Guild Wars 2

So for 5 weeks I’ve been watching my server avoid the desert BL at all hours of the day, no matter who owned it. Whenever I’d call for help in /team, the response was always a variant of “desert bl sucks let em have it”. The following are why I think WVW players don’t want it regardless as to your investment in it:

1- Travel times between points differ from other BLs
2- Shrines and extra cumbersome mechanics are in the way and they’re proving to not be used even in tier 1 (as anything other than xp for roamers)
3-Terrain is too complicated, this is a compeditive environment and combined with travel times between points, that makes it a high stress situation to navigate on defense
4-Keeps and towers are designed wrong, they render a lot of siege weapons redundant because the walls don’t join together due to mountains and such
5-The lords are overpowered relative to the other BL’s
6-Wall segments are guarded by NPC’s

I understand your thinking. You saw that EOTM was overwhelmingly popular, and here’s why it was: it was easy xp and money. PVE players farmed it for bags and badges, and WVW players leveled alts in there precisely because they almost never fought other players, and taking up a map slot in wvw as an upscale made you a liability because gear and traits.

You made a very pretty map, Anet, but it’s a PVE map. You can either make the other BL’s equally complicated, or revert the change, but as is, it’s neither fair nor wanted.

If you ever would waste time trying to fix this map, these things I would need:

1. in map view (after pressing M, that’s the default key), I NEED to see lines with arrows on them indicating the direction you can go, at least the major & shortest routes to each objective. If you would ever draw such a mao, you would see what a huge maze and mess it is… but at least I would have an ideea which way to go

2. remove fall damage completely on that map, or allow gliders, or reduce height to similar the alpine map has, with similar elevation smoothing

3. increase move speed 3x times or reduce the map size 3 times (consider the maze pointed out at #1 above, that adds to travel distances)

4. remove all those buffs and annoyances given by shrines and similar, turn them into bloodlust points

5. add more shortcuts to to travel through keeps, place those shortcuts right next to gates… but the keeps still need a complete redesign, height is way to much, see point #2 above

6. remove all those decorations on ground that make teleport evade skills fail or even targeting fail with “no valid path to target”

7. that golem keep lord should stop blocking our own team when defending… really

I likely forgot a few other things, thanks for reading, and don’t worry, I will stay away from desert borderland for now.

I haven’t required Taiwal’s point #1 after weeks of playing the crap out of it, but I am completely unable to argue the rest of his points, despite the fact that I want the map reverted entirely.

WVW would be better off with graphically redesigned alpine BL’s, not entire geographical redesigns.

Back to point #1, I think it’s made dramatically worse by the shrines and dust blind effects, as well as the sentry placements with the exception of the air keep which is completely unfathomable from the inside.

I’ve been saying for ages, clear out the oasis in the middle, make it completely flat with no funky terrain, mobs or ambients. DBL would be the most popular map for those groups that just want fights. The PPT crew and the K-Train heroes can go ham on the alpine bl and all the fight groups are nicely tucked away out of sight and mind. Win/win.

It has been sayed.

Trajan.4953:

I’ve been saying for ages, clear out the oasis in the middle, make it completely flat with no funky terrain, mobs or ambients. DBL would be the most popular map for those groups that just want fights. The PPT crew and the K-Train heroes can go ham on the alpine bl and all the fight groups are nicely tucked away out of sight and mind. Win/win.

Yeah but you’d still have the issue that the desert map is controlled by one server, and the other two would be under constant assault for actual points in the actual game mode.

OK, however any fight group wouldn’t care about any objective on that map as the proximity to the oasis wouldn’t grant tower/keep buffs. If anything that map would be as safe as it is now, or safer. Also whoever controlled the map is not likely to interfere with fight groups going about their business.

We can all agree, some White Knights notwithstanding, that the DBL is not the most popular map. Nothing about that would change except there is actual decent fighting terrain in one place in WvW. Terrain that could (in theory) support multiple different engagements.

Trajan.4953:

OK, however any fight group wouldn’t care about any objective on that map as the proximity to the oasis wouldn’t grant tower/keep buffs. If anything that map would be as safe as it is now, or safer. Also whoever controlled the map is not likely to interfere with fight groups going about their business.

