Guild Wars 2

If the game was remodeled to attempt balance around 2v2/3v3 arena style pvp, it would be incredibly fun.

Any 5v5+ arenas I’ve ever done feel way too chaotic, and the general rule of thumb I have is.

The less amount of people on your team, the more YOU directly affect the outcome. Also allows you to create great synergies with a small amounts of players.
——
So how I see it is
1. Its easier to balance, and would make 1v1 balance far better. (1v1 balance is a pretty big deal even in 5v5, yet the balance is just not there. It’s realistically rock paper scissors at the moment.

There are many builds that are just plain weak/strong against other builds in a harsh manner. What’s worse is the game seems to support this with specific traits/skills rather than deter it.
——
2.The chaos of larger scale pvp just increases luck factor was well and randomness.

A) In small scale pvp, every ability counts. If you miss a spell or get baited in to a cc combo you can get behind quickly. This means you always have to be on your toes, you have to learn animations, and maximize the usage of your class

B) I’ve played with rank 20+ who have no idea what most combo fields do . Most players don’t even know other classes abilities either. It feels like the current state of pvp players can just go in blindly and do well without much thought.

C) If you’re involved in a small group fight and you come up on top you know you played well and did well . If you are in a massive group fight and play poorly, you can still win, as other pick up the slack
——
3. 5v5+ technically limits the amount of people you play with.

If I play with 4 other people consistently and we get good, I won’t want to run with another team. Its too much of a time investment to structure around 4 other players.

In 2v2/3v3 you can rotate a lot of players and get similar results as long as they are at the same level as you.
——
Why I made this post

Just my thought process. I really loved the style bloodline champions had even if I wasn’t the greatest at it. I knew if I lost and had a bad score that I played bad and can improve. To me that’s a huge driving force for enjoying competitive gaming. The fun comes from striving to improve and eventually getting there….not just winning

I actually concur in that I would love to see 3v3 and 2v2 (it’d be much much easier for me to field a team that way) however I do not believe ANet will officially support it as in balance for it since 5v5 is their stated esport model.

That and it really would solidify the faceroll nature of thief/mesmer/guardian for all to see and mock (more than we already do).

I actually concur in that I would love to see 3v3 and 2v2 (it’d be much much easier for me to field a team that way) however I do not believe ANet will officially support it as in balance for it since 5v5 is their stated esport model.

That and it really would solidify the faceroll nature of thief/mesmer/guardian for all to see and mock (more than we already do).

I think that will be a good thing. The more apparent balance issues are, the more obvious they are to control. ALOT of problems are going unnoticed because they are hard to pinpoint.

i agree, 3v3 and 2v2 gets rid of the terrible bunker/roamer/support meta

Anet specifically said they would do away with role based combat, certainly is like that to some degree in pve but spvp LIVES on it for some absurd reason

Most of the fights in this game are 3v3 or smaller anyway?

I enjoy 1v1 and 2v2 deathmatch a lot more than 3v3 death match. 5v5 conquest is awesome. 8v8 conquest is not that good.I would love the following for GW2:

1v1, 2v2, 3v3 deathmatch arena (everyone hapy)
5v5 conquest (reduce 8v8 sPvP to 5v5)
5v5 capture the flag (with 2 flags on each side to avoid turtle tactics)
8v8 Guild vs Guild

put ladders + match making system on all of them and seperate them in their own catagory and GW2 sPvP will be awesome.

“If the game was remodeled to attempt balance around 2v2/3v3 arena style pvp”

The game’s been in testing for like 4 years or more based around conquest, this would never happen, although I do agree it could be fun.

“Most of the fights in this game are 3v3 or smaller anyway?”

Pretty much what I thought when I read the thread at the beginning, apart from the 4v4 or 5v5 you somtimes get on foefire.

