-intensive builds and specific super-forgiving active abilities and play-styles so as to make node fights not necessarily all based on a player pressing buttons while running in circles.

And if you’ve fallowed this game at all, you should know that that’s not how this works.

These devs don’t work like that, they balance this game alone and do it through small changes between long periods of time to see how they play out.
That means if they did push out a patch to enlarge nodes they won’t, like there is no chance in hell, that they will couple that patch with adjustments to mobility. It will take them 3+ months to even address that problem and a year if not more to actually improve the situation.

Do you get some sick pleasure out of ruining people’s ideas. If you don’t think the devs are going to borrow some of the ideas from this thread, that is cool, but I don’t see anybody forcing you to post in this thread.

Even if it took 3 months, 3 month is still better than not ever happening. We get it, you got burned or are still getting burned with Anet devs, but maybe save your anger for them and not take it out on other players. Something is always better than nothing.

Also the game would be dead by then right or is dead, why do you still care?

silvermember.8941:

Do you get some sick pleasure out of ruining people’s ideas. If you don’t think the devs are going to borrow some of the ideas from this thread, that is cool, but I don’t see anybody forcing you to post in this thread.

Even if it took 3 months, 3 month is still better than not ever happening. We get it, you got burned or are still getting burned with Anet devs, but maybe save your anger for them and not take it out on other players. Something is always better than nothing.

Also the game would be dead by then right or is dead, why do you still care?

Is what I’m saying not within reason?
Or are you saying that this thread was more about the feeling of it all, the hope that Anet might actually takes an 180 and brings in this random forum guy to help revamp the game?

Short of that all I did was give a lil’ recap of how Anet has gone about balancing the game over the past two years. Don’t get me wrong, the core of his idea is good, it opens up allot of room for improvement in the game. The thing is, these devs don’t need a way to get more ways to be able to eventually improve the game after allot of work, these devs work best (by far) with simple one step fixes (a problem in and of itself).
This isn’t that.

garethh.3518:

Swagg.9236:

I’d be willing to work with ANet to appropriately adjust bunker-intensive builds and specific super-forgiving active abilities and play-styles so as to make node fights not necessarily all based on a player pressing buttons while running in circles.

And if you’ve fallowed this game at all, you should know that that’s not how this works.

Oh, I’m very aware of that, but I’m not one to just throw in the towel and cry about it. I’m going to do everything that I can to push for a more skillful GW2. There is a lot of “Tell me how you feel about X,” and “I think A should be more like B because,” floating around, but I know for a fact that that sort of kitten-footing around talk isn’t going to get anything concrete done. That’s why I’m skipping the thumb-twiddling conversation step and going straight in with concrete changes created on basic logic with relation to GW2 game-play.

garethh.3518:

These devs don’t work like that, they balance this game alone and do it through small changes between long periods of time to see how they play out.
That means if they did push out a patch to enlarge nodes they won’t, like there is no chance in hell, that they will couple that patch with adjustments to mobility. It will take them 3+ months to even address that problem and a year if not more to actually improve the situation.

I don’t need you to tell me that; that’s why I’m here. I’m here to change that. You let me in on the process and you’ll get things done simply because I’ve done the work already. Complaints and airy discussions about what something could be won’t accomplish anything. No one else is making a move on any important issue, so I’ll be the one to change this.

Swaggfriend, I love you. veegee hates you for some reason but you care so much more about this game than any of it’s developers. I just don’t understand how you haven’t picked up yet that they don’t care. Despite how well thought out to the point of being slightly autistic these posts may be, anet will never implement or hire you or anything like that. They don’t actually care, PvP is cost-inefficient at this point. Just give up.

garethh.3518:

silvermember.8941:

Do you get some sick pleasure out of ruining people’s ideas. If you don’t think the devs are going to borrow some of the ideas from this thread, that is cool, but I don’t see anybody forcing you to post in this thread.

Even if it took 3 months, 3 month is still better than not ever happening. We get it, you got burned or are still getting burned with Anet devs, but maybe save your anger for them and not take it out on other players. Something is always better than nothing.

Also the game would be dead by then right or is dead, why do you still care?

Is what I’m saying not within reason?
Or are you saying that this thread was more about the feeling of it all, the hope that Anet might actually takes an 180 and brings in this random forum guy to help revamp the game?

Like the OP implied,You are not in on some secret that we all don’t know. We all know but some like him choose to share his ideas instead of sticking his head into the sand. If you want to do that, that is fine, him sharing his ideas shouldn’t be affecting you this much or at all.

Swagg.9236:

Oh, I’m very aware of that

The train of thought shouldn’t end there.
So you know what has been happening, you know how Anet has been acting and what has been going on on these forums.
Then you should know you have stiff competition. There have been many brilliant posts on these forums. There have been a few extremely intelligent people doing all they can to achieve that same thing.
Anet has yet to seriously consider acting on any of that.

