Guild Wars 2

I am wondering if there is a middle ground around the various maps. I don’t think you can make everyone happy, nor do I think you can bring back everyone or keep everyone depending on the changes. That said is there a middle ground?

What if the 4 maps for WvW were:

1 EB – Each side has their starting third
1 EoTM – Each side again has its third, maybe flip 1st and 3rd servers starting locations
1 ABL – 3rd Place team hold Citadel and Home, 2nd place starts with Hills, 1st place- Bay
1 DBL – 2nd Place holds Earth, 3rd place Fire, 1st place Air

With this we have EB and ABL for the traditionalists, DBL and EoTM for people that prefer alternate terrain to fight on.

Or are people to opposed to one side or the other?

I’d rather them scrap the DBL altogether and revert things back to the way the used to be it was much better. I’m still open to a new WvW map in the future but I feel that the DBL was a failed project. Failure is not always a bad thing, Anet can learn a lot from the player base about why DBL was unpopular and this will help with a new map in the future if they choose to make a new WvW map down the road.

The Borderlands currently only really work if all 3 servers have the same map, otherwise one or more servers could be at a distinct tactical disadvantage.

If the Borderlands were made to be a proper 3-way map similar to EB and EotM then it could work, but not the way it is now.

psizone.8437:

The Borderlands currently only really work if all 3 servers have the same map, otherwise one or more servers could be at a distinct tactical disadvantage.

If the Borderlands were made to be a proper 3-way map similar to EB and EotM then it could work, but not the way it is now.

This is exactly the case—The maps are different on so many levels that having them all in one match will significantly impact the score.

The compromise will eventually be a rotation, though I sincerely hope that EotM is never included in that rotation.

psizone.8437:

The Borderlands currently only really work if all 3 servers have the same map, otherwise one or more servers could be at a distinct tactical disadvantage.

If the Borderlands were made to be a proper 3-way map similar to EB and EotM then it could work, but not the way it is now.

See I think they have already introduced to us the idea that a side can begin in a somewhat fortified position at reset so having the lowest ranked server in a more dominate position at start could help balance the start of a week out.

Having the multiple maps could also allow people to play on maps they prefer and re-link back in people that like the EoTM maps for their play-ability. I have seen EoTM change from a k-train to a fighting map over time and some of the fights have been rather inspiring as people hunt each other down.

I think I would prefer to try it versus rule it out and lose more people because they leave because DBL stays or ABL comes back.

Sviel.7493:

The compromise will eventually be a rotation, though I sincerely hope that EotM is never included in that rotation.

Agreed. Though in fairness, EotM (with a little reworking, minus the transformations and a castle placed at the centre) could make a decent EB rotation candidate but between how sacred EB has become since the desert map was introduced and how tainted EotM has become since it basically became a large PvE karmatrain, it might be a seriously difficult sell.

Yeah, I wouldn’t want to try to sell that…I don’t think I could even convince myself.

TheGrimm.5624:

See I think they have already introduced to us the idea that a side can begin in a somewhat fortified position at reset so having the lowest ranked server in a more dominate position at start could help balance the start of a week out.

The problem is that some matchups can have all 3 servers fairly equally balanced so having a map advantage could affect that matchup greatly.

Since Anet are trying implement a fix to balance matchups, the likelihood of having 3 “equal” servers will be higher so relying on a map for an advantage over skill and effort could create some friction.

DBL is huge, there should be respawn point in every tower. You need like 15 mins to get to fight on other side of map.

A better compromise would be to bring back the alpine bl and rotate the deserted bl with eotm.
That way they can test out any changes they make to the map without disrupting wvw and still get player feedback.

Being one of those that hates BOTH EoTM and DBL, ( considering most of the DBL elements I loathe were tested in EoTM they just have a different skin in DBL) I think DBL would be better suited for EoTM than WvW since neither of those maps are suitable WvW maps. I have no desire to play on either EoTM or DBL at all, and I want to be able to play on all maps that are in the game mode due to my style of play includes considering EVERY BL in the match is our concern. For PvP my favorite map is courtyard because it makes PvP the primary focus, I see WvW like a large scale version of that. PvP needs to be the focus, the objectives are just things to fight over ( winner takes the spoils). The map should not be the focus, it is just the background. Keeping players in nonstop PvP action should be the primary concern.