Unfortunately we have the WoW arena factor bearing down on us like a nasty smell. As they’ve spent so much time on conquest, and want to base monthly, weekly and yearly tournaments around it, I wouldn’t expect any Arena style mods for at least a year… minimum. Just an opinion, but they’ve been settled on conquest for a long time and going back on that in favour of something now would ruin balance and the game.

I’d be all for some 3v3 arenas. I’m not sold on 2v2 however even without dedicated healers.

GW2 lacks sufficient abilities to make 2v2 an interesting bracket. 3v3 offers enough room for skillful play on a personal level while leaving room for cross-profession combos and assists.

I imagine 3v3 could work quite well however.

Obviously these death-matches would have to take part in some kind of arena and not the current sPvP maps.

Blazer Hellsing.9184:

I enjoy 1v1 and 2v2 deathmatch a lot more than 3v3 death match. 5v5 conquest is awesome. 8v8 conquest is not that good.I would love the following for GW2:

1v1, 2v2, 3v3 deathmatch arena (everyone hapy)
5v5 conquest (reduce 8v8 sPvP to 5v5)
5v5 capture the flag (with 2 flags on each side to avoid turtle tactics)
8v8 Guild vs Guild

put ladders + match making system on all of them and seperate them in their own catagory and GW2 sPvP will be awesome.

+1. This would be awesome.

@Mammoth.1975

except the 3v3, that really was a 4v3 for the first 20 sec and the 4th guy was like im gonna go cap a point and after the first guy in the 3v3 died the 4th guy come back to help take it over and the guy that died gets back into to also jump in to keep it a 3v3 even if the team in a real 3v3 model would have won by now is still fighting a recycled 3v3+1-1+1-1-1-1=WIN

Dee Jay.2460:

I’d be all for some 3v3 arenas. I’m not sold on 2v2 however even without dedicated healers.

GW2 lacks sufficient abilities to make 2v2 an interesting bracket. 3v3 offers enough room for skillful play on a personal level while leaving room for cross-profession combos and assists..

I believe that the major problem at the moment is simply class balance. Higher player counts worked in GW1 and can work in GW2. On the other hand, 3v3 does sound like a lot of fun, although I agree with Dee Jay that 2v2 would not work.

i would like to have both point take system and arena team fighting pvp the more option i have the more time i spend playing, not every system of pvp has to be tournament used. but the more system we have i that we already know have worked in other games =more opportunity for fun.

3v3 sounds pretty nice.

I would love a 2v2 or 3v3 arena. This was my favorite aspect of WoW … but I got frustrated in WoW because I didn’t have time to grind the greatest PVE gear – and for a long time you needed a mix of PVP/PVE gear to be most effective.

I was so excited to play Guild Wars because there is no pvp gear grind – but with the single spvp game mode and lack of player rating I find I’m already getting bored with it. Would love to have some rated Arenas so that I can play with and against players of my own caliber.

Also – 3v3 arenas is really a lot more spectator friendly than conquest and if this game ever will be a serious e-sport they’re going to have to take that into consideration.

Yep.

Put it in, please.

I think this will open the floodgates:

1) better competition
2) easier for casuals
3) focus on combat (not points)
4) clearer comparisons for balancing classes
5) more viable builds besides glass cannon or bunker
6) greater fairness for rank and glory
7) increased team/class awareness
8) less of a TTL/TTK problem

… i feel like there is more, but honestly: I’m playing every class now (which helped for awhile) and still just don’t want to pvp because of conquest. It feels like every other skirmish I’m getting outnumbered and facerolled with little recourse, all day long. It makes it seem like all my skills and effort don’t amount to much.

I’d love a 3v3 arena =/ I really hated forsaken world for example pve wise and even the classes felt pretty boring but its 3v3 arena (until the cash shop got a bit over bearing) was what kept me playing and it was a blast >.<

Id love if they put a 3v3 arena where u won badges for a new type of exotic fashion set per win…u know something other then the spvp grind for crap that doesnt matter and u can only see in spvp

I support this. Random Arena was my go-to mode in the first GW. Kept playing that long long after I had no longer had interest in PvE or the the time and energy for GvG.