Why would you not then just make a saparate map for fight groups? There are map density limits and how would you come to the defense of something if 5 fight guilds were just sitting in there?

I think you’re muddying the issue, fight groups are going to happen either way, we’re discussing the desert BL’s fairness relative to the others in terms of PPT, offense, defense, roaming.

Well that would be peachy and also highly unlikely.

This takes a rarely used area with wasted art assets and makes it functional.

I think you don’t understand fight groups. I promise you the only reason a group like that hits objectives is to bring fights too them. The only reason they PPT is to get out of a dead tier. This simply gives them an OS like place without all the issues OS has. Nothing would be lost for anyone.

Trajan.4953:

Well that would be peachy and also highly unlikely.

This takes a rarely used area with wasted art assets and makes it functional.

I agree that the art is a waste— but then I don’t like the central ruins in the alpine BL’s either. and there’s also PVE content to the north east and north west of those, which I see no reason for. Wasted space that could be a gvg fight ground maybe?

I seriously think these are two different issues, please just make a topic about fight grounds and gvg.

SixVoltCar.5248:

Trajan.4953:

Well that would be peachy and also highly unlikely.

This takes a rarely used area with wasted art assets and makes it functional.

I agree that the art is a waste— but then I don’t like the central ruins in the alpine BL’s either. and there’s also PVE content to the north east and north west of those, which I see no reason for. Wasted space that could be a gvg fight ground maybe?

I seriously think these are two different issues, please just make a topic about fight grounds and gvg.

That’s the idea!

Trajan.4953:

That’s the idea!

Purely in terms of WVW balance (not to be confused with gvg and duelling), one borderlands cannot deviate much geographically (or mechanically) from another. The creation of the desert BL, without change to the alpine which the two other servers had, went well beyond this margin. That is the issue I see.

Look, the issue is that WvW is filled with groups that want only fights. They may not be the majority but their actions and movements between servers definitely dictate where a server is and how competitive it is. If we can agree on that statement then what I am suggesting is simply giving those groups an area that they would like that wouldn’t involve steamrolling lesser groups just out to K-Train or re-cap their stuff while looking for an actual challenge. This is like an open air OS that uses and unused area in the game and would breathe life into a dead BL.

IMO

Trajan.4953:

Look, the issue is that WvW is filled with groups that want only fights. They may not be the majority but their actions and movements between servers definitely dictate where a server is and how competitive it is. If we can agree on that statement then what I am suggesting is simply giving those groups an area that they would like that wouldn’t involve steamrolling lesser groups just out to K-Train or re-cap their stuff while looking for an actual challenge. This is like an open air OS that uses and unused area in the game and would breathe life into a dead BL.

IMO

I agree with you, but the BL isn’t salvageable without major changes to the alpine. If you destroy the game mode by making it a fight-guild only issue (which is literally zergs steamrolling lesser groups), you alienate small ops, roaming, duelling, PPT. You don’t just “breathe life into” something by rendering it irrelevant in terms of the mode it was designed for, and is a part of the scoring for. Take your topic, and make it a topic— WVW could use less “here be skritt” areas anyways.

I feel as though we are talking about different things but I respect where you are coming from and you are the OP so I will let it rest:)

Shall we break this down~?

SixVoltCar.5248

1- Travel times between points differ from other BLs

Which travel times? You can find a list of DBL travel times and most ABL travel times here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Offensive-Small-Team-Play-Alpine-vs-Desert/first

I’ll also list some directly:
[Spoiler=Sweet Travel Time List]
ABL with swiftness and no leaps
From NC to NWC is 103s
From NWC to NC is 118s
From NC to NEC is 104s
From NEC to NC is 110s
From SE Spawn to SEC is 41s
From SEC to NEC is 96s
From SE Spawn to SC is 63s
From SW Spawn to SC is 65s
From SW Spawn to SWC is 49s
From SWC to NWC is 120s
From Hills WP to NEC is 55s
From Bay WP to NWC is 60s

DESERT – I’ll just time these myself since I have access to the map. No leaps or anything were used. All times are with swiftness. No unit markers because they made the forums censor some times, for some reason.

