Guild Wars 2

For the love of the 6. Please make the cap circles on the new map bigger. It is just so frustrating and annoying (and that is telling you a dh-player)

I want Forefire Graveyard sized capture points!

Bigger capture points are fun to play sometimes. I think more maps should have at least the mid point be larger. You shouldn’t be able to cover the whole point with 1 trap or AoE (barring the absolutely ridiculous size of Elementalists AoEs….)

This is a problem I have as well. Small capture points promote more AoE spamming because the enemy can’t go anywhere else. We should have to try to force the enemy off the point instead of just placing any powerful AoE. And with larger points, DH traps won’t be as OP and you’ll have room to dodge and fight them on the point while staying out of the trap. And DHs will have to think about where they’re knocking you around toward. Are you pushing me into an option space of the point? That’s no good! I need to be skillful now to play.

Every single map should have foefire circles. Maybe make it so you can flip a point if you outnumber the other team as well.

Agreed, the circles need to be larger so DH isn’t so dominant on point.

ah annyone thought about it´s the same for all? Maybe diffrent strategy to use in this maps? If both sides can´t stand on point all the time it´s jsut a bit diffrent. Yes it might be that some classes/builds are not suited to it.

Ithilwen.1529:

Agreed, the circles need to be larger so DH isn’t so dominant on point.

I concur….

Ubik.8315:

Maybe make it so you can flip a point if you outnumber the other team as well.

That wouldn’t end well.

If you could cap points by a simply number advantage, then the obvious play would be to stack bunkers and play the rotation game. After all the best way to hold a number advantage is to not lose anyone.

In addition to this, I wish the capture points were separated by more distance. You can get in a fight with some one on a node, have some one show up to that fight just before you kill the first guy, be fighting the second guy, and then the first guy respawn and make it back to the node before either of you or the second guy kill each other. The points on kyloh are so close together that if there weren’t obstacles in the way, a ranger would kitten near be able to stand between two of the points and shoot people fighting on both of them by just turning his camera. Deciding which point to go to should be more of a decision. But even slowish classes can make it between two points in like ~10 sec.

i think this is a no brainer bigger cap points atleast for mid node should be a standard thing or maybe 2 large side points and a small mid lol would be nice

i would rather see cap points change to effect how long a fight goes rather then a nerf to skills making them ineffective 100% of the time…..

example – AOE ele or well necro or DH great for small points now if all points are small you have to nerf the skills to make them “balanced” meaning no one will run them…

or make “some” points larger so say at mid they are less of a impact (basiclly nerfing them) and then on sides there still just as good!

A bigger mid node on all maps would turn a lot of maps into foefire 2.0 where the team to first cap middle could easily snowball the rest of the map because holding a large node is extremely easy.

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

Hey everyone,
This has come up before and I thought I would give some insight as to why the capture points are the way they are.

When we look at the data we have for capture points, we notice that fights on bigger capture points tend to run much longer than capture points that are smaller. It makes sense, when players are able to use skills to guarantee hits on players that are on point, instead of the missing players that are on point but running around the outskirts of the point. This means on smaller cap points players will need to weigh the risk of being on the point and know when you need to rotate out.

Question time:
How do we like smaller capture points knowing that they reinforce fights coming to an end?
Would you change the mid point to be larger?
Would you change the side points to be larger?

No to both questions! Absolutely not my friend!

AoE cleave is the only thing that keeps AI specs in check, scare stealth gankers and allow for overall faster gameplay.

At most I’d say that Capricorn map mid point would be the ideal size, but pls pls pls do not introduce a cap point as large as Graveyard from Foefire map…anything but that, many people hate that map for a reason

As a DH player, a smaller capture point means Engi, Rev, and Ranger can no longer kite while also contesting the point. Considering the game is not entirely balanced in 1v1s, these smaller capture points make sense.

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

Hey everyone,
This has come up before and I thought I would give some insight as to why the capture points are the way they are.

When we look at the data we have for capture points, we notice that fights on bigger capture points tend to run much longer than capture points that are smaller. It makes sense, when players are able to use skills to guarantee hits on players that are on point, instead of the missing players that are on point but running around the outskirts of the point. This means on smaller cap points players will need to weigh the risk of being on the point and know when you need to rotate out.

