Guild Wars 2

After what feels like a million games played, I’d like to make a general suggestion as to how to make conquest more dynamic, exhilarating and perhaps solve some of the issues connected to it with very little effort.

Instead of stating my suggestion first, I will list a few of the issues we players see and state regularly and which you may have been perceiving as well in the past 10 months. I will try and address them point by point, but understand that they are intertwined:

- Conquest feels stale

That’s something that many, many players have brought up and has definitely caused some of the playerbase to either abandon structured pvp or the game altogether.

When we ask these players what makes it feel stale, the answers we receive are mostly that people are not interested in fighting over one of three nodes for prolonged times, as while they are being stalled on that node points are generated for the opposing team, because any nodes in their possession, contested or even undefended, keep ticking at a steady rate. The alternative of switching nodes once you have engaged has very little incentives, as all nodes are worth the same amount.

Furthermore, battles usually only take place on mostly one or two of the three nodes, while the third node is left open. Winning a long drawn out battle on a node and losing the one generating points for you in the process by a single player walking over to it and capturing it without any thrilling interaction, adds to that feeling.

- Bunkering and DPS

You have made it clear that bunkering a node is part of what you envisioned for SPvP. You have also come to realize that excessive bunkering is detrimental and thus has to be countered with a very strong emphasis on damage output in order to be able to debunker said node.

As a result in the past ten months we have seen and heard from pretty much everyone how this promotes extremes and limits builds to either bunkers or glass cannons and thus leaving very little room for balanced builds.

This leads to the realization that winning fights is obviously important, but it is not as significant as holding nodes (for which you need bunkers, as I will explain next) very quickly.

On the other hand this also means that, if you have to raise or keep damage so high to be able to overpower a full out bunker spec, everybody who plays such a dps build and who is obviously paying the opportunity cost for the appropriate damage output (in theory, but this post is not about class balance issues), will usually melt in the blink of an eye when targeted by a dps counterpart on the enemy team

- The matches snowball and it’s excessively hard to recover from a bad start

People like me who have been actively playing every single day and followed every discussion surrounding PvP or even those who have just watched the SotG and forums on a regular basis are aware that the designers are trying to come up with solutions to the above.

You guys want teams to be able to turn matches around, but you are attempting to do so by introducing more important secondary objectives (Temple of the Silent Storm is usually thought to have the best mechanic in that regard and if it isn’t ToSS it’s Legacy of the Foefire’s Lord for the last ditch effort sensation).

While I believe these elements can be expanded on, I do not feel that patching up a snowballing point system with a single huge table turner is the way to go. I can guarantee you that losing a match that you have dominated in terms of combat, because the opposing team kills the Lord with 4 people in down state, leaves a sour taste in every competitive pvp player’s mouth. Shout-casters may love it, spectators may enjoy it (because it’s easy to understand mostly and also very visual), but any team losing like that will tell you it feels cheap.

That said I will finally come to my simple suggestion and try to point out how it will affect the game and possibly solve or at least very much alleviate above issues (undoubtedly it will create new ones, just like any system would, as one can only project that far into the future).

My suggestion:

Introduce node point generation decay.

Nodes currently generate 1 point every 2 seconds, regardless of how long they have been in your possession. My idea would see you introduce an interval with 5 stages that gradually increases the time between the generation of points the longer a node is in one side’s possession (1/2s, 1/4s, 1/6s, 1/8s, 1/10s an 1/10s beyond that).

Flipping a node would obviously reset the counter for the other team.

By doing so we would achieve the following:

- More aggressive node attacks (conquering nodes; conquest)

Instead of seeing 1v1s on a side node, a team fight on another and absolutely no action whatsoever on the third node, players would be encouraged to fight over all 3 nodes, because holding two nodes for a long time generates less points than a “freshly” flipped node

- Less snowballing and the ability to turn matches around all the time rather than once

The dynamics suggested would allow a team to make comebacks when they decide to rather than watching a timer for a secondary objective. The team who just got wiped is encouraged and allowed to regroup without the feeling that the enemy team is generating a huge amount of points and thus an ever-growing lead for every second they are not actively engaged (not just engaged but in control of the node rather). The feeling of running against the clock would be greatly diminished.

Matches could go back and forth like this and a not be decided way too early, if you you happen to be 200 points behind. Currently this is almost impossible unless you somehow manage to turn it around 3-capping them and holding onto all of the nodes for a prolonged amount of time (in fact we very rarely see this happening).

- More emphasis on battles

By implementing my suggestion team members would finally not feel like they are wasting time on capturing a node against an equal amount of defenders. A fight over a neutral node would become worth fighting for, even if the side node’s have been captured by the opponent. Winning the node might take a while, but you are rewarded for the time spent with a fresh node that generates a greater amount of points with the possibility of capturing another fresh node after you have wiped the enemy team in a 4v4 for instance.

