Guild Wars 2

What’s the suggestion?

Create a bank of WvW maps that is randomly selected from when the WvW match is reset.

- So, for example, the Borderlands would have 12 maps in the bank, while the Eternal Battlegrounds would have 3.

• - Week One would have Borderlands 2, 6 and 11, with EB map 2.
• - Week Two would have Borderlands 3, 8 and y, with EB map 3.

- Each map should be thematically different in terms of terrain, weather and other factors.

• - One borderland could have large swaths of dense jungle, another could have the majority of it made up of winding valleys, another could have periodic heavy snowstorm, and another could take place on multiple levels (high cliffs, water level and underground chasms that occasionally get flooded).
• - For the EB, one could have a castle, one could have some sort of Temple, while the third could have multiple points you need to hold, granting you bonus points depending on how many you hold.

- Remove PvE map completion, enabling the maps to be ‘clouded’ at the start of each match.

• - Covering up the maps raises the importance of scouts to let players know what’s happening where, instead of merely memorising the maps and key places.

What’s the purpose of this suggestion?

• Mostly, to add variety and a sense of unpredictability to WvW, thus keeping the game mode slightly more interesting than with the same maps every week.
• To increase the importance of scouting, especially in maps with lower than normal visibility. Scouts can relay back to groups in order to set up ambushes, direct to keeps that aren’t being protected ect.

The main issue with this is balance.
If the maps are different there will ALWAYS be one map that does have unfair advantages for the owner. Which I would assume is the main reason why the borderlands are identical.

lordkrall.7241:

The main issue with this is balance.
If the maps are different there will ALWAYS be one map that does have unfair advantages for the owner. Which I would assume is the main reason why the borderlands are identical.

In which case, you create the maps so the owner has a slight advantage. If each map owner has a slight advantage on their own borderlands, then who has the advantage overall?

Kind of like how the Borderlands’ Citadel is close to 6 points, whereas the 7 points in the Southern part of the map are divided between the 2 borderlands. Divide that up to left and right, and it’s 3 each side, and whoever gets the most Southern point first.

Assuming equal players, equal skills, equal organisation on each side, the owner is more likely to be able to take most of the points closest to them before the two other servers can get North.

Obviously it doesn’t work like that, since there isn’t always the same number of players, same skill level, same level of organisation ect.

These discrepancies also mean, however, that the borderland owner could be at a disadvantage, despite having the advantage in terms of owning the map.

If each map owner has a slight advantage on their own borderlands, then who has the advantage overall?

As for the Eternal Battlegrounds, that should be a non-issue, since no-one owns that (from the get-go at least).

The issue here is that the devs say it takes 6 months to test our just 1 new map, to make sure it is balanced.

Well with all the hacks, bugs and glitches in the current ones I dont think we’d mind.

I say create the maps and let us the players test them. Have each tier try out different maps, and instead of 1 map being tested in 6 months you can get at least 17 done and tested! And then as OP suggested you can then have a rotation of different maps.

If it means more maps I am pretty sure a lot of people dont mind the maps being unbalanced for a while whilst they are tested.
But this idea is too easy and simple to do, the devs wont be able to do it…… :/

TheDaiBish.9735:

In which case, you create the maps so the owner has a slight advantage. If each map owner has a slight advantage on their own borderlands, then who has the advantage overall?

Kind of like how the Borderlands’ Citadel is close to 6 points, whereas the 7 points in the Southern part of the map are divided between the 2 borderlands. Divide that up to left and right, and it’s 3 each side, and whoever gets the most Southern point first.

Assuming equal players, equal skills, equal organisation on each side, the owner is more likely to be able to take most of the points closest to them before the two other servers can get North.

Obviously it doesn’t work like that, since there isn’t always the same number of players, same skill level, same level of organisation ect.

These discrepancies also mean, however, that the borderland owner could be at a disadvantage, despite having the advantage in terms of owning the map.

If each map owner has a slight advantage on their own borderlands, then who has the advantage overall?

As for the Eternal Battlegrounds, that should be a non-issue, since no-one owns that (from the get-go at least).

But unless all maps are identical there will always be one map where the advantage is bigger than on the others, thus it would be unfair to the other two servers that didn’t get said home-map for that week.

lordkrall.7241:

But unless all maps are identical there will always be one map where the advantage is bigger than on the others, thus it would be unfair to the other two servers that didn’t get said home-map for that week.

So what you’re saying is is that there’ll always be one map that’s superior, and it’s not possible to have balance (in the sense the owner only has a slight advantage) between the three thematically and mechanically different maps?

The balance, so to speak, could be achieved by creating a template on the distribution of capture points, so that each map has the same distribution (say 35% home server, 50% between the other two servers and 15% that are free for all).

In terms of mechanics, you create mechanics that affect everyone (snowstorms limiting visibility, for example). The natives, so to speak, are also going to be affected by it, thus creating no imbalance, since they’d be under the same limitations and conditions as the other servers.

Finally, because the map visibility would be reset at the beginning of each match, the map owner, along with the other servers wouldn’t actually know what map they were on until they’d scouted, thus negating an immediate advantage. Of course, maps would probably be available outside of the game, but that’s true for everyone, and you’d still need to identify which map it was first before pulling it up, meaning that one of the non-native servers could gain an advantage by identifying the map first.

Omaris Mortuus Est.2738:

The issue here is that the devs say it takes 6 months to test our just 1 new map, to make sure it is balanced.

Well with all the hacks, bugs and glitches in the current ones I dont think we’d mind.

I say create the maps and let us the players test them. Have each tier try out different maps, and instead of 1 map being tested in 6 months you can get at least 17 done and tested! And then as OP suggested you can then have a rotation of different maps.

If it means more maps I am pretty sure a lot of people dont mind the maps being unbalanced for a while whilst they are tested.

Well, the number you could get done and tested would be dependent on:

• How many devs are there to create the maps (assets, behaviour scripts, NPC [mainly Dolyak] pathing ect) and give them a once over.
• How many players would be willing to test them.

All in all, I’d say (providing that you included them in the rotation), 3 – 6 maps at a balanced, functional state would be a more reasonable estimate.