If you do implement a mode like this though – don’t’ shuffle the teams around like you do in conquest. Just let us stick with our winning team.

I don’t agree with much of the OP at all. I hope ANET never brings in a deathmatch based PvP system. (Mainly because once it’s there, that’s all anyone will play) I love the fact that there are objectives in PvP. It leads to a much deeper PvP experience and encourages much more team-play.

Most of you are either stuck in other MMO hysteria or forgetting this game is still very fresh. Players WILL get better and we’ll notice a significant change to the metagame as this happens, heck, we’ve already noticed big changes since the beginning.

My advice: make a 5’s team, and enjoy paid tournaments when they come out in a week. Within a few weeks we’ll see new strats that have never been tried.

Sezu.8564:

I don’t agree with much of the OP at all. I hope ANET never brings in a deathmatch based PvP system. (Mainly because once it’s there, that’s all anyone will play)

If it is the only mode anyone will ever play then it is obviously a more fun mode. Your argument is that deathmatch is more popular and people should be forced to play conquest, because if given the option they will just play deathmatch. Let the players pick. This is a game right?

GhostSniperW.7508:

Sezu.8564:

I don’t agree with much of the OP at all. I hope ANET never brings in a deathmatch based PvP system. (Mainly because once it’s there, that’s all anyone will play)

If it is the only mode anyone will ever play then it is obviously a more fun mode. Your argument is that deathmatch is more popular and people should be forced to play conquest, because if given the option they will just play deathmatch. Let the players pick. This is a game right?

The issue here is highly skilled players like gamemodes with more depth, where on the other hand casual players would rather just kill people. This game is too team-oriented to simply throw in deathmatch to appease the casuals. Obviously a deathmatch based PvP system would have been the easy way out for Anet, but it wouldn’t have accomplished much in regards to “e-sport” status.

Sezu.8564:

GhostSniperW.7508:

Sezu.8564:

I don’t agree with much of the OP at all. I hope ANET never brings in a deathmatch based PvP system. (Mainly because once it’s there, that’s all anyone will play)

If it is the only mode anyone will ever play then it is obviously a more fun mode. Your argument is that deathmatch is more popular and people should be forced to play conquest, because if given the option they will just play deathmatch. Let the players pick. This is a game right?

The issue here is highly skilled players like gamemodes with more depth, where on the other hand casual players would rather just kill people. This game is too team-oriented to simply throw in deathmatch to appease the casuals. Obviously a deathmatch based PvP system would have been the easy way out for Anet, but it wouldn’t have accomplished much in regards to “e-sport” status.

I personally don’t find conquest to have an amazing amount of depth. Its currently stand on points, run back and forth between points… ooh look svanir! Kill it!

Is that more depth than deathmatch? Yes, but most of the depth in this game is from combat, even if it is sometimes hard to notice. :P

Plus I don’t see how it is a bad thing to separate the player groups. Any casuals in tournaments get stomped at the moment. 500-30 games an entire tournament isn’t fun even when you are on the winning side.

Anyway, I think deathmatch is easy to implement (just stick some barriers on the current maps if arenanet doesn’t want to make new ones) with very few/no downsides.

Of course I could be completely wrong

The issue here is highly skilled players like gamemodes with more depth, where on the other hand casual players would rather just kill people. This game is too team-oriented to simply throw in deathmatch to appease the casuals. Obviously a deathmatch based PvP system would have been the easy way out for Anet, but it wouldn’t have accomplished much in regards to “e-sport” status.

That’s part of my problem. When you do larger groups and games based around them, most of the skill factor is about playing as a team and coordinating perfectly together to achieve good results. This creates a fun environment only to people who have many hours to get a good system going with 4 other people. I’m partially biased because I will never have that. But in smaller pvp I can practice by myself and when I can play with my friends we can still do well.