WvW should be treated like a large scale Battlefield PvP. DBL and EoTM maps are not made for that at all. The design of the maps for WvW should be focused on nonstop PvP action. I would rather them put DBL in EoTM, then make new maps that puts the focus on engaging players in PvP. Direct routes, flatter maps that help keep players in the fight not avoiding it, closer basic objectives for players to fight over, remove NPC involvement, ( No lame shrines ) less focus on lords/ guards or NPC’s in general, ect, No ramps to camps, make getting to and from objectives as simple as possible, as they are not the primary focus, fighting over them is. Need to be able to fight anywhere on the map so the map needs to encourage fighting everywhere and not being worried about everyone falling off a cliff then wait for the teams to have to have everyone run back to reset.. that blah mess that you deal with now. It blows standing there waiting for either team to come back because half their guys fell down below…If their guys are on the ground below, they obviously are not up there fighting you and then you have to wait all day for them to get back to where you were.. Wasting everyone’s time. The objectives should be close enough together that less time is spent getting to them than is spent defending them. Camps should be close to objectives so if you need to repair/ build siege ect, you are not going very far.

I would like to see PPK increased for defending objectives, and giving loot drop bonus to have players receive ascended items and legendary crafting materials in loot bags for defending and attacking objectives as well, Slightly higher for defending than attacking. ( No PPK or loot drops at all for siege damage to encourage players to move the fights from the fields into the keeps and not siege hump~ if they siege hump they dont get loot, PPK or XP.)

You would have more objectives closer together to fight over but you would have more people willing to do so. This would bring open field fights into objectives for both attacking and defending due to the increased loot, XP and PPK, Kill the K train since you get better loot for defending than attacking, kill the siege humpers because they would be sacrificing both PPK and ascended item drops to do so.

The objectives and ability to get to them from any direction, being able to attack from any direction, need to be simple and allow the players to have numerous ways and methods of doing so instead. More options for player strategy for attack and defense make that more interesting rather than having the map limit that. The truth is defending was wayy too easy to do before they added the ridiculous nonsense, they just didn’t have a reason to. The reason there was a Ktrain before was because no one thought it important enough to go there to defend objectives not because it was difficult to do. When players actually showed up to defend, it was already OP. Then they added all of this other garbage to it and made it just absurd. Give players PPK , increased XP and a ascended items for loot drops and you can be sure they will come back to defend. and wont be on siege to do so ( nor will they need to be).

Fighting players without siege over objectives needs to give more loot rewards, more xp and more PPT than killing NPCs and getting a chest.

Puck.9612:

A better compromise would be to bring back the alpine bl and rotate the deserted bl with eotm.
That way they can test out any changes they make to the map without disrupting wvw and still get player feedback.

great idea
alpine fits home bl’s just fine
desert never did and left a bad taste in “almost” everyone’s mouth. If they are used for a rotation you will just see the same effect those weeks: eb queued, dbl empty.
I would rather just see them gone than try to appeal to the 5 people that like them.

Why compromise? Anet’s in the weak negotiating position. They’re obviously under immense pressure and very desperate right now as evidenced by their apparent interest in WvW (and management shakeup). Now is the time to push for the changes you really want.

Lord Kuru.3685:

Why compromise? Anet’s in the weak negotiating position. They’re obviously under immense pressure and very desperate right now as evidenced by their apparent interest in WvW (and management shakeup). Now is the time to push for the changes you really want.

I think it was meant as a compromise between the 2 different player groups (one that wants the Alpine maps back and the other that wants to keep the Desert one) rather than a compromise with Anet.

TheGrimm.5624:

I am wondering if there is a middle ground around the various maps. I don’t think you can make everyone happy, nor do I think you can bring back everyone or keep everyone depending on the changes. That said is there a middle ground?

