Guild Wars 2

As someone who frequently plays games like Battlefield 3, I’m actually a fan of conquest game modes. That being said I feel that the way GW2 does conquest isn’t the most enjoyable thing to play at times. This tends to stem from a few mechanics that if tweaked could server to make the game more interesting in addition to it help drive the meta in a different direction.

The Size of the Points
The first major problem I have with conquest in GW2 is the size of the capture points. They are so miniscule that it’s no wonder that AoE is so prevalent. Now, I’m not saying every capture point needs to be the size of Graveyard but making them fit the landscape around them would lead to much more interesting combat situation and would keep AoE useful but not the dominate force that it currently is. Of course another change would need to be enacted in order for the increase in size to work.

Capture Rate Based on Number of Players
In order to avoid players dodge, evading, or blocking their way around a capture point and indefinitely delaying a capture another mechanic from Battlefield can be borrowed. The capture rate of points should not be stopped by the presence of an enemy; it should merely slow it. If there is 2 of blue and one of red on a point then blue should eventually capture the point. This means a single Bunker cannot hold off multiple foes for a long duration and deny the capture. Bunkers will still be useful for keeping the point for their team while backup arrives. This will mean that in high level play teams will have to better manage where they send their players. If they commit too many onto one point it may come at the cost of losing 2 others, or the loss of the side objective.

Side Objectives, a Good Idea in Need of Improvement
While of the subject of side objectives I have to say these are actually a good idea, it’s just that some are better designed than others. I’m not the biggest fan of Trollhamm…I mean Skyhammer, but the fact that the side objective can be such a deciding factor is something that I find to be a great idea. Temple also has a vital side objective in the form of Tranquility, but the other side objectives on that map are not nearly as important. Honestly, all of the side objectives can drastically effect who wins and loses which is PvP’s strongest feature in my opinion.

Variants of the Current Conquest
Another topic I’d like to point out is that if you want to focus on conquest as your primary game type that’s fine, but there is more than one way to do it. I don’t play a ton of Team Fortress 2, but one thing it does well is the linear Control Point game mode. This mode has the same concept of holding areas, but because the map is linear and the fact that you must capture the the nearest point to be able to move on to the next means you get more team play and focused engagements, which is great for shoutcasting as well. Adding a few maps like this into the mix allows for you to get creative with map design, which is another issue that I have with PvP in it’s current state.

More Varied Terrain
One of the best features of WvW is the ability to use the environment to your advantage. However, with the exception of a few of the newer maps PvP doesn’t really allow for this all that much. Trollha….Skyhammer does try to do this but goes a bit overboard. Meanwhile, many of the maps from launch are basically areas of flat ground with nothing on them. What if Graveyard was an actual graveyard that had large broken states and gravestones that could be used for breaking line of sight? Maybe have a point be up on a peak that you can knock people off, just not the the extent of Skyhammer where it instantly kills you. The general symmetrical nature of the maps isn’t bad, but things would be a lot more interesting if there was some environmental hazards that if used strategically could lead to clutch moments and surprise turnarounds.

Closing Thoughts
So there you have it, a few humble suggestions on what would make PvP more enjoyable for me. The unique combat of the game makes this the most visual MMO PvP I have ever played, but the mechanics aren’t quite up to snuff yet. I don’t think having one game type is that bad so long as it gets done right. I really do want to see PvP in this game become as popular as it was in GW1 and seeing it become a big esport wouldn’t be that bad either.

P.S. If you are going to respond, and please do, I suggest you read the whole thing as taking some parts on their own will detract from the overall picture.

Good post. Well thought out, fair critique. I suppose I will throw in a random idea or two.

1) Node Size – Couldn’t agree with you more. The smaller nodes make AoE so dominant that it reduces any other strategy to obsurdity.

2) De-Cap rates with foes on Node – I thought this from the beginning. It would make team fights much more dynamic if you could just out-body opponents on the node and get it flipped without having to basically wipe them or force a retreat before you can make any progress. This would make for more team coordination and raise the skill cap IMO.