Question time:
How do we like smaller capture points knowing that they reinforce fights coming to an end?
Would you change the mid point to be larger?
Would you change the side points to be larger?

id much rather see “some” points become larger to avoid nerfs to aoe (meaning aoe builds will still be very effective on the smaller points but yet much weaker on the larger ones….. if you just nerf the skills then they become less effective everywhere thus killing the build

Smaller capture points are anti-bunker, it makes it impossible in casual ranked play for teams to sit a support Ele & Druid and just by virtue of existing, make it impossible for a less coordinated or non-meta team to de-bunk them.

Small capture points favor AoE builds, this is true, but they also disfavor support stacking, by punishing groups who aren’t efficient at reducing the cleave they eat.

This is usually done by taking turns on point instead of everyone just maximizing the damage they take from AoE. It’s a good lesson or skill check, so I think small points are a positive thing.

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

Hey everyone,
This has come up before and I thought I would give some insight as to why the capture points are the way they are.

When we look at the data we have for capture points, we notice that fights on bigger capture points tend to run much longer than capture points that are smaller. It makes sense, when players are able to use skills to guarantee hits on players that are on point, instead of the missing players that are on point but running around the outskirts of the point. This means on smaller cap points players will need to weigh the risk of being on the point and know when you need to rotate out.

Question time:
How do we like smaller capture points knowing that they reinforce fights coming to an end?
Would you change the mid point to be larger?
Would you change the side points to be larger?

Make mid point larger on most maps at least. When a capture point is small enough to be entirely covered by a single AoE, trap/mark its not good design. That’s passive gameplay. It allows another player to either force me off the point or use blockv/evades that would normally be put to much better use if I want to keep them from capping/uncapping the node without them even doing anything except targeting the ground itself. You shouldn’t have that much power from passive gameplay skills. I don’t care if those skills are meta or not, you shouldn’t be allowed to do that with passive gameplay skills period.

The fights in larger nodes take longer because there is more skill involved. It eliminates the advantage that AoE spam classes have on smaller nodes, which forces them to change how they play, and actually use something resembling a strategy. If the fights are taking too long then maybe its a sign that your HoT specs have too much sustain/bunker ability still. If capture nodes are kept small enough to be dominated by passive AoE, ground targetted spam moves, then you should update those moves so that whoever cast it can’t contest a node while the effect is in place (same thing as invuln and stealth).

Darknicrofia.2604:

A bigger mid node on all maps would turn a lot of maps into foefire 2.0 where the team to first cap middle could easily snowball the rest of the map because holding a large node is extremely easy.

That’s not why you can snowball on foefire. The reason there is that the side points are relatively close, it’s possible to easily support mid while keeping an eye on the side, and also side points are equally distanced from both sides so going far is not such a disadvantage it is on other maps.

• Capture point starts big, around 420
• Whenever a fight happen around the point, it gradually becomes smaller over 20s
• Min radius is about 180
• When no fight is happening, gradually becomes bigger over 20s

All numbers can be tweaked based on data.
P.S: take a look at my other suggestions in the signature.

I’d change the points to be larger. Sure the fight runs longer. More importantly it doesn’t give an excessive edge to heavy armor and DH.

I’ve posted many times in the past that a Battlefield-like system could potentially work well in GW2 PvP. This would mean that:

1. The team with the most number of players on point would start to cap.

2. The cap speed would be greatly reduced if contested.

This might help keep the game from slowing down too much and would allow for larger capture points. It would be nice to also see different terrain on the points like large tombstones on Graveyard that can be used for cover and the like.

Larger capture points would also hopefully help with visibility because you could avoid bunching up. It might make certain builds more viable as well.

I think small cap circles are cute and adorable, and I just want to hug them

Entenkommando.5208:

For the love of the 6. Please make the cap circles on the new map bigger. It is just so frustrating and annoying (and that is telling you a dh-player)

The small nodes are to encourage DH stronkness. Enjoy it.

BurrTheKing.8571:

I’ve posted many times in the past that a Battlefield-like system could potentially work well in GW2 PvP. This would mean that:

1. The team with the most number of players on point would start to cap.

2. The cap speed would be greatly reduced if contested.

This might help keep the game from slowing down too much and would allow for larger capture points. It would be nice to also see different terrain on the points like large tombstones on Graveyard that can be used for cover and the like.

Larger capture points would also hopefully help with visibility because you could avoid bunching up. It might make certain builds more viable as well.