- Bunkering and DPS

Changing the dynamics would not make bunkering obsolete (somebody might be thinking that), instead it would encourage bunkers to be more active and defend different nodes during the match rather than sitting on a single one for the whole duration of it.

Not allowing your opponent to capture your old node may be important, but it may be more beneficial to move your bunker to a neutral node instead till your reinforcements arrive in order to get a fresh node and once again generate a sizeable amount of points rather than sitting on an old node while the enemy gets a fresh one (so instead of trading an old node for a fresh one, you gain the opportunity to trade a fresh one for a fresh one)

Also, since fights over a node that isn’t yours have become more important and you are not being severely punished for the inability to drop targets excessively fast by running against the clock, it’s possible that balanced builds could become more popular, as these are generally stronger in even numbered match ups that last an extended amount of time.

One more thing I’d like to add is that this would greatly go hand in hand with the improvements you are planning to make for node UI. Nodes would obviously have to display at what rate they are currently ticking for the players and the viewers.

the node decay on time is a really interesting aspect you bring up here. Also the rest (even when some part is a suggestion, eg the hybrid builds) makes me thinking about it in a whole new dimension. Your concept would bring some fresh air into the very stabile and perdictable rotation we have right now.

I think this is an amazing idea while still retaining the elements they seem bent on retaining. Definite support from my end!

I’ve seen on a few occasions suggestions to slow down point gain.
Doing this in increments is definitely an interesting way about it.
However I do think this is odd to visually represent. How do you see which stage any particular node is on? Do you have an estimate of when the node would change stage?
If I just capture a node it’s 1 point per 2, 10s later it’s 1 per 4. I think this is hard to visually see/represent as to when that happened and for anyone externally to suddenly take in that my node is not worth the same. Just thinking about watching a tourney it sounds a bit awkward atm.

I definitely am behind slowing down point gain.
I like the idea, but I don’t think it is as impactful for Khylo. On Spirit watch for example if those points decay, the orb actually becomes stronger because now the longer they hold a two cap, the more power the orb will have relative to that as points decay. So that secondary becomes very important. However Khylo doesn’t have any point gain so I don’t think it…improves as much. Bunkers will want to move more, but if you’re holding your two cap, the games just slowing down. The secondary assist you in capturing points but it doesn’t become a lot more important in an interesting way.

Horrible idea. Matches are long enough already. Please come up with some real solutions that don’t quadruple match times.

Isaac.6041:

Horrible idea. Matches are long enough already. Please come up with some real solutions that don’t quadruple match times.

He never specified how this idea will be implement.For all i know they could a node give more than 1 point per 2 sec initially and then give much much less as time passes.By messing up with the number of points each stage gives they could make the match lasts shortler,longer or whatever they want..but with vastly different dynamics that the current system
But yeah too much balancing from scratch ..Though this idea has potential i dont find it that realistic at this point of the game

Granted, I wouldnt call this idea horrible, but I do see where Isaac is coming from.

This would definitely slow down the pace of the conquest game, but possibly too much.

How would you remedy such a situation?

There are a myriad of ways to keep this from making matches unbearably long.

My opinion, however, is that this would not prolong matches by as much as one would think, because for one, the dynamics change (we’ll see more kills and more flips) and secondly, the perception that matches currently last long is not entirely correct to begin with in this context.

Only the matches that see a lot of node flipping and neutral node time can last close to the 15 minute mark, but these are the very matches that would not really get any longer under my system (because nodes are fresh all the time). Especially considering that kills will be more frequent and it’s in teams’ interest to attack nodes even if they already have one or if they are in the lead (simply because a fresh node is more enticing and preferable to an older one).

Right now matches also last as long as they do, because passive play is promoted. This would change. Matches that are over quickly would last a little longer, but those that take a while, would not take much if any longer than they currently do.

Meds suggestion works best on maps with secondary pt gain (as I picture it). Spirit watch, temple, Foefire and Forest. The secondaries have heightened value over time as soon as a node decays. Khylo not really.

If you don’t increase pt gain elsewhere it really does slow down the pace.
The idea of decay is so those holding eventually see less benefit from it, but imo it wont work that well. If you are behind 200 pts, and their pts decayed, you can flip a node and start getting something off fresh nodes, but if you’re holding your node, then suddenly you’re now the one on decay and any comeback you would have is naturally slowed down. It changes how quickly a winning team gets ahead, but similarly how quickly a team can comeback.

If nodes decay based on time and not based on pt difference, then it’s not a great tool for come backs the moment a map has no pt gain (khylo) secondaries..

