Guild Wars 2

Elitism rears its head once again. How can a developer create such a team driven game without elitism. The answer is not to eliminate elitism, rather it should be embraced as a standard for the top players to improve their skills and your game. Thus the solution comes with the UI and mechanics of lobbying itself.
Let there be no instance for players to run around and spam LFG LFG LFG until they find a group. Rather, have a system, almost similar to how IRC is laid out with multiple tabs on the side. One tab would be Looking for Player tab which allows individuals to host invites for teams. Within each of these party leaders, they define the build their team plays and players can view the builds decide whether they can or can’t play the skill bar, and join the group.
Now comes the second point of elitism: experience. How can we keep elitism while keeping around team format. Simple, there must be a system in place (MMR cough cough) that separates the players via different levels of skills. This would allow players of the same caliber to meet with each other and progress together. This not only will create more teams that play together more often, but it will also improve the teams that decide to play together throughout their progression. Players need to have personal experience as well as guild experience where guilds are able to be created after a certain level. They do not have to limit new players from playing in a guild. Rather, it would promote people playing together and meeting new players in order to create a closer community once they progress up the ranks.

Simple. Player leader board/ranking. Guild leaderboard/ranking. Gear.
Take LoL method of buying gear that have visual effects in order to barbie up your character. It does not prevent professionals from becoming gear based battles, and gives the casuals something fun to do.

This would have to be one of the most difficult areas that would need to be worked on. First of all, all skills would need to be worked from the ground up, in a solely competitive mindset. Many skills in Guild Wars 1 were space fillers, this is something we want to avoid.

In the beginning process of designing skills they would be focused on specific roles of each class and subroles within each. Each physical class needs to be able to have DPS, Conditions, or some way to create pressure (this can be done with interrupts, knocks, energy denial, etc…). There should be a skills that promote different levels of the spectrum of combinations between DPS conditions and other pressure.
More importantly it is the spell casters that are the hardest to balance; with spell casters the problem comes in that they essentially can do anything a developer wants and are not bound to physical restrictions. Thus the effects of each skill must be chosen as to complement eachother without destroying the integrity of each class. In order to do so, each class needs to be defined a specific role and think about the implications of cross class combinations. I.e. take a mesmer as a control class in combination with a necromancer. They compliment eachother well due to the fact that necros have supplimentary physical controls, hexes, and debuffs. It provides a support for the overall goal of a mesmer. On the other hand, allowing a mesmer to have a skill that gives 150% energy gain, or glyphs that provide instant cooldowns, is borderline unacceptable. There needs to be controllable factors in which developers can nerf and buff skills. Damage, duration, cooldown, energy. These are things that I believe should not be touched. But they also should not be removed from the game. At the same time, there needs to be ways for players to increase/reduce damage (buffs/debuffs), regain energy(attack hitting, individual spells not paired with others), Create longer cooldowns for opponents to cause pressure(i.e. diversion), and being able to extend effects (spells that makes conditions last longer/hex last longer —> They must also be able to be removed).

At this point you may ask, “But what about hex/condition stacking!?!? You can’t possibly have enough removal for all of them.” To this I reply, that is the job of the midline, or the control classes. Backlines/Monks will crumble without support and interrupts of key skills, and this is how it should be. The main highlight of competitive Guild Wars 1 was coordination between what each character’s role is at what time and if the backline can support the midline becoming offensive in order to gain momentum/kills.