This game is pretty much a numbers game at the moment. There’s not much you can do to sway the tide of a 3v2 or a 1v2 ect. So the team that responds quicker usually wins. That’s hardly depth, and takes a ton away from the combat aspect. The down system is partially to blame. The other problems are the bunker specs being incredibly strong in conquest as well.

Move the skill focus toward the individual factors and bring it to combat. in a small group setting, you can easily switch out and play with a lot of different people with and have similar results. In larger groups its pretty much a time sink to get good at playing as a team. So you’re right, casually would like the small settings better, but that doesn’t mean it lacks depth.

GhostSniperW.7508:

I personally don’t find conquest to have an amazing amount of depth. Its currently stand on points, run back and forth between points… ooh look svanir! Kill it!

“Conquest” has a lot more depth than people care to give it. Most players haven’t noticed it at all because it’s something you’ll only see as a good team against a good team. Just as a heads up, if you’re “standing on points” you’re doing it completely wrong. This gamemode is all about player rotations and excellent map awareness. If anyone would care to read it, I could write a post on just how more in-depth an objective based game is than standard deathmatch.

GhostSniperW.7508:

Is that more depth than deathmatch? Yes, but most of the depth in this game is from combat, even if it is sometimes hard to notice. :P

Like I said, if you’re standing on points, you’re doing it completely wrong. You just can’t afford NOT having that extra person. With a good team against a good team, you’ll see constant action no matter what your role is.

GhostSniperW.7508:

Plus I don’t see how it is a bad thing to separate the player groups. Any casuals in tournaments get stomped at the moment. 500-30 games an entire tournament isn’t fun even when you are on the winning side.

Agreed, that’s why paid tournies are here.

GhostSniperW.7508:

Anyway, I think deathmatch is easy to implement (just stick some barriers on the current maps if arenanet doesn’t want to make new ones) with very few/no downsides.

Of course I could be completely wrong

I agree that it would be easy to implement, but I’d like to see other players learn to adapt to a new (and improved) gamemode.

Gawmbles.5308:

That’s part of my problem. When you do larger groups and games based around them, most of the skill factor is about playing as a team and coordinating perfectly together to achieve good results. This creates a fun environment only to people who have many hours to get a good system going with 4 other people. I’m partially biased because I will never have that. But in smaller pvp I can practice by myself and when I can play with my friends we can still do well.

There are so many games from so many different genres that prove this is NOT the case. (I.E. LoL) The number of players by no means is the cause of the problems. The real issue is that everyone lacks experience. Of course, this goes hand in hand with the fact that there are no rankings to seperate the experienced from the inexperienced either. As the population as a whole learns to adapt and grow, we’ll see a much better(smarter) meta.

Gawmbles.5308:

This game is pretty much a numbers game at the moment. There’s not much you can do to sway the tide of a 3v2 or a 1v2 ect. So the team that responds quicker usually wins. That’s hardly depth, and takes a ton away from the combat aspect. The down system is partially to blame. The other problems are the bunker specs being incredibly strong in conquest as well.

This entire paragraph just hurts my brain, it couldn’t be any less accurate.
1. You have 5 players on the field so do they, use your 5 wisely. If 2 of you are holding up 3 of them, you have an extra player for the other points/objectives(lord). It’s not a number game for this sole reason.
2. The teams that rotate and hold their points win? saaayyy whhhhaaatt?!?!? Seriously though, it sounds like you couldn’t adapt so you blame it on “lack of depth”. In reality, your downfall is not percieving that depth in the first place.
3. Downed state sucks, agreed.
4. COUNTERS, COUNTERS, COUNTERS – bunkers aren’t really that strong. Most people (pugs) either don’t know HOW to counter them or don’t BUILD to counter them. We only run 1(P.S. It’s not a guardian) because the HUGE lack of damage is too detrimental against good teams.

Gawmbles.5308:

Move the skill focus toward the individual factors and bring it to combat. in a small group setting, you can easily switch out and play with a lot of different people with and have similar results. In larger groups its pretty much a time sink to get good at playing as a team. So you’re right, casually would like the small settings better, but that doesn’t mean it lacks depth.