The easiest fix to conquest atm is just make it so more people on the node caps it faster or decaps it. that would change up play enough that you couldn’t have someone 1v2 because they would be getting decapped.

Personally I would have preferred a conquest style more similar to UT2K4. Conquest in this game is just not that fun. I am sad to see they are adding yet another Conquest map instead of adding a new game type like capture the flag or arena.

How can any of you say that games would last longer with that change?
You can always change the numbers to make tweaks the way you want it.
e.g. atm one point ticks for 1 point every 2 seconds. Who says that in Med’s system a fresh point ticks every half second, than once a second, than once every 2seconds and leave it by 3 stages. When you put in those numbers you would cry that the game is over way too fast.
You can also very easily just change the 500 point to win mark to change the lenght of a game in the “right” direction.

Anyway, as I far as I am able to judge it, I can only see good changes coming from this.
Imo staling is one of the most horrible things in this game cause it’s just most bunker vs most glass cannon as possible. It’s very often not about winning a fight but much more staying alive at least long enough for the next group member to arrive and stal.

Sitting on points (passive play) is just much too rewarding compared to attacking another point. Also the chance of seeing more hybrid builds is one of the key arguments for me personal.

I like this idea, but I think it would be very difficult to keep track of which node is at which stage.

What if instead of point decay, it just gave 10 points (or whatever amount) for flipping a node? I think that would achieve the same goal.

Zerg all the points! Hot join glory farmers would rejoice. I can already see the meta. 4 people rotating the points: Cap Node 1 → leave bunker in node1 → cap node 2, bunker arrives on node 2 → cap node 3, bunker arrives on node 3. Rinse and repeat. Just like hot-join but with a bunker. And imagine how the bunkers feel; losing the point means a huge opportunity for the enemy team but keeping it means little to win the game. You’d be playing the most unrewarding role with a great possibility to lose the game. As a guardian I’d quit the game instantly. It also seems this would favor mobile roaming builds over everything else.

The problems of this game feeling stale lie altogether elsewhere than what you stated(lack of true team dynamics,). The way you describe it seems that people just don’t know how to play the game and have bad team communication. You fight a long drawn out battle on one node while the other two nodes are capped by the enemy? That’s overcommitting. And who leaves nods uncontested? Good teams go decap the points immediately if that happens.

I’ve seen a huge number of comebacks in the shoutcasted tournaments that have started to pop up. When the other team has steamrolled the other team, it has been for a reason. They were just that much better.

You need a game mode that is not conquest, but leave my conquest alone.

These problems are mostly from perception and an underdeveloped meta-game. The conquest system is fine as it is.

Gameplay
The simplest strategy is to take your close point and then toss everyone at the center point and hold it. Going after the far point is perfectly valid, but it takes some strategy and coordination. If teams don’t go for the far point, is that really a fault of the game itself? I can only fault the game for one reason: some maps spread out the side nodes too far apart from each other. That makes it unreasonable to be able to defend both. The strategy in that case would be to take the far node temporarily and then trade it back for the middle (or feint that move). But that’s a lot to expect from PUGs and casual teams.

As long as players and teams go for the next closest point, you’ll see “stale” games between evenly match teams and snowball matches when one team is weaker and can’t win the mid fight.

Bunker vs. Not Bunker
Before the June 25th patch, full bunker builds were already losing popularity. Having an outside bunker hurts you in a team fight versus a team that doesn’t. A bunker not on a point you control is also lost value. The main reason bunker is so popular is because it’s relatively easy to do compared to 5 mobile players. With a full mobile team, all players need to have a good knowledge of who to group up and what to hit and when. Again, that’s a lot to expect from PUGs and casual teams.

Another reason why you see a lot of bunker or burst is because there’s no way for most professions to gets stats for something in between with a power-based build. The Knight’s amulet is pretty bad so that means either no precision (soldier or valkyrie) or minimal defenses (berserker). The best way to address this is would be to split the stats on the amulet and its jewel into two rings, each with a jewel slot, in order to allow more stat customization.

There could be a few tweaks made to some remaining bunker builds to allow them to be pushed off points more easily. An example would be the guardian’s multiple sources of stability. If the point is neutral, keeping forces there isn’t hurting your team nearly as much.

Was thinking about this kind of stuff before I put cross on GW2 PvP. My idea was more like – the nodes would be cumulating bonus points, that will be granted to the team that flips it. So – with every few ticks, node staying in one color seems to look more and more tempting to the other team.
But I like Your idea better – more weight on tactics and cooperation.

I would like to see a conquest mode that promotes offensive play and pushing into opponent’s territory (wasn’t that UT2004’s conquest mode?) over one that promotes bunker builds and a meta driven around bunkering and passive position playing.