What if the 4 maps for WvW were:

1 EB – Each side has their starting third
1 EoTM – Each side again has its third, maybe flip 1st and 3rd servers starting locations
1 ABL – 3rd Place team hold Citadel and Home, 2nd place starts with Hills, 1st place- Bay
1 DBL – 2nd Place holds Earth, 3rd place Fire, 1st place Air

With this we have EB and ABL for the traditionalists, DBL and EoTM for people that prefer alternate terrain to fight on.

Or are people to opposed to one side or the other?

I would love that, 1 of EACH maps every week.

Let people play on the maps they like, and avoid the others.

Desert and Alpine both would need some minor adjustments for that to work (minor stuff like either removing the citadel services from all of them, or give it to all sides on those maps).

I actually like the idea of using all 4 WvW maps as different terrains for whoever likes whatever style. What I don’t want to see however is one team feeling obliged to defend all of the EotM map because it’s their “home” borderland.

However, there are still two maps that have a spawn point advantage because they’re designed to be home BLs. You can adjust the exit points from the DBL citadel easily enough, but it would need crafting stations etc. set up on the other two spawn points as well in fairness.

Alpine would require the spawn point to be moved entirely, e.g. to North camp. Then the camp feeding the towers and Garrison would have to be moved into Citadel, and all the crafting stations etc. there accessible only to whoever holds Garrison. A little bit of work, but nothing too serious. What I’m wondering, though, is if that’d make a mess of the map balance.

However it’d work, the goal is 4 maps that are roughly even for each team in attacking and defending territory. That way there’s more variety without any servers getting shafted.

Well, my stupid idea for a compromise with the return of the alpin maps. For wvw the actual dbl isn’t so good, but it would be a perfect map for pve only. So it’s not a waste of work, instead they could fill DBL with tons of events. The players have start on the west side of the map with taking the camps, then the tower, then the shrines and then the keep, start over again on the east side. They can only attack the north keep when they hold both keeps. If they hold all keeps, a worldboss spawns in the oasis. Together with gliding and tons of mobs, this map could be fun to play. The wvw-players have their beloved alpine map back, the pve-crowd get new shinies and are learning the basics of wvw without have to fight other players.

No! No compromise. Only compromise in your mind. ALPINE POWER. <3

DBL would be neat for PvE though, I agree with that.

if we are looking for a compromise, a mixture of old and new, I would definitely go for biweekly rotation:
week 1: EBG and 3x Desert BL
week 2: EotM and 3x Alpine BL

and adjust the map cap so there is even number of slots for players on the 4 maps combined…

PS: remember guys. DBL is a borderland map, meaning one side has an advantage, so you can’t have 2x alpine and 1x DBL, sorry, it wont work…

Peterson.8345:

if we are looking for a compromise, a mixture of old and new, I would definitely go for biweekly rotation:
week 1: EBG and 3x Desert BL
week 2: EotM and 3x Alpine BL

The problem with the every other week BL system, is with how kitten-hurt a lot of people have become over this entire borderland thing. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if in 1 week huge parts of the population would just boycott the DBL and camp/queue ebg, or just take a break that week. And the next week someone would just boycott Alpine because they prefer Desert etc. At this stage, you’re actually getting players that can be on same server but hardly if ever play together.

Puck.9612:

A better compromise would be to bring back the alpine bl and rotate the deserted bl with eotm.
That way they can test out any changes they make to the map without disrupting wvw and still get player feedback.

I don’t think that the people that are enjoying EoTM today are looking for any changes, its the people on the regular WvW maps. This wouldn’t make any sense.

psizone.8437:

Lord Kuru.3685:

Why compromise? Anet’s in the weak negotiating position. They’re obviously under immense pressure and very desperate right now as evidenced by their apparent interest in WvW (and management shakeup). Now is the time to push for the changes you really want.

I think it was meant as a compromise between the 2 different player groups (one that wants the Alpine maps back and the other that wants to keep the Desert one) rather than a compromise with Anet.