3) Secondaries – While I agree that the secondary objectives are critical to good conquest modes I think that some need adjusting in this game. I will just ignore the maps that aren’t in Team Que rotation, since they are acknowledged as being fundamentally flawed.

Foe Fire – Guild Lord should have more/better defenses, but also be worth 500 pts. It should essentially be an All-in proposition going for a Lord Gank. Impossible for anything short of the whole team to execute, but auto-win if you pull it off. Give me NPC’s with actual functioning builds that players could duplicate to defend base. Archers on the walls (Power Based LB Rangers and BM SB Rangers at different spots), Guards stationed at the gates (Warriors, Probably GS, Mace/Shield), Various Casters scattered about the inside of the base at choke points, 2 Guardian Body-guards with the Tome heal and randomized other professions in the lord room.

Khylo – Treb shots should not be evade-able. The treb just isn’t quite good enough to be worth defending. There should also be a longer delay on the repair kit spawn forcing a real choice on if the treb should be defended or not.

Forest – Get the PvE out of my PvP. Svanir and Chieftain are terrible in their current implementation. Perhaps make it so they default to Off, but can be turned on by a buff (like Tranquility) that follows the player that picks them up as an ally. That way you would really think twice about picking them up, and taking them to a team fight would be a huge risk/reward to consider since they would award the opponent points/buffs on kill. This would make them far more strategic IMO.

4) Linear Control – isn’t really the same the conquest currently in this game, and that is good. There are a lot more things that could be done with conquest to give it twists, and I agree that the maps we currently have are basically different flavors of vanilla. This is kind of the same point as below.

5) Creativity in Maps compared to WvW – More terrain, more LoS that can be intelligently used for good positioning, more cliffs (not insta-kill, but strategic obstacles) and even hazards (think like the Fire Island GvG map from GW1) would all be welcome additions. Temple is one of my favorite maps because it seems to have far more thought put into these elements than the others (Pillars, LoS obstructions and/or elevation changes that can be played at pretty much every node and buff). These are the things that can give a map flavor. While I do agree that Skyhammer was a bit overboard in this regard, I think that it was a good idea that would be awesome if they tweak the falls a bit and change the cannon implementation to be more skill-shot oriented.

One thing not mentioned that I think bears discussion is a little bit more of a nostalgic touch for some new maps. Foefire is awesome because it makes me remember epic GvG’s long past. Give me some more maps that have that GW1 feel. A new spin for Nomads Isle or Frozen Isle or the Beta Clone Maps would be fantastic. There is so much more you can do with the GW2 system that you could really make those old classics into fascinating new iterations.

I agree that the secondary objectives need to be changed. Some of them are good ideas implemented poorly. Forest is certainly the worst one of the bunch. The Lord also does indeed need enough protection that it requires a team effort to be taken out. The Gates also need the same treatment so 1 guy can’t break down the gate and leave it ready for a zerg at the end of the match.

For the linear conquest I meant that the mechanics are close enough that I feel all that needs to happen is the addition of a locking mechanic and having actual linear maps. Same concept of holding points but the battle will be taking place in one area for the most part. Would also make Portal really desirable.

Also, one post like yours makes writing out this short essay worthwhile.

Larger node size and 2v1 decap might work together, maybe. They certainly wouldn’t individually, as larger nodes benefit bunkers in a huge way and 2v1 decap hurts bunkers in a huge way. All in all I think if both changes were implemented at the same time it would put a larger emphasis on keeping all or most of your team together (i.e. no one would guard back point because why?)

People would complain about zerging because 1v1s, 2v2s, and 1v2s would happen very rarely. Thieves would complain because they never realized that the conquest system encourages team splits and thus allows for a roamer role to be played. Rangers, mesmers, and any build that excels in small fights would get hurt badly. Hammer warriors, bunker guardians, and necros would be significantly more important (if that’s possible), just like we currently see in team deathmatch/GvG.