I would not do that capture point decay thing.

That’ll prompt people intentionally letting the enemy take their captured points to retake them. That’s probably cause situations like GW1’s alliance battles in which people run together and around in circles, capturing as much as possible and avoiding battles.

Players should try to get all nodes at all times.

What you could do, instead. is increasing the points a captured point provides over time.

Start with 1 per every 5 seconds per location. Then every 4 seconds, then every 3, then every 2, then every second, then 2 points every second when there’s less than 2 minutes left before the end of the match.

By increasing the score over time, a bad start is not as much of a problem. Every point counts, but later points count more. And capturing all locations is very important, as even if you have an advantage for having two points from the start, letting the enemy team get one more point than you will probably make them win.

Things like giving a penalization for losing a point (e.g.: point gain freeze for 3-5 seconds) and giving match score instead just glory for defending would also make players try defend their points more aggressively instead letting them capture to take it back later.

As for PvP in general, they should simply add modes more focused on combat. Without locations to capture.

Conquest gets boring after a while, despite the variety in map mechanics.

They are coming up with great PvP mechanics, but they all end up in festival minigames. They should look into adapting some of those mechanics, minus the activity skills, into actual sPvP maps without conquest rules.

DiogoSilva.7089:

I would like to see a conquest mode that promotes offensive play and pushing into opponent’s territory (wasn’t that UT2004’s conquest mode?) over one that promotes bunker builds and a meta driven around bunkering and passive position playing.

^^^ this!
i dont know about UT2004’s conquest mode, but that how it is in Ghost Recon Online
and its WAYYY better pushing forward into enemy territory than ruining around chasing our tails a.k.a GW2 pvp conquest mode
also I dont get why Anet dont use the siege mechanic and implement it in conquest mode.
all they need is a castle map.., something like Minas Tirit – with few inner gates, nodes and elevation.
if attacking team hold a node for x amount of time that triggers a dolyak that brings a siege to take down the gate thus allowing the attackers to advance to the next node.
defenders can have back doors and take down dolyak so attackers gotta escort and defend it.
if defenders push back and hold a node than a dolyak brings supply +2 NPC to repair the gate.
something similar we had in GW1 called Fort Aspenwood – brilliant pvp mode. had a lots of fun there.
if Anet implement guilds halls that looks like forts or castles and let guilds attack each other in such mode.., well there you go., we will have a GVG
and than we can call GW 2 a GUILD WARS
just my 2 cents and sry for my poor english

What this idea would do is pretty simple —> it would reward winning a fight much more.
Atm a build has one of the following two goals:
1. stay as long enough alive as possible with as much cc and stab so you don’t lose your point you are fighting on or
2. do as much dmg as possible to have a chance killing builds of type 1.
But nether of those two build types is actually the best way to go when you wan to WIN a fight. And isn’t winning a fight what true pvp should be about?!?!??
At least the main part? There will still be bunkering and glass cannons as long as there is something to cap, but maybe to a lesser extend. So that you see 1 bunker, 1 glass cannons and 3 hybrids in a team comp.

wouldn’t this just encourage teams to give up their nodes so they can capture it back? that’s the one scenario that i keep picturing.

“oh no our nodes are slow as kitten because we’ve been playing too good. let’s fall back, let them capture one, take it back, then let them capture the other so we can take it back too”.

what i originally thought you were saying was that nodes would start off slow (once every 6 seconds), and after every 20 seconds or so, speed up point generation a little. this would encourage focusing efforts on nodes that have been around for too long, while at the same time ensuring that you can’t leave your own nodes too open.

that would allow a team that just got wiped to have more time to prepare for a comeback, as the ppt of a recently lost node isn’t as gamechanging, but if they leave it be for too long, then the other team will have a great advantage. it’s also much easier to represent on the UI, by adding a x1/x2/x3/x4 multiplier next to the node icons, to represent the ppt speed.

of course, that would potentially speed up point generation, which would mean the points required to win would have to be readjusted.

I kind of like your idea of node decay, it will definitely add a different element to the current conquest mode but whether it will be fair can only really be determined if people get a chance to play in it.

BrunoBRS has a point though, a strong premade team will just give up their node to recapture it over and over again – they would also be able to gain quite alot of glory doing this as opposed to what the game is currently.

I think currently the way points are generated by holding/capturing nodes is fine – its linear and easy for both premades/pugs to understand. Adding in decay may add unnecessary complications.

What do you guys think about this – what if after say every 2 minutes (or everytime a secondary objective becomes available), all the nodes reset as unclaimed? It would make group fights at hotly contested nodes more interesting in my opinion. You could even expand on it and make it so if one team captures all 3 nodes, they get say a bonus of 50 points and all the nodes reset back to neutral.