Energy and energy management was and still is a wonderfully complex system that forces players to weigh cost to benefits or specific skills. The ability to deny energy, or prevent the denial of energy added an even deeper understanding of ones own energy bar. Not only did Guild Wars 1 integrate this concept, it also inherently integrated something which Guild Wars 2 was based on: Visual combat. Despite what they say, Guild Wars 1 was a very visual game. You did not want to step into giant wells, you knew what wards looked like. Its the same concept as seeing a firewall in Guild Wars 2. This ‘visual game’ argument is flawed in the reason that they present the same information as they did in Guild Wars 1, there are just more skills that are environmentally visible rather than single targeted. Players still need to understand which each skill looks like and its effects. Is it my teammates or is it the opponents? What happens when I step into it? It is also another simplified version of what Guild Wars 1 visual system was engineered to do. Weapon swaps were important in both games, yet Guild Wars 2 presents it for a utility to use skills in order to adapt, whereas Guild Wars 1 presented it as a utility to prevent damage and denial. It was also another aspect that separated casuals from skilled players and the ability to recognize what each of the 4 weapon switches did was key. Did the monk go into his high energy set? These were complex issues that were said to prevent casuals from getting into the game. But it was more so the lack of implementing more information into the observer mode. Energy bars should be as visual on the observer mode as it is as the person playing the character.
I could go on about different aspects of the gameplay, but most people will just believe its nostalgia effect and think nothing of it.

If one were to examine and FPS, RTS, or MOBA, it is apparent that playing the game is relatively simple. In RTS, it is as simple as hitting a button for a match. Very simple for any player to begin playing the game as it does not require additional players in order to get started. FPS is a second example moving closer to a full team environment. Casuals can play the games by themselves joining open servers. They develop the mechanics necessary in order to play at a higher level and join a team in order to play in a league. Strategy is then learned and skills improve. MOBA’s are a bit of a different story, but it is still possible to play by yourself. Because all of the heroes are individualized, pugging is fairly viable for casuals, but it is often more beneficial to pair up with teammates creating a synergy between characters.
This was a problem within Guild Wars 1. The main PvP system, that being Tombs(Halls/Heroes Ascent) and GvG, required full 8 man teams. Inside of this system were inherent barriers via elitism. If we examine Tombs from the beginning, the model worked perfectly because all people were on the same level of skill. Each map brought new challenges and the opponents became harder and harder as the game progressed. As time moved on, elitism grew as those with experience knew what it took in order to advance, and in making rank restricted groups, created an environment that was not enjoyable for new players. In the case of GvG, the barrier to entry was being inside of an 8 man guild. Guests were a viable, but not permanent solution for lower manned teams, but are not conducive to improving as a guild. The choice to allow heroes and henchmen into competitive play was completely inappropriate in terms of improving a competitive game. Towards the mid and latter part of the game’s life, it became more and more difficult to get your name out. Guilds did not want players with no experience, thus players needed a form of gameplay in which to gain said experience. There were two options. First, creating a new guild with less skilled players and hope they all stick around until they actually started winning (which takes quite a while for those who never played competitive GvG). Second, to play Tombs. But by this time, Tombs was already plagued with rank restricted groups which turned off new players from competitive play altogether. For all intents and purposes, random arenas (random 4v4 teams) and team arena (premade 4v4 teams) were not competitive and did not create any viable experience for players.
On top of all of this were other human factors such as personality differences, racism (yes it still exists), and sexism. There were even posts that went as far as having a wall of text explaining why no girls were allowed in a guild.
Guild Wars 2 attempted to fix this problem of casuals not being able to get into the game, but in doing so simplified the game to a level where it currently it is not deep enough for hardcore players (based on numerous discussions with past top level Guild Wars 1 players). For example, the biggest change was their reduction in skills from Guild Wars 1. Their reason in doing so was due to the vast combinations of skills that were unbalanceable (there were ways to get around balance so much to the degree where developers needed to nerf skills out of the game). At the same time they took out one of the best aspects to competitive play, which was the dual professions (mind you this is from a player’s/deckbuilder’s perspective, not a developer and balancing perspective). This is where I believe the developers became misguided. There is another option they could have went with instead of removing both which would be removing dual professions and keeping the number of skills. In doing so, lets take removing dual professions, for example. They could still create the plethora of skills available per profession in Guild Wars 1 and keep professions flexible while maintaining balance. Most of the imbalance came from cross profession skill combinations (Incantation + High energy skills, glyphs+Long recharges, etc…) due to professions inherent roles in the game. Ele’s with high damage spells + Mesmers with energy management/cooldown management. This brings me to my second point.