Already addressed this.

i concur as well I think 2v2 and 3v3 would have me and my buddies really getting into some tpvp. I mean my friends and i are really big into some tpvp but we are getting burned out quicker ea day because looking for a bunker and waiting for char, kinda a time waster :/ so i’m on the vote for 2v2 3v3

There are so many games from so many different genres that prove this is NOT the case. (I.E. LoL) The number of players by no means is the cause of the problems. The real issue is that everyone lacks experience. Of course, this goes hand in hand with the fact that there are no rankings to seperate the experienced from the inexperienced either. As the population as a whole learns to adapt and grow, we’ll see a much better(smarter) meta.

I was referring to this genre alone. LoL is actually pretty similar though. You need 5 coordinated people who play their roles too succeed. In a sense it’s worse. I remember playing top for a few months and I would have good/bad games. Sometimes in the bad games I was the sole reason we lost even if my teammates played well.

I like the ability to overcome slack if I get really good at something. In LoL it was pretty hard. The exception was two extremely good players duo queuing in a sense could carry games efficiently up to a point.

I mean this is my personal opinion (the reason I made the post). I was really looking forward to gw2 being arena based and pvp on technical skills rather than another LoL. I left LoL because of the reason im debating here.

This entire paragraph just hurts my brain, it couldn’t be any less accurate.
1. You have 5 players on the field so do they, use your 5 wisely. If 2 of you are holding up 3 of them, you have an extra player for the other points/objectives(lord). It’s not a number game for this sole reason.
2. The teams that rotate and hold their points win? saaayyy whhhhaaatt?!?!? Seriously though, it sounds like you couldn’t adapt so you blame it on “lack of depth”. In reality, your downfall is not percieving that depth in the first place.
3. Downed state sucks, agreed.
4. COUNTERS, COUNTERS, COUNTERS – bunkers aren’t really that strong. Most people (pugs) either don’t know HOW to counter them or don’t BUILD to counter them. We only run 1 because the HUGE lack of damage is too detrimental against good teams.

That’s a bit harsh don’t you think!?
#1. My point on the first part wasn’t about the strategic approach. It was more about how 3 people will almost always beat 2, or 2 people will almost always beat 1 even if the smaller group played far better. This is in relation to #4 and #3.
#4. I agree they are counterable, but to what measure. Either you have to rock paper scissors them with specific mesmer/necro builds (what if you dont have one!) or you have to overwhelm them with force and lose more objectives because you sent 3 people to kill 1. That’s just not a fun way to play imo.

Secondly, you are forcing people to go bunker in conquest, what makes that any better than the forced healers in other mmo’s.

2. Haha, you’re exactly right. I’m a bit reluctant to play the way Anet wants me to play. I’ve been trying to change my mentality to have fun, but its not their yet. To me it feels like im playing a board game instead of a pvp game. What makes it worse is I LOVE the combat, yet I hate the format we have to fight in.

Gawmbles.5308:

I was referring to this genre alone. LoL is actually pretty similar though. You need 5 coordinated people who play their roles too succeed. In a sense it’s worse. I remember playing top for a few months and I would have good/bad games. Sometimes in the bad games I was the sole reason we lost even if my teammates played well.

I like the ability to overcome slack if I get really good at something. In LoL it was pretty hard. The exception was two extremely good players duo queuing in a sense could carry games efficiently up to a point.

I mean this is my personal opinion (the reason I made the post). I was really looking forward to gw2 being arena based and pvp on technical skills rather than another LoL. I left LoL because of the reason im debating here..

I can see your point-of-view as someone who pugs, but in order for this game to reach “e-sport” status this system needs to be in place.

Gawmbles.5308:

That’s a bit harsh don’t you think!?
#1. My point on the first part wasn’t about the strategic approach. It was more about how 3 people will almost always beat 2, or 2 people will almost always beat 1 even if the smaller group played far better. This is in relation to #4 and #3.