Citadel WP to NWT back entrance: 45
NWT to NWC: 42
NWC to NWT: 42
NWC to Firekeep: 32
Firekeep to NWC: 37
Firekeep to SWC: 60
SWC to Firekeep: 60
SWC to SWT: 45
SWT to SWC: 45
SWT to SC: kitten
to SWT: 43
SC to SET: 45
SET to SEC: 45
Rampart WP to NEC: 65
NEC to NET: 42
NET to NEC: 42
SW Spawn to SWC: 35
SW Spawn to SC: 70
SW Spawn to SWT: 47
SE Spawn to SEC: 40
[/Spoiler]

As you can see, there’s some shift in the travel times, but some are smaller while others are bigger. In general, none of the shifts are particularly huge. I should also note that most of the DBL paths don’t require walking anywhere near a cliff. ABL is in a similar situation with the NET and E Garri areas having great elevation.

2- Shrines and extra cumbersome mechanics are in the way and they’re proving to not be used even in tier 1 (as anything other than xp for roamers)

How can they be in the way if they’re not being used?

When I played in T2 and T3, they were being used regularly. Perhaps T1 is too busy GvGing to care, but how is that a problem with the map?

3-Terrain is too complicated, this is a compeditive environment and combined with travel times between points, that makes it a high stress situation to navigate on defense

There are clearly marked roads to everywhere and each structure has extra entrances for ease of return. Said roads are rarely next to cliffs. There are also elevators for whoever controls a structure and speed buffs galore. If you hit a shrine and can follow a road, travel times are actually shorter across the board instead of just sometimes.

But, I digress. Is there a specific area where you’re experienced high stress during navigation? Perhaps I’m not remembering everything clearly.

4-Keeps and towers are designed wrong, they render a lot of siege weapons redundant because the walls don’t join together due to mountains and such

I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you lamenting the inability to hit 2 walls at once with siege weapons? How are siege weapons made redundant by this? Why is this a design flaw? I’m genuinely confused on this point.

5-The lords are overpowered relative to the other BL’s

This is objectively true. It’s certainly more interesting, imo, but you may subjectively dislike it.

6-Wall segments are guarded by NPC’s

This is bad? The NPCs don’t even spawn until the structure upgrades a bit, but why are they an issue at all?

[quote=SixVoltCar.5248][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]

Sviel,
1- The terrain confusion is always present, are you suggesting the desert borderlands is as straightforward as the other two? This is a factor.
2- They serve only to nullify compeditive problems in the terrain not present on other borders (and take time to do so, points are based on time)
3- Small ops are affected by the inability to launch a sneak attack, tactics suffer (you flip a shrine for a buff, they know where you are and can fairly easily guess where you’re going), defensively, people don’t want to be there so when they do HAVE to go there to defend, they haven’t memorized a million shortcuts (likely never will if what I’ve seen is any indication)
4- It’s more about building and maintaining defensive positions, think alpine BL bay versus anything at all in the desert BL
6- supply running and the time it takes for objectives to be listed as contested.

In all of these you’re quantifying without considering the human factor. The alpine BL is straightforward and all strategy, as is EB, the desert BL does not work in a straightforward way— I’m inclined to say that it takes strategy out of the player’s hands. Personally, I hate it. But I am willing to play it because I have to for points— Tier 1 won’t even give it that courtesey 99% of the time. And they really shouldn’t, because only when you get into higher populations and higher competition do problems become more apparent, like anicancelling in other games, or game engine tricks to squeeze that last 0.001% out of something that’ll give you the edge.

I’ll put it this way: I played the hell out of EOTM to level alts for real WVW, and if I went in there today, I wouldn’t know my way around— that information is irrelevant to me in a time-based compeditive situation. Actually, if I went in there today nothing would happen, because they removed real xp and so people are actually playing the game mode in there instead of win trading now.

OK, looks like formatting doesn’t want to work for me. I agree with Sviel, and it looks like people are force-finding the issues.