This may be the best suggestion I’ve ever heard in this section of the forum. It would make peel builds that much more important as well as just plainly winning combat. Also, big fat bunker build that encourage simple defensive play wouldn’t be such a dominant conquest force as they hold points forever 1v2.

ArenaNet should look in to this.

Sunshine.5014:

• Capture point starts big, around 420
• Whenever a fight happen around the point, it gradually becomes smaller over 20s
• Min radius is about 180
• When no fight is happening, gradually becomes bigger over 20s

All numbers can be tweaked based on data.
P.S: take a look at my other suggestions in the signature.

I like it. It would not work in every map (because they have physical barriers around the cap circle) but I like this mechanic. Could be something in a new map, or points that have no physical barrier like Capricorn and Coliseum. It creates a sense of urgency as the fight goes longer.

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

When we look at the data we have for capture points, we notice that fights on bigger capture points tend to run much longer than capture points that are smaller.

This is very much the key observation to the whole discussion. The interesting parts are how it interacts with class choices and the level of play.

That is, in general, at lower levels of play I consider bigger capture points to be advantageous. You’d see this at the beginning of seasons 2 and 3 when matchmaking was all over the place – at lower levels of play you’ll frequently see players downed and defeated in less than the 15 seconds it takes to capture a side point, if not full team wipes on first engagement. When that is the expectation, bigger capture points are definitely a good thing – it gives players more time to actually play the game instead of blowing up instantly.

At higher levels of play, not even esports level, deaths are a lot less common. Better players on meta builds tend to be pretty durable or very mobile, and not easy to kill, and if you give them a big, Legacy-sized capture point to work with the fight will simply never end. Legacy is very snowbally in higher levels of play as a result – once someone gets a cap on mid, it is very, very hard to push them off of it, locking in a win.

There’s also a class comp issue which comes up when playing solo queue – and the vast majority of play is solo queue. On a map with very small, enclosed capture points (Forest), it can often feel like the team that stacks the most point fighters has a pretty huge advantage and can bully the other team off; on the wide open maps, more mobile professions can contest points longer because they can kite while holding the point. As I personally play thief and revenant the most in sPvP I have a very strong preference for maps like Legacy, since that is a map where I have a strong ability to carry (I can contest longer, and continue to chip away at a foe on a point without conceding it), compared to Forest where I really have to hope the point fighters on my team (if I even get point fighters) do their jobs, because otherwise I’m SOL.

Capricorn has a pretty acute version of that problem – because you get so many points from dogpiling onto the bell when it comes up, you see a good number of matches determined by matchmaking – you can’t just out-rotate the stack of guardians that’s going to capture the bell every time, and you can’t fight it without a few comparable tanks of your own.

Based on all this, I’d think that, perhaps counterintuitively, you’d want a mix of point sizes, with ideally a small one in the middle and bigger ones on the sides – but of course a variety across maps makes for different strategic considerations and a better game overall, especially since very few (if any) teams change builds depending on the map.

So I’ll just voice my complaint about the postage-stamp sized capture point for the bell (I like the sizes on Capricorn otherwise, but trolling the bell would be preferable to dogpile for the win, IMO), and otherwise just ask for you to shake it up with each map you release.

What about making the mid point halfway between Legacy’s size and the size of all the other maps. The new Coliseum map looks so boring in the middle with such a small circle. But something a little larger would be nice.

Also, did you consider data from before June 23, 2015, when players weren’t running around with massive damage and high defence builds that made small point fights too quick and large point fights too long? Were large point fights still too long?

I’d prefer the capture points to be around ~360 radius on average, with ~290-ish being the absolute smallest. There’s far too much lingering 240 radius AoE in-game now for points to be that small.

Long fights are very preferable to the old zerk meta. “The one who lands the burst combo first , wins.” Long fights bring skill into the equation.

Trevor Boyer.6524:

BurrTheKing.8571:

I’ve posted many times in the past that a Battlefield-like system could potentially work well in GW2 PvP. This would mean that:

1. The team with the most number of players on point would start to cap.

2. The cap speed would be greatly reduced if contested.

This might help keep the game from slowing down too much and would allow for larger capture points. It would be nice to also see different terrain on the points like large tombstones on Graveyard that can be used for cover and the like.

Larger capture points would also hopefully help with visibility because you could avoid bunching up. It might make certain builds more viable as well.