If you really really want to succeed where they failed, you have do more than toss out a mediocre idea and stand behind it with allot of passion.
Anyone can do that, just look at Anet.

Expanding capture point size, sure that’s easy and entirely within Anet’s means (one gold star). The game will be in a worse spot right away though (I’ll take that gold star away) and it will take allot of intelligent rebalancing to make up for lost ground and more to actually improve the game (take a frowny face).
Expecting Anet to change that outcome by taking a forum go’er into their circle, just won’t happen.
Even players Anet did ‘give a shot to change the game’ (grouch/Powerr) ended up being waved around as more of a PR stunt than anything. Believe me, Powerr would not let a single patch that Anet released happen if he had any say about anything.

Swagg.9236:

I’m here to change that

Then get better ideas than what other people had or shoot for a different means to the end.
I only see three general ways to go with it at this point.
1-beg Anet on their forums to start taking patch-tweaks on their forums seriously (you can already start to see the issue with that)
2-get behind Anet getting a new dev team (kind’a awkward since the devs are the ones you will be ranting at)
3-Push for PTS or increased customization in custom arenas (also extremely unlikely to happen, but probably the best bet if you want the game to go anywhere)

Swagg.9236:

CONQUEST RULE CHANGES

• Points per kill increased from 5 to 8.
• Competitive match time-limit reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes.

100% YES

I would even say kills should be worth 15 points each. And yes points should be bigger. Lets actually make this game Player vs player and not player vs point. An initial start point for Anet (if they are too lazy to address the issue) would be simply to make kills worth 10 points each. It wouldn’t effect games much and would be a step in the right direction

garethh.3518:

Swagg.9236:

I’d be willing to work with ANet to appropriately adjust bunker-intensive builds and specific super-forgiving active abilities and play-styles so as to make node fights not necessarily all based on a player pressing buttons while running in circles.

And if you’ve fallowed this game at all, you should know that that’s not how this works.

These devs don’t work like that, they balance this game alone and do it through small changes between long periods of time to see how they play out.
That means if they did push out a patch to enlarge nodes they won’t, like there is no chance in hell, that they will couple that patch with adjustments to mobility. It will take them 3+ months to even address that problem and a year if not more to actually improve the situation.

Hate to say you are correct – but you clearly are correct. This thread could save conquest. More points per kill on its own would be huge. 15 points would be awesome. Maybe that is possible for these devs. But I doubt it because they generally don’t like to improve anything unless they spend 2 years of meetings discussing it

In a game where mobility is important, who thought Immob stacking was a good idea?

change conquest to death match. You get pts per kill rather than holding pts. I would bet you get a heck of lot more players back to spvp.

At some pt Anet need to face the music and admit spvp conquest mode is a total fail and introduce other game modes like players asked for since beta.

What a lot of people don’t understand is that larger points makes bunkering EASIER. Someone mentioned decap engi and that is true but it is much bigger than that.

Right now, a bunker has to decide whether to stand in AOE and use heal/condi removal skills. A larger point allows them to run around more.

Ultimately, this is a huge bunker buff and a nerf to anyone who is trying to do damage.

That said, where I would like to see a larger point is for a team deathmatch. First team to take the point wins. Best 2 out of 3 takes the match. The point is important so that one team isn’t just running around at the end trying to avoid the final kill.

well swaag want to remodel all professions. i dont believe it would not open new problems. and honestly before we even should consider reworking such stuff, the engine should be the first that gets fixes and an rework.

Swagg.9236:

In any case, the nodes need to be larger. Larger nodes means more room to move. More room to move makes repositioning easier. Easier repositioning means that aiming and timing will become bigger factors in point-taking instead of simply how many AoE buttons one can spam. Aiming and timing supplanting spam as a means to kill players on a point means a more skill-based conquest game-mode overall for GW2.

Larger nodes means bunker wars.

Writetyper.1985:

Swaggfriend, I love you. veegee hates you for some reason but you care so much more about this game than any of it’s developers. I just don’t understand how you haven’t picked up yet that they don’t care. Despite how well thought out to the point of being slightly autistic these posts may be, anet will never implement or hire you or anything like that. They don’t actually care, PvP is cost-inefficient at this point. Just give up.

Writetyper.1985:

Just give up.

While I appreciate your sympathy, I’m much too delusional to take your advice.

runeblade.7514:

Swagg.9236:

In any case, the nodes need to be larger. Larger nodes means more room to move. More room to move makes repositioning easier. Easier repositioning means that aiming and timing will become bigger factors in point-taking instead of simply how many AoE buttons one can spam. Aiming and timing supplanting spam as a means to kill players on a point means a more skill-based conquest game-mode overall for GW2.