In my opinion, SixVoltCar.5248 has made the same “Desert BL is bad post” we can see since HoT gave us the new map (and even after the map got made far less obstructive a few months later). Let me address some of his (summarised from other too) complains:

1- Travel times between points differ from other BLs

So what is the problem with that? Because it is different or longer? Travel times being different is nothing bad to start with, because it is a different map. Are they really that much longer? With fire portals and no-drop-damage buffs on your side you should be almost on par with Alpine travelling times. I agree though, that getting from spawn to NC is a lot longer, allowing you to save the camp being a difficult task now.
The longer travel times can turn into problems, if people don’t communicate with each other, which is partly the communities fault and partly the fault of Anet not giving us tools of communication (e.g. a notification to the guild member if the object you have claimed is under attack).

3-Terrain is too complicated, this is a competitive environment and combined with travel times between points, that makes it a high stress situation to navigate on defense.

DBL offers a lot more spots to put catapults to attack walls than ABL. I don’t think that deviating from “put 3 superior catas in front of a wall at point blank range” is a bad thing, because you can still do that, too. The terrain offers chances for those willing to use it both offensively and defensively, which should be encouraged in a competitive environment. Defenders can use the environment to their advantage, e.g. by putting ACs at spots much harder to reach by 1200 range AoE spams of attackers.

2- Shrines and extra cumbersome mechanics are in the way and they’re proving to not be used even in tier 1 (as anything other than xp for roamers)

Shrines don’t block any paths. What are in the way of? The shrine enhancements give you a speed boost and aids to deal with the verticality of the map. What are the “other cumbersome mechanics”? The old barricades were awful, I agree, but with the oasis laser event gone, what mechanics do you mean?

4-Keeps and towers are designed wrong, they render a lot of siege weapons redundant because the walls don’t join together due to mountains and such

You have some valid points here. The canons defending tower gates are a death trap and due to line of sight issues not even useful when you are not immediately nuked there. Some mortars are at bad spots too. It would have been Anet’s task to find a fix for that for years.

5-The lords are overpowered relative to the other BL’s

I am sure you can kill all lords, tower and keep lords, with two players (I know a few people that have solo’ed some). They just don’t get killed as fast as Alpine lords.

6-Wall segments are guarded by NPC’s

That made me chuckle. How is that a bad thing? Because you can’t leave your battery of superior catas next to the wall forever? Having to deal with a respawning wall NPC is part of the attacking tactics and your ability to time you build / re-supply runs.

Finally, I don’t get all the “remove PvE content / this is a PvE maps” talk.
As long as Anet is unable to put equal & adequate numbers of players against each other on a WvW, you need some “automated content” triggered by player interaction. The shrines are not the problem, as are the hero point spots in both Alpine and Desert – it is how they are used by game mechanics.
Players should be encouraged to use tactics and improvements the second they cap a structure, but in reality, we don’t bother a lot with them because they have such a high cost (as we struggle to get materials for them in our game type) and so little reward (e.g. why don’t they award Influence to the guild that sponsored them each time they are triggered, even if it is only a little).
The PvE events were intended to give casual WvW players from the pure PvE realms a chance to participate for the server, but those have no incentive to play WvW these days, as WvW offers nothing to them (crappy rewards, nothing new, no fun if you get steam rolled all the time etc.)

Long post short: DBL is not ABL or a flat space (just like your current girlfriend is different from your ex)

Gorani,
1- The alpines are identical, that’s the problem with that. The borders are home maps for each server, if you deviate with just one, then just one has an advantage or disadvantage (I don’t have enough data to know which it is, it seems bad on both ends in terms of PPT)
3- Too difficult to scout, too long to navigate
2- Air keep height, and dust cloud are the two main things with the shrines
4- This issue is somewhat fixed by autodefenders on the walls, which unfairly give early warning, but that becomes irrelevant because maintaining the amount of defensive siege and shortcut knowledge that desert BL requires is impractical to almost everyone
5- Game mode is time based, defense is player-based. You can’t tell me that a lord that spams dazes and vanishes is harder to defend than one that just fires a rifle
6- Early warning

Ad hominem all you like, but you either put the Eotm stuff in all maps or no maps, because the whole concept of wvw balance comes from those borderlands being equivalent. (And 2 identical maps with ONLY real WVW content in them competing with one that’s basically showboating PVE level design are never going to be equivalent in terms of the human factor, no matter how many bandages you put on it)

Samug.6512:

OK, looks like formatting doesn’t want to work for me. I agree with Sviel, and it looks like people are force-finding the issues.