The goal of a competitive game is to breed players that push the limits past what the developers envisioned; in order to do this, there must be a system in place that promotes and rewards progression. This is an area where Guild Wars 2 is lacking (‘until its ready’). Not only do players need to be able to play against those of the same caliber, there must be a visual progression that signifies improvement. Leagues and ladders are a great way to do this, not gear. Players should not have to sync tournaments in order to have enjoyable games. Players should not feel the lack of progression because of a failed system. They also should feel rewarded for winning. Gaining ranks is a much better reward and feeling of satisfaction than getting a new sword. Being able to defeat opponents you KNOW are better than you is paramount.

It is not only important for players, but for teams as a whole. In the current environment, players wish to become part of larger gaming teams, hopefully to become sponsored. In order to do so, they must be able to supply these sponsors with exposure, which then pinpoints the root of the problem. How are players supposed to give exposure without any formal way to represent their own team besides word of mouth? I’m sure this will be fixed eventually, but it only contributes to the list of ongoing problems plaguing Guild Wars 2’s PvP system.

Now as far as the discussion of casuals vs professionals goes, there must be a clear distinction between the abilities of one vs the other. The skill gap must be apparent to the extent that it is noticeable within an observer’s view. While this is important, one must also realize that nobody likes to get beat into the ground every match (which currently happens in tPvP without an MMR). Casuals want to feel like part of the community, not separate from what professional players are doing. They need to be able to attempt to mimic what those of high skill are capable of in order casuals to feel as if they have a significant goal to achieve. This goes back to the discussion of rewarding players for improvement. Professionals will always have the intuitive sense over casuals, but in terms of physical abilities, they should be able to achieve those with practice. Currently the ‘professional’ scene is in tPvP, that being 5v5’s. Arena Net states that tPvP are for the more hardcore players where spvp is more relaxed, yet spvp does not support the infrastructure being set up by Arena Net due to the fact that they are not the same format (5v5 for tPvP and 8v8 for sPvP). Let me restate again, that casuals need to play the same game format as professionals so they can develop the understanding and complexities inherent in 5v5. I.e. movement is much more important in 5v5 due to the lack of players being in different locations throughout the map. In 8v8, there are an extra 3 people to bounce around, making it more chaotic/less organized, and more about freestyling rather than strategy. Casuals need to understand the development of strategies and reactions even if they are of the most basic level in order for the viewership to rise.

Penalties for dying must be one of the most important implementations into competitive play, more so playstyles must had the ability to revolve around it as a sub-objective. MOBA’s have increasingly longer respawn timers throughout the game, and are impactful throughout the entire game. In the beginning, if you die, you lose out on much needed experience. If you die in the mid game, you are giving up valuable money both from yourself and to the other team. Endgame it is impacting your teams ability to fight the other. In Starcraft, losing units needlessly is wasting resources, and Starcraft is a game of managing resources. Guild Wars 1 death not only removes your presence from the team fight, it forced skill slots to be used for ressing, and also created death penalty. If one was to run out of res sigs, respawn would be every two minutes. This is the definition of penalties for dying. There must be game changing mechanics with the death of a player; the death must allow for a team to capitalize on an opportunity. Dead monks = less healing. Dead Midline = less support/interrupts on your midline/frontline. Dead frontline = less stress on their backline. Currently in GuildWars 2, deaths are meaningless in comparison to holding a point/keeping a point neutralized. Holding points should be a viable strategy, but it should not overshadow other strategies that revolve around killing your opponent as a means to victory. Respawn timers are currently too short in order to be impactful due to the presence of bunkers being able to hold out for 30 seconds to a minute.
The game must give the opponent a viable way to win even in the most extreme of circumstances. It is what drives fans to watch a game through its entirety. Any competitive event or game never has a point where the player cannot make some sort of comeback (even if it relies on the opponent making a mistake); It is a fundamental draw to competition. It is the factor which triggers the mind to find a strategy that will allow us to get out of a situation and conversely keeps others from becoming lazy and giving up an insurmountable lead. Guild Wars allowed you to gank the guild lord at anytime (given you kill NPCs) as well as being able to fight with your NPCs for additional DPS. Starcraft has hidden expansions, micro, and counter attacking. MOBA’s allow you to fight by towers in the same way guild wars did with its NPCs. Guild Wars 2 on the other hand does not have any strategies separate from typical gameplay that would result in a come from behind victory. There is triple capping points, but at some point in the match, all a team has to do is hold one point in order to win, thus creating as predetermined victor. It is the fact that the game is over before it is actually over that hurts the ability of Guild Wars 2 to be entertaining 100% of the time. It is not the same as being able to gank. Full team wiping would still not result in a game changing play due to the lack of a penalty for dying. In essence, there is a timer in GW2, that timer being 500 points. "Imagine basketball with no shot clock. A team could be up by a few points which would allow them to hold the ball indefinitely. However, even in that case, the other team could foul to force free throws and possession, which is more than GW2 has in terms of options.

