Guild Wars 2

What do you guys think about adding new gametypes to structured pvp? It does get pretty repetitive doing the same mode on all of the maps if you ask me. How about a straight up deathmatch mode and/or a capture the flag mode?

Anybody else have any suggestions?

Edit: If they do decide to add more gametypes, it would also be nice for them to add a map/gametype vote system at the end of each match too.

I think that they will add duels, TDM, CTF only when they will be ready to let us to open our pvp servers

I’d like to see a game mode with more of a NPC/MOBA feel to it (in addition to CTP, DM, etc.).

Team deathmatch? God no.

In hot join, that will be absolute garbage. Everyone will go full damage.

Capture the flag, though, I could see working out. However, utility skills and weapon skills should be disallowed, as well as any form teleporting (including mesmer portals)

Pete.6037:

Team deathmatch? God no.

In hot join, that will be absolute garbage. Everyone will go full damage.

Capture the flag, though, I could see working out. However, utility skills and weapon skills should be disallowed, as well as any form teleporting (including mesmer portals)

I’m just throwing out ideas as they come to me. Remember, if they were to add a Team Deathmatch, or even a free for all deathmatch, you don’t have to play it if you don’t like it. You need to keep that in mind. I figure the more gametypes available, the more interesting structured pvp will be.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point on capture the flag, however. Any teleport, stealth, or any other skill that I’m blanking on right now that would be severely overpowered while carrying a flag, should certainly force the flag to drop.

It would be rather neat to see a couple more game modes added such as:
~Free For All Death Match
~Capture the Flag
~Gladiator

I would also love to see a few more maps in general being added. I know that most people would hate this; however, I for one wouldn’t mind paying $10 U.S.D. for a P.V.P. map pack. Maybe a map for each race? and of course the general historical sites that us G.W.1 players have come to love.

There are always going to be flaws in a game type when it comes to a game with multiple races and classes;however, every improvement starts off just as a concept. I like the idea purposed and I truly hope that the development staff for G.W.2 takes some of these ideas to heart.

Wolfey.3407:

I for one wouldn’t mind paying $10 U.S.D. for a P.V.P. map pack.

I would. I have no problem paying for an actual expansion when the time comes, like they did with Guild Wars 1. As far as paying for a map pack, what is this, a console FPS?

I can see CTF kind of working like keg brawl.

I’ve heard the devs have said they tested several different gameplay types during the course of development, including MOBA style lanes, CTF, TF2 style escort, team deathmatch, etc.

My understanding is that they felt node-based conquer style gameplay was the best fit for the game’s combat mechanics (e.g., using knockbacks and other forms of control to fight over capture points.) This type of gameplay is also ideal for spectating, because combat is broken down into small bite-sized chunks, where it’s fairly easy to process what’s going on in individual skirmishes, and combat is centralized around 3-5 very specific areas.

I don’t think it’s outside of the realm of possibility that they’ll add more gameplay types at some point, but I think you’re going to see new conquer maps added long before you see different gameplay types.

Nkrdbl.8160:

Wolfey.3407:

I for one wouldn’t mind paying $10 U.S.D. for a P.V.P. map pack.

I would. I have no problem paying for an actual expansion when the time comes, like they did with Guild Wars 1. As far as paying for a map pack, what is this, a console FPS?

F.P.S. are not the first genre of gaming to use map packs… It has been a semi successful model in P.V.P. for other M.M.O. based games. What’s the worse thing that can come from it? You end up playing with other players who actually have a desire and care enough of the game to buy map packs. Generally speaking, a lot of complaints and idiocies in P.V.P. comes from 2 types of players: 1) Trolls (2) Newbies. With the addition of map packs you really limit both of those options. Why? Trolls are not going to waist their cash on buying extra maps if they are going to get reported, and newbies are not going to waist their cash on map packs if they aren’t sure if they will like P.V.P. or not. So in the end its a win-win-win situation A win for the players for having more maps to play on, a win for Arenanet & NCSOFT for having more cash in their pockets, and a win for semi-hardcore and hardcore P.V.P. players for not having complete newbies and trolls from interrupting/ ruining their game play.

I used the example of console FPS games selling map packs because I felt it was a widely known practice. I wasn’t claiming they were the first, or that they’d be the last. I made this thread to discuss the possibilities and suggestions from the community on new gametypes.

If you’d like to discuss the possibility of paying for a map pack, I’d recommend creating a new thread. Any further input on this threads discussion would be appreciated though.