Right, because if enough people have a problem with it, it isn’t a problem because you don’t want it to be.

SixVoltCar.5248:

Samug.6512:

OK, looks like formatting doesn’t want to work for me. I agree with Sviel, and it looks like people are force-finding the issues.

Right, because if enough people have a problem with it, it isn’t a problem because you don’t want it to be.

Let’s take travel times between objectives. Sviel’s post clearly shows travel times aren’t that different, and yet people keep bragging how long it takes to travel between objectives.

What is the “human factor” I’m referring to? Is what I’m assuming the subject of your next attack is going to be. If people come off one alpine BL, having learned its tricks, all of those same tricks work on the other alpine BL, both of which are less congested with diversions and with more straightforward terrain.

I’ve seen very few people WANT to play the desert BL. The few that try to defend it (as a concept), defend it with personal attacks and profess its immense beauty— but this isn’t sparkfly fen here, it’s siege warfare. People will take the path of least resistance, I.E. the thing they know best and have spent more time in— the alpine BL. When they overflow into the desert BL or have to go back there to defend it (literally), what are the chances they’ve sat in there for hours optimizing routes to shrines for speed buffs and subsequently to objectives, AND memorized all their spread out walls, AND memorized all their trick spots? Only one server has the map at a time, remember.

Yes, yes it’s pretty, and the hay bales are satisfying, and the yaks don’t look stupid, but it’s nightmarish for PPT and therefore unbalanced next to the other two.

All or nothing. Don’t give me a barge and call it a yacht.

Trajan.4953:

I’ve been saying for ages, clear out the oasis in the middle, make it completely flat with no funky terrain, mobs or ambients. DBL would be the most popular map for those groups that just want fights. The PPT crew and the K-Train heroes can go ham on the alpine bl and all the fight groups are nicely tucked away out of sight and mind. Win/win.

It has been sayed.

It already has flat areas where guilds/blobs go for fights, the plateau near the south camp for example.

SixVoltCar.5248:

So for 5 weeks I’ve been watching my server avoid the desert BL at all hours of the day, no matter who owned it. Whenever I’d call for help in /team, the response was always a variant of “desert bl sucks let em have it”.

Thats a problem on every server i have been on since HoT. I am not quite sure why, for roaming and ganking poor zerglings i think its a great map.

SixVoltCar.5248:

1- Travel times between points differ from other BLs

i personally like this. and if you know the map its not that long.

2- Shrines and extra cumbersome mechanics are in the way and they’re proving to not be used even in tier 1 (as anything other than xp for roamers)

i only dont like the new earth shrine buff as prior to the change every class had same advantage of being stealthed by the sand storm, thieves couldnt even use stealth attack with sand stealth so it was fair. now with being permanently revealed most classes dont even have to bother about that effect while classes / builds that invest in stealth got a disadvantage now (tho we already know that from stealth traps and as most people in WvW dont seem to be able to handle stealth its ok). also if your lucky and your enemey uses a reveal skill u can get rid of that buff as it overrides the effect

5-The lords are overpowered relative to the other BL’s

they are stronger, yes. but all soloable same as on other BL’s.

6-Wall segments are guarded by NPC’s

yup they can be annoying , if you want to build a cata solo right infront of the wall so you got to build it further away or run your supplies faster

Whether the actual travel times are different or not, they FEEL longer. I’m also interested from what spot in, say, fire keep you measured to.

Spawning back in an Alpine garrison and running back to bay FEELS faster than spawning in DB garrison and running back to the lord room in fire keep, even without environmental affects slowing you down.

On Alpine it’s quicker to port back to the spawn point from NC then go to the NW or NE tower, you need to factor that in on travel times.