This may be the best suggestion I’ve ever heard in this section of the forum. Snip

Simple question for both of you. Say me and my team manage to force a rotation where I can maintain a 1v2 while keeping a point contested for a considerable amount of time (ESL level), or say I am keeping some 2 people of an unorganized team around a point while contesting it (ranked PUG level). Say, in both scenarios I play well, leave room to rotate if needed, utilize terrain+kitting properly, utilize my skills properly (not carried by whatever thing is qq-ed about in the forum for being OP/broken). Why should my team not be rewarded for forcing a 1v2 in the favor of an enemy team that can`t resolve a scenario they should? Likewise, why should I not be rewarded for being able to stall two people by putting my knowledge of all game mechanics in practice?

Taking Battlefield 4 as an example, the conquest-point holding game types are vastly different from Guild Wars 2 PvP Conquest in several major aspects:

• the modes are designed for a very high number of players, from 20 up to 64 on the larger, full-conquest maps;
• number of capture nodes can range from 3 to 7, depending on the map;
• capping a point from neutral/decapping to neutral is in the 15 seconds range;
• re-spawning works differently; you can spawn on ally players and the overall points obtained from holding nodes influences the amount of re-spawns the opposing team has;
• sometimes vehicles are used on the field.

Given all of the above aspects, it would make sense that one would want to speed up the flow a bit in the Battlefield conquest design, and tweaking the node capture rate is a good way to go about it. But most importantly, there is a fundamental difference in game play; Battlefield is a shooter in essence and it cannot have the same pacing as a PvP MMO or a MOBA where you still control one player. You can`t talk about "+1"s and team fights from the latter in the same manner as you would discuss those from a shooter, they are too different in design and meaning.

Having the capture speed of contested points reduced together with the initial idea could work in Guild Wars 2. But how “greatly reduced” is enough and not too much, plus what happens in larger scale battles on point? What proper reference can you even use for implementing such a rate?

And ultimately, why are the smallest details that have never been an issue or looked at for 3-4 years and have worked up until then suddenly require a change? Why are we discussing proven fundamental aspects as problems when the increase in accounts of problems and complaints about “game pacing” (long battles, bunkers are the devil, qq about using terrain) and the like can be directly correlated to the introduction of the new thing: HOT? In addition, do we really want to go full circle and go back to zerker one-shot meta? Will we eventually reach a point where even that is not enough and we will “progress” to shooter level of pacing, and then arcade-shooter level of pacing?

Furthermore, why are we talking about Khylo trebuchet when mid-air immobilize bug still exists, numerous ranger pet bugs still exist, necro wurm random failing ports, list of rev bugs, etc, etc? Discussing a rework of rezzing and not addressing first and foremost the mechanics that trivialized this aspect of the game and were introduced with the HOT power-creep bandwagon. Killing depth and diversity by removing amulets instead of addressing the actual source of the problem, the conceptual designs introduced by HOT. Why all of this?

Isn`t it more sensible in the long run to address the powercreep that HOT introduced, if you really want to keep all the strong positives that the PvP design of this game has always had from release up to 3-years old? Instead of all the pseudo-solutions/band-aid fixes and cycling between which few of the one-per-class meta specs get to be top dogs for the next season? You need a strong foundation if you want to build something that lasts; you made wide fissures into your foundation to build HOT on top of it.

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

Question time:
(A) How do we like smaller capture points knowing that they reinforce fights coming to an end?
(B) Would you change the mid point to be larger?
© Would you change the side points to be larger?

(A) small points good. keep them small pls kthxbai.
(B) no. keep them small as it is now.
© no. keep them small as it is now.

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

Hey everyone,
This has come up before and I thought I would give some insight as to why the capture points are the way they are.

When we look at the data we have for capture points, we notice that fights on bigger capture points tend to run much longer than capture points that are smaller. It makes sense, when players are able to use skills to guarantee hits on players that are on point, instead of the missing players that are on point but running around the outskirts of the point. This means on smaller cap points players will need to weigh the risk of being on the point and know when you need to rotate out.

Question time:
How do we like smaller capture points knowing that they reinforce fights coming to an end?
Would you change the mid point to be larger?
Would you change the side points to be larger?

• If you had a map with 3 large capture points, fights might run longer, but every moment of play would have to be full skill for all combatants. (as opposed to hits “just landing” because everyone is forced into a smaller point).