The keyword is interesting. Guild Wars 2’s conquest for example does not capture this basic idea. According to Arena Net, capture points were a way to drive interaction between players; yet the idea behind points is flawed. By creating the objective of holding a point, it has created a dynamic which they encountered in their previous game’s Hall of Heroes. For whatever reason the game has been decided, whether intentional or not, to promote the use of holding/surviving classes as opposed to a balanced character. This is a fine idea when implemented in other forms/games. The problem with Guild Wars 2 is that there is no drawback for creating a bunker build; there must be a negative value to being more and more defensive. For example, In Starcraft 2, if one is to turtle(play very defensive), they give up map control which is paramount to controlling the flow of battle. it allows the opponent to set up new bases as well as create superior army positioning which results in winning the game. GW2 on the other hand, has points which only promote keeping them captured; if nobody is contesting the point you will be gaining more points. If two people are contesting the point, but you cannot die, you will be gaining more points as well. If they have the point, there are ways to neutralize the point as a bunker via knockbacks and fear. But nowhere in being a bunker is there any drawback. They provide a load of support and CAN do damage (although not all the time). This is a fundamental flaw in the game format, not the game design itself. There must be tradeoffs in the game format itself in order for there to be variation between builds/playstyles.

Another key aspect of creating a successful PvP game is the ability to create dynamic playstyles that border both spectrums of completely aggressive to completely defensive to everything in between. Now, while both extremas are viable, they cannot be viable 100% of the time. Because skewing a playstyle so drastically in one direction SHOULD sacrifice other aspects of your gameplay (HP, Money, Energy, Armor, Damage, etc…), these should only be viable as a part of a larger strategy within multiple games/series between teams/players. Times in which you can catch your opponent off guard. Strategies must have an inherent risk if you are to skew towards the extremes.
This is partially what creates the excitement in PvP games; the lack of knowledge in what your opponent is going to do, but more so the adaptation to every style. Any highly competitive head to head sport can verify this; martial arts is a prime example. Both players have no idea who their opponent is as they enter a ring to compete with each other. They could be extremely aggressive, extremely passive, or anywhere inbetween. It is the ability to overcome every style of fighter that is the thrill. How you can manipulate the fight in order to make it beneficial for yourself, controlling the tempo of a match and so on. The same principles can be applied into competitive PvP.
While the Guild Wars 2 system does promote adaptation, the game format is not inherently promoting of all playstyles. Furthermore, analyzing capture points can show that it is more beneficial to play towards the extremes rather than towards a balance. Glass cannons have the ability to capture points faster by killing opponents faster, which in turn allows the bunker builds to defend it all day. This is opposed to a balanced build going up against a bunker, which he will never kill 1v1 (or 2v1 depending on the 2nd character with him). Just the same, a glass cannon may or may not be able to kill the balanced player (depending on class/utility vs glass cannon class). When/if they are able to, they die extremely fast due to not specializing in any field. Even if the matchup ended up being 2v1 (2 balanced vs 1 bunker) where the bunker eventually dies, it would hold out long enough to create an advantage. Also, the two balanced characters do not have the ability to hold out in order to gain that advantage back.