Psychogene.6780:

BrunoBRS has a point though, a strong premade team will just give up their node to recapture it over and over again – they would also be able to gain quite alot of glory doing this as opposed to what the game is currently.

I don’t think this would be an issue at all and it was something that I considered as well, before I presented the idea here.

While in theory this could happen, one has to realize what that means. In order to gain advantage from such tactics, the following has to be true:

- The team is very dominant, as giving up a node and retaking it at will in any timely fashion that would constitute a large point gain over the steady point generation of an older node, is highly unlikely as it involves battling over it, decap and cap time once again.

If a team is that dominant, the new system will not give them any advantage over the old one. They’d not win any faster.

What the new system would do, even in such a situation, is add a degree of dynamic gameplay and a limited possibility for a turnaround (as unlikely as that may be when teams are that far apart in their effective rating), because under the current system that super-dominant team would just sit on their nodes and/or spawn camp the enemy team on their home node.

So while the theoretical possibility for such tactics might be there, it will still spice up things more than they would be under the current rules.

Interesting idea and reads, but I would still be concerned that this change would eventually devolve all matches be just a big rotating node capture and the only real action happening in the last few minutes of the game.

Lets say I’m a bunker defending a node and the node is depreciating. The enemy is heading my way and I’m outnumbered? What’s going to keep me here to defend? This node is less valuable to my team, I’d would be better to abandon it/stay alive and go help out my teammates in capping a higher value node.

Teams would rotate nodes back n forth until the last few minutes of the game. Only at the end would the game get interesting. Doesn’t make for good “e-sport” spectating.

At least that’s what I see happening.

EDIT: I like the ideas of having nodes cap/decap faster the more players are on it. This helps counter all bunker, if just a little. If it takes a 2v1 to take out a bunker and capture a node, my team should be reward with a quicker capture by having more players on the node.

Don’t think the emphasis should lie on capturing.

Point decay only promotes loss of interest in defending, since the rewards of outnumbering the opponent on their node would be far greater.
As mentioned above it would also be very difficult to keep track of which node is at which stage, etc.

-

I feel people exaggerate the strength of the bunker. Its job is very simple: (1) stay inside the circle and (2) stay alive.
If we had more diverse tools to (2) bunker and (1) debunker, I think more people would enjoy it.

Stability is an issue in this regard. Area denial, crowd control, knockbacks are far less optimal because of it than AOE damage. Then again, we don’t want ragdoll effects either…
In my opinion, if they tone down the AOE we’d see more coordinated play to take down bunkers.

In all honesty, have you tried staying alive in the current meta as a Guardian against more than 2 people? It’s hard. That is why the higher tier players have relied on resses for some time now to counter coordinated burst.

Med.6150:

Psychogene.6780:

BrunoBRS has a point though, a strong premade team will just give up their node to recapture it over and over again – they would also be able to gain quite alot of glory doing this as opposed to what the game is currently.

I don’t think this would be an issue at all and it was something that I considered as well, before I presented the idea here.

While in theory this could happen, one has to realize what that means. In order to gain advantage from such tactics, the following has to be true:

- The team is very dominant, as giving up a node and retaking it at will in any timely fashion that would constitute a large point gain over the steady point generation of an older node, is highly unlikely as it involves battling over it, decap and cap time once again.

If a team is that dominant, the new system will not give them any advantage over the old one. They’d not win any faster.

What the new system would do, even in such a situation, is add a degree of dynamic gameplay and a limited possibility for a turnaround (as unlikely as that may be when teams are that far apart in their effective rating), because under the current system that super-dominant team would just sit on their nodes and/or spawn camp the enemy team on their home node.

So while the theoretical possibility for such tactics might be there, it will still spice up things more than they would be under the current rules.

i honestly think that what you’re suggesting and what you think will happen are two opposite things.

node decay would mean recently captured nodes give a “burst” of points, which means the team that just lost the fight “lost” a ton of points, and the other team is now sitting on top of nodes. both, however, are fully rested by the time the losing team gets to the winning team again.

on the other hand, you have a team that has used the node to the point where it isn’t worth keeping anymore, as the reward of capturing a new node (or letting it be neutralized and recap it) is far bigger than waiting 5 minutes for the same amount of points you can get in 10 seconds from a new node. the effort of keeping the node for your team isn’t worth the reward.

instead of creating a dynamic environment where point captures and keeping are equally important, you create an environment where the only thing that matters is getting that initial burst (by killing fast), and denying the enemy team that burst (by killing fast). it would actually make the game more stale and repetitive by turning it into a “who can cap more nodes the fastest”, and no effort in keeping them.

like a hotjoin.