Also, check travel times when garrisons are tagged. Again, the trip from spawn to, say fire keep seems a lot longer than spawn to bay,

It takes quite a while once you reach fire to reach the lord room. But if you time it from fire lord room TO somewhere else, it’s considerably quicker as you can ignore all the ramps and elevations.

I maintain that the whole Deserted Borderlands is actually a converted pve map meant to slot in next to Silverwastes with gliding in mind but then found to be spare and mashed up to serve as a BL. Hence why the elevations are so much and why they had to add all the gimmicks.

It’s obvious to me that the OP and others in this thread really haven’t played DBL. It is way faster to get around than ABL. Shrines give you 40% movement speed. If you own the shrines, you can teleport form one end to the other. There are hay-bales that allow you to drop from great distances and are placed in spots so you don’t have to double back. Sounds like you need to just play it more and learn the map.

Waaaaa. The lords are a bit different and have slightly more difficult mechanics. So what. At least they’re different than the same, stale, stack-on-lord and whack it. It gives outmanned defenders a chance. Besides, you don’t have to fight in the lords room. Use tactics.

The only issue with DBL are the towers. In beta, they had a much greater purpose, but that was gotten rid of. I actually think it’s good that you can’t hole up in a tower and place a bunch of trebs there to hit a keep.. But they do need to have a better purpose and be more centrally located.

There’s two basic issues with DBL.

The first is that most of the map feels like a choke point. The whole eastern half of the map is one giant choke point, with a couple of flat areas. If the northern shrines are active, the whole north half is one giant choke point.

The south and north entrances into air keep don’t have enough flat area for maneuvering. The west side is rarely attacked with the exception of the NW wall.
The south and east sides of the fire keep are full of narrow passages. This leads to attackers dropping siege so that the defender has to go through a choke point to destroy the siege, or build counter siege. So counter siege is the tactic that gets used.

The second problem is that the towers have zero strategic influence. Taking any tower on DBL doesn’t put pressure on another structure.

If you were to rate the towers from most to least important the DBL towers are at the bottom. ABL SET is the worst, Mendons and DBL towers are next.

The fixes for DBL would be:
Make towers able to hit keep outer walls.
Make keeps able to hit tower walls.
Limit choke points and for every choke point have a large enough flat area on either side of the choke point.
Where you do have a choke point that’s not in a keep, allow for a second or third path. Limit the vertical tiers because they limit the visibility, which makes the map feel empty.

The longer travel times argument is really outdated with all the stuff they opened/changes to shrine and haybales all over the place. It is not my favourite map but i dont mind it that much anymore.

I personally like DBL much more than ABL for solo and small-group roaming. There are tons of opportunities to use the terrain and mechanics creatively to win a small fight while outnumbered.

@SixVoltCar

1.) I find the roads on DBL to be as straightforward as the roads on ABL. The difference is that I cannot always see immediately where the road leads due to varying elevations. I know that if I follow the road, though, it will take me everywhere I need to go.

2.) That’s a fair gripe about shrines. I disagree, but such is life.

3.) Shortcuts are bonuses—not necessary. Also, if you don’t want to give away your location, just don’t take the shrine. None of them are so important that you can’t choose to ignore them.

4.) When I think Alpine Bay, my stomach twists into a knot remembering the double cata wall, trebs from SWC, trebs from SWT and the like. It hardly qualifies as a maintainable defensive position. I still don’t understand what this has to do with walls not joining together and redundant siege.

6.) If you don’t want to aggro the wall NPC, put your cata somewhere else. There’s a generous range where you won’t draw aggro but can still fire at 0% charge for maximum speed.

@Baldrick
The times listed there were not into Lord Room, but the times listed here are: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Defensive-Zerg-Play-Alpine-vs-Desert/first#post6082672

In short, Garri WP to Bay Lord takes about 80s. Rampart WP to Firekeep Lord takes 135s or 105s with all fire shrines owned.

Citadel WP to Bay Lord takes about 125s. Citadel WP to Firekeep Lord is about the same as from Rampart, but I can’t get an exact number this week as my team doesn’t own DBL.