• Also, it puts all classes closer to an equal footing. Some classes can sit in their spot and tank everything (DH’s, Certain War setups, Druids, etc). Other classes require kiting and duking (Mesmers, Thieves, certain war setups, etc). BY DESIGN certain classes need room to move around and breath.

• I’d recommend the square capture point in the NE corner that appeared in the WvW Alpine Borderland map when the lake was removed and replaced with the new map buff mechanic.

• As a bonus point, I’d love a map with an alternative mechanic. You don’t capture a point via tick, but it’ll instantly tick points whenever a member of a team is on it. As soon as it’s contested it stops ticking, but at least one person has to stay on the point to garner points. This would change how conquest plays out in terms of builds, rotations, and general strategy. More variety like this would be welcomed.

Trevor Boyer.6524:

BurrTheKing.8571:

I’ve posted many times in the past that a Battlefield-like system could potentially work well in GW2 PvP. This would mean that:

1. The team with the most number of players on point would start to cap.

2. The cap speed would be greatly reduced if contested.

This might help keep the game from slowing down too much and would allow for larger capture points. It would be nice to also see different terrain on the points like large tombstones on Graveyard that can be used for cover and the like.

Larger capture points would also hopefully help with visibility because you could avoid bunching up. It might make certain builds more viable as well.

This may be the best suggestion I’ve ever heard in this section of the forum. It would make peel builds that much more important as well as just plainly winning combat. Also, big fat bunker build that encourage simple defensive play wouldn’t be such a dominant conquest force as they hold points forever 1v2.

ArenaNet should look in to this.

Very good suggestion. Some maps shoudl work like that.
Keep maps diffrent. It´s fine to have diversity. And if statistics tell a map is neraly never voted then it´s time to rework.

Sunshine.5014:

• Capture point starts big, around 420
• Whenever a fight happen around the point, it gradually becomes smaller over 20s
• Min radius is about 180
• When no fight is happening, gradually becomes bigger over 20s

All numbers can be tweaked based on data.
P.S: take a look at my other suggestions in the signature.

Definitely this one.

remove the capture point from the side and make only mid point

create 2 flags red and blue
the flag has unique skills set
dropping the flag make it unuseable for 10 sec

the winning team it the one who manage to get more seconds holding the flag

for every 20 second holding a flag inside the cap point you gain bonus 25 points

the flag has 5 skills
1 AA doing cripple vulnerability and bleeding
2 aoe dmg – 15 sec cd
3 block for 2 sec – 15 sec cd
4 remove 3 conditions from allies around you – 25 sec cd
5 buffing your team dmg for 5 sec by 25% – 45 sec cd

this will give you more builds diversity and unique team composition

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

Hey everyone,
This has come up before and I thought I would give some insight as to why the capture points are the way they are.

When we look at the data we have for capture points, we notice that fights on bigger capture points tend to run much longer than capture points that are smaller. It makes sense, when players are able to use skills to guarantee hits on players that are on point, instead of the missing players that are on point but running around the outskirts of the point. This means on smaller cap points players will need to weigh the risk of being on the point and know when you need to rotate out.

Question time:
How do we like smaller capture points knowing that they reinforce fights coming to an end?
Would you change the mid point to be larger?
Would you change the side points to be larger?

I understand the reasoning, but smaller cap points do really favor classes with high AoE spam. Think DH or any other class that is built for that. In a 1v1 situation that is highly biased towards those classes, and I’ve seen it happen a lot on Coliseum.

Yeah I already got Champion Paragon so Anet needs to make circles bigger because I need Ritualist.

OriOri.8724:

Hugh Norfolk.2798:

Hey everyone,
This has come up before and I thought I would give some insight as to why the capture points are the way they are.

When we look at the data we have for capture points, we notice that fights on bigger capture points tend to run much longer than capture points that are smaller. It makes sense, when players are able to use skills to guarantee hits on players that are on point, instead of the missing players that are on point but running around the outskirts of the point. This means on smaller cap points players will need to weigh the risk of being on the point and know when you need to rotate out.

Question time:
How do we like smaller capture points knowing that they reinforce fights coming to an end?
Would you change the mid point to be larger?
Would you change the side points to be larger?