Med.6150:

My suggestion:

Introduce node point generation decay.

Nodes currently generate 1 point every 2 seconds, regardless of how long they have been in your possession. My idea would see you introduce an interval with 5 stages that gradually increases the time between the generation of points the longer a node is in one side’s possession (1/2s, 1/4s, 1/6s, 1/8s, 1/10s an 1/10s beyond that).

Flipping a node would obviously reset the counter for the other team.

By doing so we would achieve the following:

- More aggressive node attacks (conquering nodes; conquest)

Instead of seeing 1v1s on a side node, a team fight on another and absolutely no action whatsoever on the third node, players would be encouraged to fight over all 3 nodes, because holding two nodes for a long time generates less points than a “freshly” flipped node

Actually this will make things different for a short while until people adjust. The most obvious of adjustments is the back node allowing a decap at a certain point to allow his node to reset back to 1/2s. This would also be interpretted as an even larger reason to NOT go for the enemy node.

Hear me out, if your opponents node is going 1/10s and yours is as well and you control middle there is still no reason to push that third node. If you hold two you can use the above method (by letting a down’d player decap) resetting your point gain while forcing your opponents to remain at 1/10s. I like the thought for what you have said, but I don’t think it will have the change you desire.

This idea would take any semblance of team fights and throw it out the window. You are (essentially) rewarded for the act of capturing, not holding. That would imply that the going around and capturing other points is by far more useful than fighting over a point..

What you should look to do is find a way to centralize fighting so that people are forced to have, at least on occasion, a more intimate team focused battle environment. Not this kittenty team of five individuals running around gaining their own points. This concept of point decay only pushes individualism and movement even further. Why waste time defending a point? You can just capture theirs after they capture! Whoever has the fastest run speed to get to the point to capture it wins!

Diage.6451:

This idea would take any semblance of team fights and throw it out the window. You are (essentially) rewarded for the act of capturing, not holding. That would imply that the going around and capturing other points is by far more useful than fighting over a point..

What you should look to do is find a way to centralize fighting so that people are forced to have, at least on occasion, a more intimate team focused battle environment. Not this kittenty team of five individuals running around gaining their own points. This concept of point decay only pushes individualism and movement even further. Why waste time defending a point? You can just capture theirs after they capture! Whoever has the fastest run speed to get to the point to capture it wins!

Seems like you never seen one of the old BM-rangers or a good thief that actually can backcap. What you described above is allrdy happening. It’s nothing new.

I know many ppl want this game to be teamoriented. The problem here is that the meta allrdy shifted towards solo-play. Every build has two things that have to be considered:
1. Independece of the build, 2. viable ranged AoE-dmg.
This is the reason why ele’s, then BM-rangers, S/D-thieves, kit-engineers and nowadays necros are viable speccs. A build has at least to be strong in one of these two areas. If they are good at both, the specc will be considered mostly as op (especially ele and now necro).

So in conclusion this means: The meta-gameplay is allrdy shifting towards solo-play due to independence of the builds/classes.
Teamfights, how you call them, are allrdy very restricted in teamwork, compared to other games (has also something to do with dedicated healers).

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

Diage.6451:

This idea would take any semblance of team fights and throw it out the window. You are (essentially) rewarded for the act of capturing, not holding. That would imply that the going around and capturing other points is by far more useful than fighting over a point..

What you should look to do is find a way to centralize fighting so that people are forced to have, at least on occasion, a more intimate team focused battle environment. Not this kittenty team of five individuals running around gaining their own points. This concept of point decay only pushes individualism and movement even further. Why waste time defending a point? You can just capture theirs after they capture! Whoever has the fastest run speed to get to the point to capture it wins!

Seems like you never seen one of the old BM-rangers or a good thief that actually can backcap. What you described above is allrdy happening. It’s nothing new.

I know many ppl want this game to be teamoriented. The problem here is that the meta allrdy shifted towards solo-play. Every build has two things that have to be considered:
1. Independece of the build, 2. viable ranged AoE-dmg.
This is the reason why ele’s, then BM-rangers, S/D-thieves, kit-engineers and nowadays necros are viable speccs. A build has at least to be strong in one of these two areas. If they are good at both, the specc will be considered mostly as op (especially ele and now necro).

So in conclusion this means: The meta-gameplay is allrdy shifting towards solo-play due to independence of the builds/classes.
Teamfights, how you call them, are allrdy very restricted in teamwork, compared to other games (has also something to do with dedicated healers).

Best argument ever…

“Combat is already going that way, therefore lets implement things that push it more that way.”