Contrast this with Time to Lord from an offensive perspective. Assuming a 20-man group with 400 sup, Bay takes 68/151/203s to reach lord or 34/76/102s with old guild cata cost. For Firekeep and Airkeep, it takes 90/168/258s.

The result is that you have a larger window to respond to an attack, even if running from Rampart. However, if you die in a lord room fight, it takes longer to return.

Ironically, running Citadel to Bay requires bunch of jumping down cliffs—including some rather dangerous drops. Neither of the DBL routes involve anything of the sort.

DBL feels longer, even if the time is the same because you have to put so much more effort into travel.

South Spawns → North Camps/Towers routes suck a lot. In the west, you have to run way off to the side, then east again, then north across a bunch of lava. In the east, you have to zig-zag back and forth across bridges and through valleys.

Don’t get me wrong, It’s great terrain, but it takes too much effort to get anywhere. There are so many places where you encounter a cliff and think to yourself “oh kitten , really? I have to run all the way back and around?”. You can’t hit auto-run and pop open an inventory window to sell stuff when you have to think about cliffs and lava and rock walls and windy paths.

@coro

SW Spawn to NWC/NWT is almost a straight shot over the sandfields. You just head due north instead of veering west towards the underlevel then take the stairs down and follow the road to the west. It’s only more effort if you’re down in the firekeep area.

SE Spawn to NEC/NET is similar. You can take the scaffolding down and follow that road, or cross the bridge near SET and follow that road instead. Once you hit the northern part of the map, follow the road to the east.

The west side has one cliff you might auto-run over, the east-side only has a cliff if you miss the bridge or something.

Are you suggesting that all maps be as bare and open as Alpine? What would be necessary to ease your travel on DBL if the clearly marked roads aren’t doing the trick?

SW → NW yeah, but people often do run off that cliff. Hell, I do it all the time because I’m cleaning up my inventory. Also, players usually want to check WK on the way north. Compare with Alpine where players can hit SWC, then check the walls and gates on WK on their way north.
SE → NE same idea. Yes, you can do that, but it takes effort and attention. You can’t auto-run without risking death. Compare with Alpine where you’re unlikely to accidentally run off a cliff and die except for a few places around the northern towers.

I personally don’t mind that much because I play the BL pretty often and know the routes, but most players hate it, and cite difficulty of travel as the main reason.

My theory is that it’s just too much mental effort to navigate. Players don’t want to think about the routes. They just want to get to their destination quickly and easily, paying the least amount of attention so they can focus on what they came to do: fight (or ppt.. depending on your server).

The most problematic thing on DBL for me is, that the towers have no strategic value for both defending or attacking other fortifications.
In the original design, the towers were able to control the barricades and had their purposes, but now they are just structures on the map serving no purpose. I don’t want the barricades back (at least in the past form), they were bad and made roaming annoying, but they need some for of use for the faction claiming them.
ABL and some EB ones are able to serve as platforms for attacks on keeps (e.g. trebbing Bay from Briar), perhaps DBL should get another tactical option, like an Asura gate to north camp (if you hold both northern towers as attackers) and to the middle of the map (and the variation for SC and southern towers).

Tactical implications would be:
>> Defenders holding both Academy & Necropolis could get people in those towers to NC for fast responses on attacks and would allow jobs like dolly escorts to skip walking back. Getting northern towers back quickly would be a prime objective.
>> Attackers holding both Academy & Necropolis would be a constant threat to NC and the supply lines. Attackers would need to send a “commando party” across the map (using e.g. the stealth shrines as cover) to cap the tower and rush the NC after that.
>> Defenders holding Outpost & Depot could gate players back to the central oasis, which could be an option for faster map travel and if the Rampart’s WP is contested.
>> Attackers holding Outpost & Depot would have a chance to attack Rampart from the south, which is a spot the garrison is very rarely attacked theses days. It would also open up a new strategic option of conquering the map, which usually is to go straight for Keep (from spawn) instead of the Rampart. Attacking the “middle” instead of the “sides” is viable in ABL and would now be in DBL too.

Even if you don’t like my ideas on how to change the towers, I hope we can agree on the problems of towers in DBL.