Make mid point larger on most maps at least. When a capture point is small enough to be entirely covered by a single AoE, trap/mark its not good design. That’s passive gameplay. It allows another player to either force me off the point or use blockv/evades that would normally be put to much better use if I want to keep them from capping/uncapping the node without them even doing anything except targeting the ground itself. You shouldn’t have that much power from passive gameplay skills. I don’t care if those skills are meta or not, you shouldn’t be allowed to do that with passive gameplay skills period.

The fights in larger nodes take longer because there is more skill involved. It eliminates the advantage that AoE spam classes have on smaller nodes, which forces them to change how they play, and actually use something resembling a strategy. If the fights are taking too long then maybe its a sign that your HoT specs have too much sustain/bunker ability still. If capture nodes are kept small enough to be dominated by passive AoE, ground targetted spam moves, then you should update those moves so that whoever cast it can’t contest a node while the effect is in place (same thing as invuln and stealth).

This pretty much fits with my experience – Coliseum currently favours team setups that stack AoE too much, due to the combination of capture points being close by and capture points being small.

In most other maps, if your team is losing the big teamfights because the other side just has more AoE than you can handle and you don’t have enough AoE to return the favour, you can play sides. Most maps have the capture points far enough apart that if they’re unguarded, you can generally claim them before someone can arrive from mid. So you can put the enemy in a position where they have to split up – making AoE stacking less effective and giving more single-target-oriented builds the opportunity to turn the tables – or forfeit two points most of the time.

In Coliseum, in my experience, that doesn’t happen. A team who holds mid can sit pretty there, while being able to get at least one person to a side point in time to prevent a cap, kitten the situation, and decide if they want to commit more to that point or not.

Foefire also has points close by, but you’re less likely to get into that situation because of the large size of the Graveyard capture point. The longer fights on Graveyard are, I think, a good thing – it means that if one team has lots of AoE the other team can avoid it while still contesting the point, and the fact that battles on mid last for longer in general makes it possible to steal side-points while the enemy is distracted by a fight happening on mid. The narrow point on Coliseum mid, on the other hand, means that the team with less AoE either has to suffer the bombardment (usually ending in defeat) or forfeit the point, meaning that the point is usually claimed in a short, decisive fight and then the team that wins mid basically dominates the match from there.

One of the other distinctions is, I think, that the Foefire secondary mechanic serves as another way to force a zerging team to split up – if you go for lord and you have the base level of competency not to die to NPCs alone, at some point they’re going to have to split people off to deal with that or forfeit 150 points. The Coliseum secondary mechanic doesn’t do that – grabbing the artefacts is generally a case of whoever is able to get to them first (I don’t think I’ve seen a fight over an artefact yet – closest is the odd fight outside the gates, and someone can still nip in and grab it while others are fighting outside) and claiming an artefact doesn’t help if your team is overmatched in teamfights anyway.

Points should be small, and maybe medium in some situations. Things like graveyard are just brokenly easy to hold for sustain builds with mobility

Personally I’d like the points to be at least a little bigger than your standart aoe. It doesn’t have to be Legacy size but you still should be able to evade something like a full dh-trap stack.

Another thing is that I personally dislike the basic idea of “I’ll just put all my damage on that point. Go out and let me cap or die”. For me it should be about skill and actively fighting your enemy away from the point.
Using the principle of outnumbering your enemy to cap the point like it has been in GW1 would also bring a lot more potential imo, but I think it doesn’t really work with todays class balancing.

While the idea has merrit (i mean this), I seriously don’t want another Foefire. That map is wvw zerging (5 ppl bullrushing from point to point, without enemy standing a chance unless they do top level rotations via teamspeak).

And zerging is the most boring pvp ever. Wvw is the place to zerg, and it’s much more fun there.

Knockback skills become pointless on big cap circles. 240 radius aoe becomes useless. Evades, leaps, blinks, become much much MUCH more powerfull. Making the normally quite balanced druid, suddenly into ‘amazing to maybe overpowered’ power level.

The fights are also much less fun and meaningfull. It’s just the team that managed to get the first ‘zerg him down’-kill, that wins mostly (See Denial Esports, necro vs necro focus wins).

This is why i love temple of silent storm, khylo and capricorn map. Zerging sometimes wins, but needs MUCH more finesse to to execute properly. No braindead 5 player zerg, mid then move, and cap all along way ‘kitten’ anymore. The extra objectives make that sometimes a 4-5 split is usefull, and then the duel skills of a player comes much more in place.