Uh no? I’ve beaten 4 people with only 2. This is entirely not true.

Gawmbles.5308:

#4. I agree they are counterable, but to what measure. Either you have to rock paper scissors them with specific mesmer/necro builds (what if you dont have one!) or you have to overwhelm them with force and lose more objectives because you sent 3 people to kill 1. That’s just not a fun way to play imo.

You’re looking at the gametype as a whole way too narrow minded. Most “roamers” just spam their skills without intelligently chaining together combos, control, etc nor playing as a team. I’m not even talking about hard counters to bunkers (posion, boon removal, chill). Ever tried running a burst warrior with a burst ele? You can literally maintain 20+ might stacks on each half the time they are fighting. Even with 3k toughness I won’t last long when 2 players have an added 700 power each. Bunkers are NOT as good as most people think. As soon as people start actually playing together and get away from the individualistic gameplay we’ll see a different meta.

Gawmbles.5308:

Secondly, you are forcing people to go bunker in conquest, what makes that any better than the forced healers in other mmo’s.

No one is forcing you to choose to build bunker. You’re going to have roles that need to be filled in any game, no matter what. People are going to jump into that role and start messing around and realize X works better than Y but not if Z etc. The issue isn’t that bunkers are OP. It’s that only a handful of players have attempted to build against bunkers. People need to get out of the mindset that higher numbers = better.

Gawmbles.5308:

2. Haha, you’re exactly right. I’m a bit reluctant to play the way Anet wants me to play. I’ve been trying to change my mentality to have fun, but its not their yet. To me it feels like im playing a board game instead of a pvp game. What makes it worse is I LOVE the combat, yet I hate the format we have to fight in.

You won’t get that feeling in pugs for a while. At least not until others who share your same mindset snap out of it. I’d suggest friending people you have fun with in pugs and go from there.

I can see your point-of-view as someone who pugs, but in order for this game to reach “e-sport” status this system needs to be in place.

Why so? bloodline champions is a perfect example. Its almost entirely based on individual technical skill and not so much working as a team (but still important on a secondary note). Its a viable e-sport, just low population due to server issues and learning curve.

Uh no? I’ve beaten 4 people with only 2. This is entirely not true.

I’ve flipped 40 coins and they all landed on heads. Just because something can happen doesn’t mean it will often. The down system prevents out numbered fights in most cases.

You won’t get that feeling in pugs for a while. At least not until others who share your same mindset snap out of it. I’d suggest friending people you have fun with in pugs and go from there.

I only do Tpvp, but its with 2 players I’ve played with for 10 years. I don’t normally play with random people I meet online due to the fact that my schedule is so erratic. So we have to deal with two pugs that wont want to work with us half the time. Its just frustrating when we could be having so much more fun in a 3v3 format.

Hsulf.9370:

Unfortunately we have the WoW arena factor bearing down on us like a nasty smell.

Or Guild Wars 1 who did it first? lol?

I read that WoW’s arena failed at an e-sport expo, because it had no objectives…

Never played WoW, never will. It’s too bad my game has to live (and maybe die) in fear of its mistakes. I thought this game was supposed to be better than WoW…

GW2 should make more money now by becoming a great pvp game (via more than one mode) before it tries to evolve into a money-making e-sport.

Gawmbles.5308:

Why so? bloodline champions is a perfect example. Its almost entirely based on individual technical skill and not so much working as a team (but still important on a secondary note). Its a viable e-sport, just low population due to server issues and learning curve.

Competitive team-based games will ALWAYS be team first, individual skill later. I’d rather have teammates who are coordinated than 4 people who will always win a 1vs1. That’s for ANY team-based game.

Gawmbles.5308:

I’ve flipped 40 coins and they all landed on heads. Just because something can happen doesn’t mean it will often. The down system prevents out numbered fights in most cases.