However, I’m not saying it would necessarily be awful. A kind of 5 on 5 teamfight tug of war might be interesting. It would change the game for sure and would remove about half of the current viable builds/roles, but it would reward teamfighting, focused bursting, and downed state control. All depends on what you want.

ANet wants this to be an Esport, so I think encouraging teamfights isn’t terrible because it makes it a lot easier to commentate when all the action is in one spot. They’ve also toned down particle effects so things are a bit easier to see now as well, not to mention the shaves petting zoos have received and Warrior’s rise in prominence.

BurrTheKing.8571:

ANet wants this to be an Esport, so I think encouraging teamfights isn’t terrible because it makes it a lot easier to commentate when all the action is in one spot. They’ve also toned down particle effects so things are a bit easier to see now as well, not to mention the shaves petting zoos have received and Warrior’s rise in prominence.

Right, I mean it could work. It would just be a very different game than we have today, and about half of the professions would need major buffs or nerfs to adjust for the removal of sidepoint control and roamer roles. If you think about it, there are currently four roles: teamfight bunker, teamfight dps (usually condi right now), roamer, and sidepoint control (e.g. Teldo). Making everything one big teamfight would make teamfights interesting, but it would cut the number of roles/builds in half and we’d see a whole lot of war/guard/necro until massive balance changes evened things out.

A better way is perhaps to introduce a similar mechanic on a new map without fundamentally changing the way conquest works and eliminating so many viable playstyles—for example, a linear tug-of-war map where you have to capture points in order. I feel there would be a large backlash if the current maps were suddenly changed in a way that made a lot of currently viable builds outdated.

Unfortunately, you never quite know how a 2v1 decap would work until you try it. It could be that every team bunkers up and sends 2 people to each point with a bunker roamer to cap. You wouldn’t really ever have to kill anyone – just outnumber them and stay alive to hold a point.

I like the water node idea with sharks but instead of the sharks attacking the person who is attempting to cap, they attack the team that has already capped, forcing them off the node.

NevirSayDie.6235:

BurrTheKing.8571:

ANet wants this to be an Esport, so I think encouraging teamfights isn’t terrible because it makes it a lot easier to commentate when all the action is in one spot. They’ve also toned down particle effects so things are a bit easier to see now as well, not to mention the shaves petting zoos have received and Warrior’s rise in prominence.

Right, I mean it could work. It would just be a very different game than we have today, and about half of the professions would need major buffs or nerfs to adjust for the removal of sidepoint control and roamer roles. If you think about it, there are currently four roles: teamfight bunker, teamfight dps (usually condi right now), roamer, and sidepoint control (e.g. Teldo). Making everything one big teamfight would make teamfights interesting, but it would cut the number of roles/builds in half and we’d see a whole lot of war/guard/necro until massive balance changes evened things out.

A better way is perhaps to introduce a similar mechanic on a new map without fundamentally changing the way conquest works and eliminating so many viable playstyles—for example, a linear tug-of-war map where you have to capture points in order. I feel there would be a large backlash if the current maps were suddenly changed in a way that made a lot of currently viable builds outdated.

Oh I wasn’t suggestion overhauling every map, just have variants so it is just a different way to play conquest. I’m not sure how the balance would have to be changed, we need “beta servers” that are running new maps/balance changes so they can do mass testing.

Figures, I make a thread about class tiers which will eventually degrade into “X class is OP Y class is UP,” but the thread I put a lot of thought and effort into gets largely ignored. Game forum communities in general are so darn negative.

At least the responses I got were quality, better than what I normally seem to attract.

The game also needs to slow down a bit.

Knote.2904:

The game also needs to slow down a bit.