Larger nodes means bunker wars.

I’ve taken steps to cull Warrior passive sustainability.

Updates to points earned for killing players in conquest. The idea to make kills worth more vs players on a point is actually a very creative idea. Knowing that one’s death on a point might swing the entire game, this factor could lead to more capture node exchanges (lone bunkers without immediate back-up bailing from points under pressure) in order to save one’s team from a sudden 15-point deficit. With capture nodes being more freely exchanged along with kills being worth more, GW2 Conquest would be a much more fluid game-mode with players constantly migrating across the map in order to find weak-points in the other team’s defenses either in the form of lone bunkers without back-up or free points with no defenders.

Superimpose a small bullseye on the modified-to-be-larger capture circles. Give standing outside of the bullsye a slower rate of point capture and decap. This creates a scoring distinction between ‘holding a point’ and ‘still fighting over it’. You can use AoE and knockback to clear out the bullseye, but not the outer circle if someone navigates the circumference. I can’t give exact numbers as I’m not intimate with all AoE skill ranges and the nuances of the format.

This is less drastic than just widening the circle and retains some of the original nuances of fighting over position. Because the circle is being made larger and easier to stand within, it becomes necessary to dilute the point scoring. However, this doesn’t entirely solve the format’s basic problem: that capturing an area to put points on the board does not equate strategically to securing it.

Just so you also know, giving more points for kills promotes burst damage and zerging strategies; and these things already do have a relation to bunkering/decapping; i.e. “I’ll handle this task solo so you guys can work together on something else”. A more typical solution, going along these lines of making kills more beneficial, usually scores points for assists on kills, to punish people for failing at basic strategy (losing 1v2, 1v3, etc), and to reward people extra for basic teamwork.

Points per kill vs players on a point increased from 5 to 15.
Capture nodes in GW2 Conquest now pulse a hidden, passive debuff to foes within their AoE. This debuff does not show up on a player’s status bar. This debuff pulses once each second and lasts for 1 second. Killing a player under the effects of this debuff earns your team 15 points.

^ if something similar to this is implemented, would we see such scenarios?

1. outnumbered bunker attempts to flee from the capture point
2. capture point is too large
3. pulled back into the capture point
4. downed and defeated due to outnumbered
5. the other team scores 15 points for that single kill inside the capture point

or …

1. start of match, both teams clash at middle, 4 vs 4
2. one team starts losing, the losing retreats away from the capture point

or …

1. start of match, both teams clash at middle, 4 vs 4
2. one team starts losing, the losing retreats away from the capture point
3. the losing team unable to retreat, all downed and defeated
4. the winning team scores 60 points for 4 player kills inside the capture point

Well, the other solution would be to simply make points per kill increase over time as the match drags on. They could start out at 5 and then increase by intervals of 3 over the course of the match, capping out at 15.

Larger points, better designed maps/points (no levelled platforms from which ranged classes can freely poop on nodes), bigger maps in general so movement isn’t trivialized, more team-oriented combat, a shift of focus from capturing nodes to actually (also) killing your opponents (i.e. a re-design of victory mechanics), and many other things have been called for repeatedly since the beginning.

You honestly believe anything will/can still change at this rate?
This thread is an effort wasted.

This is what happens when you have larger points:
http://youtu.be/iv2_1BB1zmw?t=13m35s

Lager Points were alrdy suggested since the beginning. But you know, A-Net is A-Net, so things won’t change to a better.

Or just don’t play skill-less spam builds. They just need to balance some stuff really, so nobody is forced to. The problem is there are already non brain dead builds outside the meta which are hugely OP when played well, they could well dominate completely after the nerfs.

Decap engi isn’t OP though, the average players brain is UP at the moment.

BlackBeard.2873:

This is what happens when you have larger points:
http://youtu.be/iv2_1BB1zmw?t=13m35s

WRONG.

That’s what happens when you’re bad at developing classes for your MMO.

Phaeton.9582:

Or just don’t play skill-less spam builds. They just need to balance some stuff really, so nobody is forced to. The problem is there are already non brain dead builds outside the meta which are hugely OP when played well, they could well dominate completely after the nerfs.

Decap engi isn’t OP though, the average players brain is UP at the moment.

That’s why I’ve taken steps to re-balance the professions in order to bring timing, positioning and aim back to the forefront of combat instead of relying on passives, instant damage and enormous AoEs.

This thread isn’t just because of decap Engineer; you couldn’t be further from the truth on that one.

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

Lager Points were alrdy suggested since the beginning. But you know, A-Net is A-Net, so things won’t change to a better.

To be honest 15 points per kill would really promote player vs player and discourage as much player vs point.

What good is that decap engi when you can kill him eventually and pick up those 15 points.

Really this would be so amazing for the game. I can’t believe they have never done it lol