Alright sorry let me re-phrase that. I win 2vs3s constantly. Is that better? It’s the truth, because my team hardly ever sends 3 people to a single point.

Also no, there’s a reason why stability is in the game.

Gawmbles.5308:

I only do Tpvp, but its with 2 players I’ve played with for 10 years. I don’t normally play with random people I meet online due to the fact that my schedule is so erratic. So we have to deal with two pugs that wont want to work with us half the time. Its just frustrating when we could be having so much more fun in a 3v3 format.

You’re telling me out of ALL the pugs you’ve played with, you haven’t found a single person that wasn’t good/friendly/fun w.e? highly unlikely.

I feel that 5v5 is too zergy. Its been like this in about all games i’ve played so far. Save for Dota 2 / Smite and other such games.

Individual skill is also lessened in bigger groups. And i have always found individual skill to be the basis for good team play. To the above poster, i would personally much rather find exceptional individual players then work on the teamwork together. So many times have i had people try out for my guild in that other game who where very enthousiastic and practiced a lot of teamfights, but just never had the experience and skill to play well against the top people. When we did a minimum rating requirement it just went instantly better.

Anyway 5v5 arenas will be zergy i think. Even 8v8 in much bigger areas feels too zergy.
I also think we’ll get some ridiculous things like perma stealth teams. 2v2 is allright but should be viewed as a gateway into arenas, 3v3 is perfect imo. I think this would allow for enough counterstomping to make the games last for a good time while not giving access to too many burst/bunker/stealth/whatever abilities to a single team. 3v3 balance patches and i will be a very happy camper. Some of the 2v2, 3v3, and 2v3 fights i’ve had in this game have been amazingly fun and rather reactive and tactical depending on the classes present. Would certainly keep me playing for a long time.

Hsulf.9370:

"

Unfortunately we have the WoW arena factor bearing down on us like a nasty smell.

Spoken like a true poor pvper. If there is one thing that Wow Arena haters ever had in common it was a poor rating. Well don’t worry, your the majority that Arena-net and other companies seem to be catering to these days, competitive ranked pvp doesn’t sell as well as the everybody wins/kid glove pvp .

Dynthor.3016:

Unfortunately we have the WoW arena factor bearing down on us like a nasty smell.

What smells is how you want to be a cool fanboy for this game, yet like all of your instant mouthfoamer brethren you didnt even know Arena was in GW1! It smells kinda hilarious when you guys do that.

Spoken like a true poor pvper. If there is one thing that Wow Arena haters ever had in common it was a poor rating. Well don’t worry, your the majority that Arena-net and other companies seem to be catering to these days, competitive ranked pvp doesn’t sell as well as the everybody wins/kid glove pvp .

quoted for truth. Unless this leads to an infraction. Then i disagree and tell him to l2p in tournaments, that seems ok to do.

GankSinatra.2653:

I feel that 5v5 is too zergy. Its been like this in about all games i’ve played so far. Save for Dota 2 / Smite and other such games.

I’d agree with this, if it weren’t for the fact that tournaments aren’t zergy. There are many constant small skirmishes all over the map. 1vs1, 1vs2, 2vs3, etc, but I’ve hardly ever seen even a 4v4.

GankSinatra.2653:

Individual skill is also lessened in bigger groups. And i have always found individual skill to be the basis for good team play. To the above poster, i would personally much rather find exceptional individual players then work on the teamwork together. So many times have i had people try out for my guild in that other game who where very enthousiastic and practiced a lot of teamfights, but just never had the experience and skill to play well against the top people. When we did a minimum rating requirement it just went instantly better.

Right. I didn’t say it wasn’t important as well. All I said was that you can have the best 1vs1 players in the world and STILL LOSE because you have no teamwork. As I stated in the section above, the game is filled with small skirmishes making individual skill incredibly important.

EDIT – I for one, played WoW arenas and LIKED WoW arenas. However, a change of pace into a more skill based gamemode is a breath of fresh air.