And strategy. ‘do i stay here at tranq? or do i quickly +1 a fight so we at least can come back?’ Do I cap stillness first, maybe loosing tranq, or go tranq anyway and let stillness fail? Choices. Important ones. This makes the maps fun. Foefire has NOONe of that. The lord imo doesn’t help as in SoloQ it’s a ‘win more’ mechanic, not a comeback mechanic (the lord is now overbalanced for ESL level players, making it almost impossible for soloQ solo/duo’s. you need teamspeak to break his bar consitently imo, unless maybe dragonhunter).

So i know 80% (see map votes) loves foefire, and thus will disagree with me, but no no no no no, to bigger cap points! Mesmer currently is balanced, but once it can kite more (and do ranger shatters) within a big point, it seriously will need more nerfs to not be ‘overpowered’ while atm, having to stand on traps from DH, to contest the point, mesmer are not so much overpowered. It would seriously shift the meta, and have serious results.

Wvw and pvp modes should focus on their strengths, not try to merge, ty anet.

Foefire is too big but the new ones are kinda too small and favor DH far too much. Just because the fights take longer doesn’t mean the fight is any less interesting, being able to kite and having room to avoid big damage is interesting in itself whereas dumping all the traps/wells or w/e onto the point so people get off is hardly interesting.

maybe if they add bonus points to the team who have the buff but also give points if the other team manage to kill the person who took the buff …. it will drove off point the teams

The small caps are fine imo, foefire sized caps just promote snowballing because it is almost impossible to cap them back once you lost them, since every somewhat tanky player who knows how to kite it can usually delay the cap until another teammate has arrived, unless it’s 4v1 or something, which doesn’t happen in somewhat balanced matches.

The trap spamming on caps is a bit annoying, but could be fixed just by making tracks unstackable, so they’d need to be on different places or used with a different timings.

All you’re doing is encouraging an even more broken play style with even more broken builds. The smaller nodes reinforce tanky/sustain driven builds with huge aoe. You should be able to kite around a point instead of promoting the vomiting of aoe while you face tank everything.

I think the proper cap circle size that allows you to intelligently mitigate some damage with good positioning (or cause lots of damage by intelligently placing aoes), but not so large that you can easily just run in a circle and evade most damage (like you can in foefire mid).

Most AoE skills are around 240 radius. so the cap circle should be ~270 radius. You can still be smart and skirt the edge to outplay players who are mindlessly dropping aoe in the middle of point, but you can’t just stall out a fight as most AoE will hit you if properly placed.

BlackBeard.2873:

I think the proper cap circle size that allows you to intelligently mitigate some damage with good positioning (or cause lots of damage by intelligently placing aoes), but not so large that you can easily just run in a circle and evade most damage (like you can in foefire mid).

Most AoE skills are around 240 radius. so the cap circle should be ~270 radius. You can still be smart and skirt the edge to outplay players who are mindlessly dropping aoe in the middle of point, but you can’t just stall out a fight as most AoE will hit you if properly placed.

do you realize your suggestion of “increasing” the cap size to 270 would actually reduce the size of even the smallest point on every map…

Darknicrofia.2604:

BlackBeard.2873:

I think the proper cap circle size that allows you to intelligently mitigate some damage with good positioning (or cause lots of damage by intelligently placing aoes), but not so large that you can easily just run in a circle and evade most damage (like you can in foefire mid).

Most AoE skills are around 240 radius. so the cap circle should be ~270 radius. You can still be smart and skirt the edge to outplay players who are mindlessly dropping aoe in the middle of point, but you can’t just stall out a fight as most AoE will hit you if properly placed.

do you realize your suggestion of “increasing” the cap size to 270 would actually reduce the size of even the smallest point on every map…

That is simply not true, go to Temple, the size of the side cap is ~270 RADIUS, side of Forest is around the same. These points are just about right imo.

In fact, almost no map has a smallest point larger than ~270. Waterfall is a little bit below 270, but that is proper because of the shape of the point.

Nowhere did I say “increase” in my post, simply said what I thought was the correct size.

Keep in mind kittens that while a lot of you bring up dh cleave as a reason for why small capture are bad, a larger capture point is easier to hold on tk making bunker dh harder to kill since they have a lot of space to kite in.