Can’t say you’re wrong, I liked GW1’s more deliberate pace although it was still fast when it came to interrupts and spikes. The problem is how would you change it? It would probably need massive sweeping changes like increasing the cast time of many skills.

i write up short posts about 4 pips control points, everyone shoots me down.

this guy comes in with a tl; dr post suddenly everyone agrees with him?

BurrTheKing.8571:

Knote.2904:

The game also needs to slow down a bit.

Can’t say you’re wrong, I liked GW1’s more deliberate pace although it was still fast when it came to interrupts and spikes. The problem is how would you change it? It would probably need massive sweeping changes like increasing the cast time of many skills.

I just mean slightly higher TTK, and maybe a slightly lower TTK in downed state.

There does need to be more strategy in the actual fight and more skillful uses for evasion instead of being used randomly to help mitigate the insane amount of non-stop dmg spam coming at you.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

i write up short posts about 4 pips control points, everyone shoots me down.

this guy comes in with a tl; dr post suddenly everyone agrees with him?

I was trying to stay positive but again, if implemented in the next couple years, the only likely result would be thieves, mesmers, rangers, and eles feeling very left out. Even the other professions would lose all their roaming/pointcontrol builds. The game’s not exactly in a state where it can wipe out half of the working builds just because people perceive conquest to favor bunkers (you know, the kind of build each team very rarely takes more than one of).

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

i write up short posts about 4 pips control points, everyone shoots me down.

this guy comes in with a tl; dr post suddenly everyone agrees with him?

I’m just that loveable? Also i write VL; SR: Very long; Still Read.

In all seriousness though, presentation is sadly as important if not more important than the actual content. I think that the content should be the most important thing, but if you get as detailed as I like to it’s a lot harder to argue because I try to back up my reasoning as much as possible.

NevirSayDie.6235:

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

i write up short posts about 4 pips control points, everyone shoots me down.

this guy comes in with a tl; dr post suddenly everyone agrees with him?

I was trying to stay positive but again, if implemented in the next couple years, the only likely result would be thieves, mesmers, rangers, and eles feeling very left out. Even the other professions would lose all their roaming/pointcontrol builds. The game’s not exactly in a state where it can wipe out half of the working builds just because people perceive conquest to favor bunkers (you know, the kind of build each team very rarely takes more than one of).

I feel any changes need to be publicly beta tested in the future. Having tons of different players of different skill levels poking and prodding at changes gives them a lot more data to look at. It also gives the PvP crowd a feeling that there are indeed changes in the works.

Look at how often we get responses pertaining to PvP that say “working on” or “talking about.” I really want to believe them, but actually showing us what they’re working on would go a long way I think. Maybe have a beta client that just has PvP changes on it if having servers in the main game with possible changes isn’t possible.

NevirSayDie.6235:

Larger node size and 2v1 decap might work together, maybe. They certainly wouldn’t individually, as larger nodes benefit bunkers in a huge way and 2v1 decap hurts bunkers in a huge way. All in all I think if both changes were implemented at the same time it would put a larger emphasis on keeping all or most of your team together (i.e. no one would guard back point because why?)

I think that the ultimate effect of implementing both would actually push the meta toward more team play and different comp selections. In a scenario with larger nodes knockbacks become an entirely different tool. That is why Graveyard on Foefire plays so much differently than Clocktower on Khylo. If you make larger nodes and create a 2v1 decap function I think it will favor lower DPS tankier builds that can withstand more fire on the node. It might shake things up to the point that the only constant from all previous metas (the Guardian mid bunker) would no longer be the only choice for a mid bunker.

Additionally, I don’t think that it would necessarily encourage zerging as others have suggested. Strategic mobility would still outweigh a zerg in terms of capping ability, and so it seems to me that splits would become more favorable.

I never grew sick of LoL Domination, WoW’s Arathi Basin or Rift’s Codex, but I am sick of all these maps. Why is that?

kitten conquest..

Merlin Dyfed Avalon.5046:

kitten conquest..

I’d play a version of conquest that was kitten v kitten.