Exactly. I know a number of WvWers that will end up leaving if DBL is removed, so trying to find a middle ground. So there are people on both sides of the fence here.

TheGrimm.5624:

What if the 4 maps for WvW were:

1 EB – Each side has their starting third
1 EoTM – Each side again has its third, maybe flip 1st and 3rd servers starting locations
1 ABL – 3rd Place team hold Citadel and Home, 2nd place starts with Hills, 1st place- Bay
1 DBL – 2nd Place holds Earth, 3rd place Fire, 1st place Air

With this we have EB and ABL for the traditionalists, DBL and EoTM for people that prefer alternate terrain to fight on.

Or are people to opposed to one side or the other?

I was thinking about the same the other day. Even attached a map what it would look like.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Oasis-replacement-idea/first#post6043783

It would be interesting to try this out. There are some questions like the objectives balance and the reduction of playable area.

Edit: The EotM map should still be used as a waiting room/k-train separate from the actual WvW.

psizone.8437:

The Borderlands currently only really work if all 3 servers have the same map, otherwise one or more servers could be at a distinct tactical disadvantage.

If the Borderlands were made to be a proper 3-way map similar to EB and EotM then it could work, but not the way it is now.

The north keep owner does have an advantage in the borderlands.

However the keep waypoints were changed making fire and air keeps feel like the invaders’ property. So the advantage narrows down to north team “owning” 2 towers while the invader teams only “own” 1 tower each.

Do you really see EB as perfectly balanced? Doesn’t Anzalias/Speldan feel weaker than any other corner?

Have to agree, I don’t think we need three borderlands that are exact copies of each other. That’s one of things that made them stale over time. As long as all sides have ground they can protect and can not be bottled into their spawn that would do.

lil devils x.6071:

I think DBL would be better suited for EoTM than WvW since neither of those maps are suitable WvW maps. I have no desire to play on either EoTM or DBL at all, and I want to be able to play on all maps that are in the game mode due to my style of play includes considering EVERY BL in the match is our concern.

That’s your opinion about not being suitable WvW maps. I like maps that require you to think where you are fighting and allows a smaller force to take on larger ones and the fight not be determined by just who has the larger zerg. Choke points and points of control make holding and fighting in some spots better positioning depending on the fight. Which keeps it varied and fresh. And don’t you think that other people that have also payed for this game like to be able to play on all potential maps in the game modes they enjoy? Hence a compromise so that we all have places we would like to fight over. If one of those is not as much to your liking, there is still ground to control for all.

People are different, and have different opinions and tastes.

This is why the aim should be to diversify WvW so everyone can find something they like, not restrict it further.

*BOTH* maps!

TheGrimm.5624:

psizone.8437:

Lord Kuru.3685:

Why compromise? Anet’s in the weak negotiating position. They’re obviously under immense pressure and very desperate right now as evidenced by their apparent interest in WvW (and management shakeup). Now is the time to push for the changes you really want.

I think it was meant as a compromise between the 2 different player groups (one that wants the Alpine maps back and the other that wants to keep the Desert one) rather than a compromise with Anet.

Exactly. I know a number of WvWers that will end up leaving if DBL is removed, so trying to find a middle ground. So there are people on both sides of the fence here.

all six?

Akkeros.1675:

all six?

Can you share the API that you are using that shows the number of unique users that only logged into the DBL or log into EoTM? Do you have the numbers that showed the number in decline while we just had ABL in place?

Korgov.7645:

The north keep owner does have an advantage in the borderlands.

However the keep waypoints were changed making fire and air keeps feel like the invaders’ property. So the advantage narrows down to north team “owning” 2 towers while the invader teams only “own” 1 tower each.

Do you really see EB as perfectly balanced? Doesn’t Anzalias/Speldan feel weaker than any other corner?

Yes, the north Keep owner has the advantage but each server has its own map with its own north Keep which makes it fair.

I didn’t say EB was perfectly balanced, nor do I believe it is, but it is set as a 3 way map, each with equal zones which, for the most part, plays out pretty well (though servers can have a better tactical position than others).