Just because something is that way does not imply it needs to be that way…

Games are not excessively competitive if they rely on an individual player. The reason for this is that you drastically limit skill cap by placing the priority of your game at the individual level. It’s one thing to learn to play your own character, in most games that’s pretty simple.. But RPG style games have this excellent opportunity to bring in dynamic team fights that can raise the skill cap insanely high with zero increase in game complexity. To go away from that is essentially dumbing the game down more and forcing the game into a far more boring low skill cap style game.

So for me to reiterate back to you good sir… Just because something is the meta does not lead one to believe that it is correct. The developers sit in a unique position to determine what is meta and what isn’t they could redesign the entire balance of the game if they so desired. Don’t let the way things are act like a crutch and impede real solutions, not just easy ones, to hard problems.

Diage.6451:

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

Diage.6451:

This idea would take any semblance of team fights and throw it out the window. You are (essentially) rewarded for the act of capturing, not holding. That would imply that the going around and capturing other points is by far more useful than fighting over a point..

What you should look to do is find a way to centralize fighting so that people are forced to have, at least on occasion, a more intimate team focused battle environment. Not this kittenty team of five individuals running around gaining their own points. This concept of point decay only pushes individualism and movement even further. Why waste time defending a point? You can just capture theirs after they capture! Whoever has the fastest run speed to get to the point to capture it wins!

Seems like you never seen one of the old BM-rangers or a good thief that actually can backcap. What you described above is allrdy happening. It’s nothing new.

I know many ppl want this game to be teamoriented. The problem here is that the meta allrdy shifted towards solo-play. Every build has two things that have to be considered:
1. Independece of the build, 2. viable ranged AoE-dmg.
This is the reason why ele’s, then BM-rangers, S/D-thieves, kit-engineers and nowadays necros are viable speccs. A build has at least to be strong in one of these two areas. If they are good at both, the specc will be considered mostly as op (especially ele and now necro).

So in conclusion this means: The meta-gameplay is allrdy shifting towards solo-play due to independence of the builds/classes.
Teamfights, how you call them, are allrdy very restricted in teamwork, compared to other games (has also something to do with dedicated healers).

Best argument ever…

“Combat is already going that way, therefore lets implement things that push it more that way.”

Just because something is that way does not imply it needs to be that way…

Games are not excessively competitive if they rely on an individual player. The reason for this is that you drastically limit skill cap by placing the priority of your game at the individual level. It’s one thing to learn to play your own character, in most games that’s pretty simple.. But RPG style games have this excellent opportunity to bring in dynamic team fights that can raise the skill cap insanely high with zero increase in game complexity. To go away from that is essentially dumbing the game down more and forcing the game into a far more boring low skill cap style game.

So for me to reiterate back to you good sir… Just because something is the meta does not lead one to believe that it is correct. The developers sit in a unique position to determine what is meta and what isn’t they could redesign the entire balance of the game if they so desired. Don’t let the way things are act like a crutch and impede real solutions, not just easy ones, to hard problems.

I’m not a fan of this either, I played GW1 for 6 years and loved the dynamic teamfights. However partially you’re correct, but then tell me why the cantrip-ele was such a successive build? To be independent is becoming the main focus of every setup in this game. Teamplay will happen, but not as dedicated as you’ll see it in other games.

A good example for being dependant on the team is the warrior. It’s the most balanced class that doesn’t allow this cheesy roaming without punishment. Every team that includes a warrior has carefully to build around it, to support him to get his dps out. But the disadvantages are just overhelming and many teams realized if they focus on independent builds it’s much more easier. It allows you to split however you want. You can roam solo, but also with others. The warrior on the other side is only able to roam with somebody else effectively.

All in all I wish we will see more balancing around the team. But they allrdy screwed up the balance that hard, it’s nearly impossible. Still we can hope, whatsoever.

I haven’t read anything but the OP but I’d just like to state that most DPS builds in this game are hybrid, at least to a degree. Sword/Dagger thieves use lyssa runes, 30 in acrobatics, energy sigils, etc. Just try changing those 3 things to full damage and you will see a HUGE increase in damage( I’m guessing at least 40-50% more damage) but that’s how useful these defensive opportunities are compared to full glass. Elementalists use valkyries amulets with only 10 or 20 in an actual damage trait line. I could keep going on just how most dps use hybrid builds.

The only viable full glass build I can think of that is used is shatter mesmer, but they rely on invulnerabilities/teleports/stealths for survivability. Glass dagger/pistol thief is pretty much wiped from the meta right now and any teams still using it aren’t seeing success.