I did not state in any of my posts that you made a claim of F.P.S. being the first or the last to use this model, I was stating facts to support and back my claim as to why a map pack would be good possibility to explore. As for your off topic complaints, If you are not willing to tolerate another users input on a public forum then you really need to deactivate your account and invest into some Ethics and Public Speaking courses. It is my deepest sympathy and I truly apologize if my input has offended you in anyway. However, I would like to quote a couple things from the original post made by you that void out your argument of:
“If you’d like to discuss the possibility of paying for a map pack, I’d recommend creating a new thread. Any further input on this threads discussion would be appreciated though.”

“Anybody else have any suggestions?

Edit: If they do decide to add more gametypes, it would also be nice for them to add a map/gametype vote system at the end of each match too."

I refereed back to both of your point:
“map” & “game type” by combining them into a map pack system.

I ask that you fully read the posts and take a two-three minutes pause before responding to other writers posts, It is not good practice in any social setting to respond in anger or frustration.

I think it’s reasonable to assume we might see new types in future content xpacs or the like. But the game is brand new and don’t expect anything new for some time. I personally enjoy the consistency in objectives. But as I said I’m sure they might add more variety down the road.

I do feel the diversity of PVP available at the moment is paltry, especially given that this is an (extraordinary) PVP-oriented game and has been in development for 5 years. As some have said, one small scale PVP mode does get repetitive quick, as fun as it is.

Speaking only of my personal preference, not on whether it would necessarily work well as I haven’t logged in enough hours in this young game to have firm convictions on anything:

1) Arena. Something as small scale as 1 vs 1 to 5 vs 5. For me, the funnest type of PVP has always been the kind where you can focus solely on battling each other without the interference of map objectives, in small numbers. Just pure combat strategy.
2) Dueling. More informal than 1 vs 1 Arena. Should be accessible on most any map, except perhaps main cities. Also a great way to pass time when waiting on ques (which is several hours long for me in WvW), waiting for dungeon groups to form, etc.
3) World PVP. Don’t know if this could exist with the game’s lore, which I’m not familiar with. But if they could designate certain maps/zones as world PVP, it would provide a really fun, spontaneous PVP experience, as opposed to sPVP and WvW which first ports you into a new (non-contiguous?) zone. So the latter types feel like a more detached experience by the nature of how they exist and are presented. And should the lore get in the way of this possibility, it can’t be hard to come up with some new lore for a map or two to allow for this—the world map is huge!
4) Medium-scale PVP. Something with more players than sPVP and far less players than WvW. It’s a great middle ground for people who feel the “intimacy” or pressure of sPVP is too great as that is where individual skill is most crucial and bad tempers are most prevalent, and the massive size of WvW is too skill-less by comparison (not to diminish the skill of group coordination, but only that individual combat skill is of lesser import in WvW). The much smaller map afforded by medium-scale combat would also address the fatigue and downtime some people don’t like with all the running around in WvW, but still provide big fights.
5) PVP in Main Cities. Lore could as much prevent or give a reason for this occurring. Maybe something where during certain times of the day, spurred by certain events occurring,…or…oh, I dunno. In my imagination it feels like something that would add yet more energy to the already lively atmosphere of the 5 racial capitals and Lion’s Arch. But it would add something that isn’t there: the unexpected. And that would further embue city life with a sense of cooperation, activity, immersion.
6) A ranking system, shown in-game and on some “Armory”-type site, for all the PVP types. So if you’re not good at or don’t like WvW and have a low ranking there, you can still show off your Dueling/Arena/etc ranking.

And should ANet believe any of these PVP types may not be ideal, there, I imagine, will be many players who believe otherwise. By providing these other possibilites for play, it should bring in even more players and retain player interest much longer. They could also devalue the PVP types they don’t believe are as ideal, by simply not balancing the game on those game types and/or not including them in a ranking system.

Cheers. (I spent too long writing this. I should be in the game!)

Wolfey.3407:

I did not state in any of my posts that you made a claim of F.P.S. being the first or the last to use this model, I was stating facts to support and back my claim as to why a map pack would be good possibility to explore. As for your off topic complaints, If you are not willing to tolerate another users input on a public forum then you really need to deactivate your account and invest into some Ethics and Public Speaking courses. It is my deepest sympathy and I truly apologize if my input has offended you in anyway. However, I would like to quote a couple things from the original post made by you that void out your argument of:
“If you’d like to discuss the possibility of paying for a map pack, I’d recommend creating a new thread. Any further input on this threads discussion would be appreciated though.”

“Anybody else have any suggestions?

