Guild Wars 2

Hello. First off I must admit that I have not given this idea hours of thought so this is more a point of discussion than a sollution, so read it through and discuss.

I have seen a lot of people complain that the conquest game type is boring in the long run. With this I can agree somewhat. The current implementation is boring, and why is that? Because it encourages a meta where the role of bunkers are way too important (going with multiple bunkers is almost mandatory for success).
Why are bunkers this important then? To keep it short, a well played bunker can hold a point against one or a few opponents for a long enough time. The only drawback is that it can not quickly kill the attacker. This in turn leads most good teams to just leave a bunker at two points, and in most cases, no number of attackers will kill the bunker in time to flip the node.

How can we make this more dynamic then?

I propose a slight change to the way node capping works. Currently a node will only be change ownership if a team is alone in the node. Thus a bunker can delay capping for a long time. What if the mechanics allowed the team with MORE players inside the node to capture it? Then two player would be able to capture a point guarded by a single bunker. The defending team would have to either kill an attacker (to equal out the numbers) or send a roamer there quickly to reach the same effect. At that point it would come down to who can kill an opponent faster.

With this mechanic bunkers would still have a role to fill to help ensure a greater number at a node, but their weakness (barely no damage output) would become a real weakness. As of now it is irrelevant for them to kill since all they have to do is to stay where they are.

I would imagine that this would create a more dynamic sPvP environment where pure bunker teams would not be able to dominate by simply not dying. A good bunker team could still outplay their opponents by dynamicly relocating their players to keep the proper number of players at the right nodes, but it might be wiser to build a team with some damage to turn the battle.

Your thoughts?

zergs
/15 chars

Ok you want to promote zerging Oo. Seriously not a good idea :-/.

If you cannot outmaneuvre a team moving in a zerg I feel that you are doing something wrong. (I am not talking about the 8v8 games here). You might have to adjust the speed in which things are capped to ensure that you can’t just zerg around too quickly either. I do see the risk for it but I do not think zerging would be a problem if things were implemented properly. You might be right though.

It’s actually a good idea. 2v1 should always slowly decrease the cap and neutralise it then eventually cap it. Force the enemy team to respond, and the bunker to actually do something bar cycle knock backs, stability etc.

Would also promote balanced builds, that can be defensive yet still dish out levels of damage.

Valkyriez.6578:

It’s actually a good idea. 2v1 should always slowly decrease the cap and neutralise it then eventually cap it. Force the enemy team to respond, and the bunker to actually do something bar cycle knock backs, stability etc.

Would also promote balanced builds, that can be defensive yet still dish out levels of damage.

My point being exactly that. The enemy team has to actually respond and not just trust the bunker to hold the point indefinately.

To those of you screaming about zerging, how is this different from the current system? 2v1 is hardly what I consider a zerg. And if the enemy goes 4v1 or 5v1, well then something is free for the takning elsewhere, and you have 4 players left against one or even no enemies. I fail to see how this promotes zerging as you still have to KEEP nodes to win.