More on topic: Coming up with something to prevent snowballing is interesting. At the same time I think the snowball nature just has to do with how much damage and mobility is in the game right now. As soon as 1 player is eliminated from the field on a team, good teams know how to take advantage of this and since they aren’t under as much pressure are free to “dive” into enemy territory with less fear. Thieves are the ultimate snowballers, especially sword/dagger. While other classes blow cooldowns to secure the kills they can get in a team fight, sword/dagger thieves just wait for initiative to come back and then go back to being 100%.

i support the node decay concept !!!

Phantaram.1265:

I haven’t read anything but the OP but I’d just like to state that most DPS builds in this game are hybrid, at least to a degree. Sword/Dagger thieves use lyssa runes, 30 in acrobatics, energy sigils, etc. Just try changing those 3 things to full damage and you will see a HUGE increase in damage( I’m guessing at least 40-50% more damage) but that’s how useful these defensive opportunities are compared to full glass. Elementalists use valkyries amulets with only 10 or 20 in an actual damage trait line. I could keep going on just how most dps use hybrid builds.

The only viable full glass build I can think of that is used is shatter mesmer, but they rely on invulnerabilities/teleports/stealths for survivability. Glass dagger/pistol thief is pretty much wiped from the meta right now and any teams still using it aren’t seeing success.

Good example of how important independence in this game is.

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

Diage.6451:

Empathetic Fighter.2065:

Diage.6451:

This idea would take any semblance of team fights and throw it out the window. You are (essentially) rewarded for the act of capturing, not holding. That would imply that the going around and capturing other points is by far more useful than fighting over a point..

What you should look to do is find a way to centralize fighting so that people are forced to have, at least on occasion, a more intimate team focused battle environment. Not this kittenty team of five individuals running around gaining their own points. This concept of point decay only pushes individualism and movement even further. Why waste time defending a point? You can just capture theirs after they capture! Whoever has the fastest run speed to get to the point to capture it wins!

Seems like you never seen one of the old BM-rangers or a good thief that actually can backcap. What you described above is allrdy happening. It’s nothing new.

I know many ppl want this game to be teamoriented. The problem here is that the meta allrdy shifted towards solo-play. Every build has two things that have to be considered:
1. Independece of the build, 2. viable ranged AoE-dmg.
This is the reason why ele’s, then BM-rangers, S/D-thieves, kit-engineers and nowadays necros are viable speccs. A build has at least to be strong in one of these two areas. If they are good at both, the specc will be considered mostly as op (especially ele and now necro).

So in conclusion this means: The meta-gameplay is allrdy shifting towards solo-play due to independence of the builds/classes.
Teamfights, how you call them, are allrdy very restricted in teamwork, compared to other games (has also something to do with dedicated healers).

Best argument ever…

“Combat is already going that way, therefore lets implement things that push it more that way.”

Just because something is that way does not imply it needs to be that way…

Games are not excessively competitive if they rely on an individual player. The reason for this is that you drastically limit skill cap by placing the priority of your game at the individual level. It’s one thing to learn to play your own character, in most games that’s pretty simple.. But RPG style games have this excellent opportunity to bring in dynamic team fights that can raise the skill cap insanely high with zero increase in game complexity. To go away from that is essentially dumbing the game down more and forcing the game into a far more boring low skill cap style game.

So for me to reiterate back to you good sir… Just because something is the meta does not lead one to believe that it is correct. The developers sit in a unique position to determine what is meta and what isn’t they could redesign the entire balance of the game if they so desired. Don’t let the way things are act like a crutch and impede real solutions, not just easy ones, to hard problems.

I’m not a fan of this either, I played GW1 for 6 years and loved the dynamic teamfights. However partially you’re correct, but then tell me why the cantrip-ele was such a successive build? To be independent is becoming the main focus of every setup in this game. Teamplay will happen, but not as dedicated as you’ll see it in other games.

A good example for being dependant on the team is the warrior. It’s the most balanced class that doesn’t allow this cheesy roaming without punishment. Every team that includes a warrior has carefully to build around it, to support him to get his dps out. But the disadvantages are just overhelming and many teams realized if they focus on independent builds it’s much more easier. It allows you to split however you want. You can roam solo, but also with others. The warrior on the other side is only able to roam with somebody else effectively.

All in all I wish we will see more balancing around the team. But they allrdy screwed up the balance that hard, it’s nearly impossible. Still we can hope, whatsoever.

I think you’ve taken a step away from the topic a hand. The discussion focuses on this concept of point decay and how that might affect game play. If you are one who wishes to see Anet move towards a greater sense of team dependence, higher skill cap, and a more engaging game, you should be against point decay. However, if you want to play ring-around-the-rosie and take part in a game where the greatest sense of team dependence is talking on some form of voice communication and self is all that matters, then by all means point decay is good.

I agree that the game as is is extremely focused on individualistic builds as opposed to working in an intimate group. The solution to this “problem” is not to make games more mind numbing.