Edit: If they do decide to add more gametypes, it would also be nice for them to add a map/gametype vote system at the end of each match too."

I refereed back to both of your point:
“map” & “game type” by combining them into a map pack system.

I ask that you fully read the posts and take a two-three minutes pause before responding to other writers posts, It is not good practice in any social setting to respond in anger or frustration.

I’m not entirely sure why we continue to argue with each other here. I asked the community if they had any further suggestions, which I thought was understood as suggestions for other gametypes.

Apparently editing my post to mention that I think it would be nice for them to add a vote system for gametype/map to you means that I felt they needed to add more maps too? While I’d certainly welcome more maps, I would be more interested in other gametypes first, as playing the same gametype over and over can get pretty tedious. Wouldn’t you agree?

Who’s offended? I’m certainly not. We’re all here for the same reason after all, aren’t we? To enjoy the game, right?

I replied to your posts simply because your counter arguments on my post were off the mark and not correct at all. I have no desire to argue with anyone at all;however, I do not feel it is correct to basically tell a person to go away because you do not like what they have to say or that you do not agree with their general ideas or concepts.
“If you’d like to discuss the possibility of paying for a map pack, I’d recommend creating a new thread.”

All of my ideas and feed back have been on topic and inline with the original and corresponding posts within your thread.

At your point of: “Apparently editing my post to mention that I think it would be nice for them to add a vote system for gametype/map to you means that I felt they needed to add more maps too? While I’d certainly welcome more maps, I would be more interested in other gametypes first, as playing the same gametype over and over can get pretty tedious. Wouldn’t you agree?”

It makes no logical sense to have a vote system for just three maps…I am sure everyone can agree to that… so there is a underlying desire to implement more maps and game types into the game. Which I agree with you on the addition of game types;however, with your clause question of : “Anybody else have any suggestions?” I took the opportunity to introduce a map pack concept to bundle our ideas and concepts. (which is still on topic if you like it or not)

I myself, would rather see both maps and game types added together to compliment each other. It would be very boring and rather cliche for a gaming company such as ANET and NCSOFT to recycle the same 3 maps over-over-over again. To be quite blunt, a couple of the current maps can NOT support C.T.F. due to the awkward mechanics and logical flaws that would be present .

I don’t feel that what I said was “off the mark and not correct at all”, but to each his own at this point. Can we stop arguing and get back to the topic?

It is true that some of the maps wouldn’t work well for CTF, I agree with that. Clearly we’re both posting in this topic because we both want structured PVP to have a larger variety.

Technically their are two versions of CTF that could potentially work. I’d much prefer a 2 flag version, where you simply have to score your enemies flag while your flag is safe in your base. Another version that might work is 1 flag CTF where teams take turns on offence and defense (very similar to how CTF worked on Halo if anybody played that). The latter may not work at all, but it’s just an idea.

Another gametype that could work that would be very similar to the current gametype, would be king of the hill. This would work by having the objective move at certain intervals during play and your team would gain points by controlling it (once again, very similar to how it works on the Halo games).

Long as we can keep the discussion ethical I have no problems
I believe the two flag variation would be awesome on a map such as foefire.
I really do not know how a 1-Flag variation would work on G.W.2. maybe placing the flag dead middle of the map and make it a sudden death variation? I love the idea about King of the Hill. That was one of my favorite modes through out the Halo series, and it could benefit a ton of players from newbies in need of kills through veterans in need of a change of pace.

Would be nice if they introduced a couple blood sports as well like a Griffball variation. Replace the swords and hammer concept with standard G.W.2. weapons and skills.

Great suggestion Wolfey! I really like that suggestion for a sudden death 1-flag variation as opposed to the offence/defense version I “borrowed” from Halo. That would certainly make for some interesting battles over the neutral flag.

bump…ABOUT A YEAR AGO..PEOPLE WERE ALREADY COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS. cant wait to play without cap points.

Pete.6037:

Team deathmatch? God no.

In hot join, that will be absolute garbage. Everyone will go full damage.

Capture the flag, though, I could see working out. However, utility skills and weapon skills should be disallowed, as well as any form teleporting (including mesmer portals)

Wow. Everything written here is wrong. Team Deathmatch is fine. The point of the game is to survive. Some people will be dps, some will be support. That works great.

CTF is a horrible idea. The classes are NOT balanced for that. Taking skills away makes things even more unbalanced. You basically want the snowball fight from last years winter update to be the new game mode. Boring.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Player_versus_Player

To begin with..

best necro solar system