Guild Wars 2

As an active WvW player and a small ops team member, I’ve watched the blobs in WvW grow larger and larger, and small teams disappearing.

They have a blob and we can only counter that blob by forming up into our blob, and sometimes your blob is so blobby that we can’t even counter that, and so your blob becomes a ktrain, because the game doesn’t make us take risks when we stay blobish, instead it rewards this blobishness, and we are all bored with this.

So, here’s an idea:

Make it risky to move maps as a blob/zerg.

The goal – to create opportunities for smaller forces to take advantage of the blob meta and the blob’s movements, to encourage dispersal of the blobs into smaller groups covering more maps and encouraging more reasonably-sized fights.

Currently, zergs and map blobs come through BLs, to cap whatever they decide is their next target – with little risk to their homeland, since they can just as easily map the entire blob back to defend if it is threatened.

So, what if we time gated the ability to transfer OFF map after transferring on – to add an element of risk to map movements?

Groups would have to think about whether the ENTIRE group can afford to map off, or whether you should send a smaller subset of your blob/zerg. Opponents will have a window of opportunity created when the entire zerg/blob maps out. IF the whole group maps out.

The actual time gate (5-10-15 minutes) is not what’s important here – make the time gate longer or shorter – but just long enough to create a true risk around map movement.

These are givens: (1) currently there is a map population cap that creates a risk, at certain times, that some of the blob may not make it onto the map (2) sometimes the map blobs are running on totally empty maps with absolutely no risk of any counter from anywhere at any time (TZ coverage imbalance/ktrain), and (3) because TZ imbalance is a core issue needing a fix, let’s assume it’s getting fixed/or is fixed, just for discussion sake.

Interested to hear your feedback and alternative ideas to achieve the same goal.

I like the idea but I think it has too many snafus that will catch small groups. Like, if someone loads onto a BL, realizes they’re more needed elsewhere and wants to hop to a new BL.

Perhaps changing maps could drain sup? That way if a blob hops a BL they’ll have to be there a while before they can move on anything but a single person jumping will hardly be inconvenienced. This seems too extreme to me, but…perhaps there’s a good place we can work to from here?

Bad idea- so Anet will probably introduce it.

The idea of logging on to a dead map then having to wait any length of time at all to get off it again will kill off wvw even faster than it already is.

So you move maps, find no one there to fight, and have to stand around for 5-15 minutes? Result= log off.

One thing I had thought of, and have seen suggested on these forums, is to have EB be the central hub, then have the borderlands connect to it. What I’m thinking, though, is a series of areas. Ok, there’s be 3 asura gates in EB. Each one connected to a unique pass area, that then connects to the corresponding borderlandkinda like a hallway connects rooms. So if you were in EB, you’d have to take the gate to the pass, and then go through the pass to get to another gate that would take you to near the spawn area in that borderland. If you wanted to jump from one borderland to another, you’d have to go through a pass to get to EB, then travel across EB to get to the pass to that borderland, travel the pass and then get to the borderland.

It would have a similar effect, in delaying response times, to limit map hopping, but it wouldn’t result in people just kinda…. sitting there looking at their screen for x amount of time. They’d still be mobile, so they wouldn’t get too bored by it. Hopefully people would realize that they’d be better off breaking up their 80 man map queue blob, into 2-4 smaller groups and spread those out for better response times.

If we just had 1 map like eternal but larger, and a better less laggy server with 3x the capacity….

@Phantom

In that set up, a queue on EB would disable entrance to any Borderland. Also, it would delay times only by forcing more loading screens which is, in essence, people sitting there looking at their screen. I don’t think any time-based (and therefore screen staring based) solution will be palatable.

OP, your suggestions would provide more incentive for populations to remain in EBG on most of the lower tiers. Why would a guild raid switch to their home BL to take back (PvD) their garrison and risk losing their EBG holdings because they were stuck in the BL for 15 minutes? In my opinion, the HoT attempts to “break up the blob” have only resulted in players leaving WvW. True this breaks up the blob, but it is a Pyrrhric victory.

It also opens a huge door for trolls and fake call outs. And even playing it straight, i take my zerg off eb and chill for 5 minutes. Eb should be fairly safe in this time since the other servers will still be poking around looking for me. I then go straight to their garrison. The other server now has a choice. Move to the bl and be locked out of eb, knowing i can take my zerg right back there and take whatever i want while they are locked, or come defend garrison. Or maybe even split thier forces knowing if my zerg is big enough and they cant slow down the garrison assult i still might be able to take garrison and get back to eb before half of thier zerg can get back there.

I guess to me it is an interesting idea, but just to many ways to game the system. And take something that is easy and straight forward and make it an annoying clock watching game.

@ Alloy – No Phyrrhic victory if my force is locked from returning from your BL as this movement, depending on how many forces were committed to it, creates a risk that something on EB of mine could be taken, or that your forces could threaten our garrison during that time. Considering this, I would want to leave forces on my BL and in EB, to counter any attempt on those objectives – destacking my blob to do that.

The same might be true on the other side. Perhaps leave part of your force on EB to protect and defend, or to pressure an objective there, while another part of your force moves to your BL to defend your garrison.

The movement gating creates the need to have people in multiple places at one time to counter any movements by other forces, or to take advantage of their movement and their inability to return at a click of a waypoint. The opposing forces will need to do the same thing – have people in multiple places to defend and to take advantage. As a result, at least in theory, servers begin to spread their groups around, encouraging smaller sized teams to form up and to spread out. The fights become more reasonably-sized.

What is the issue meant to be distinguished by ‘lower tiers’? Remember, the issue of population imbalance was a given that was assumed to be resolved.

@Wryscher. Let’s assume that the timegate is 5 minutes.

I propose that most teams would take at least that amount of time to take a garrison: Waypoint to the BL. Take a camp (if supply were needed). Move to garrison. Get through outer. Get through inner. Kill the Lord. (All assuming no resistance.) So, 5 minutes have passed, easily. NOW, your zerg can waypoint anywhere. And, I don’t think they’re watching the clock any more than currently related to the 15 minute tick, or RI on an objective.

But, what they couldn’t do was move off EB without risk, without leaving behind a defending force, because they cannot immediately waypoint back. That team has made a calculated risk and committed to attacking the opponent’s garrison, knowing that they cannot return immediately. Or, they have de-stacked to leave a force behind. Or, they have coordinated with another guild team, or commander to determine which will stay behind to defend.

Your opponent has the same options – leave a force behind, move to counter you on their BL, or move to counter you by taking your garrison. You’ve thought of that, and not only left forces behind in EB, but sent, or made sure there was already a contingent on your BL to defend.

Both sides, since they cannot be sure of the other’s moves, de-stack into smaller teams to provide more coverage of their assets. They spread out on the BLs and things become more interesting. No longer can one large zerg ktrain the entire BL, without also risking something they care about. Movement around the BL’s becomes a factor to be considered, both from the attacking force and the defending force’s calculations.

The advantage will be to the server that has the most smaller-sized teams active, and spread across BLs.

Pensadora.9478:

@ Alloy – No Phyrrhic victory if my force is locked from returning from your BL as this movement, depending on how many forces were committed to it, creates a risk that something on EB of mine could be taken, or that your forces could threaten our garrison during that time. Considering this, I would want to leave forces on my BL and in EB, to counter any attempt on those objectives – destacking my blob to do that.

The same might be true on the other side. Perhaps leave part of your force on EB to protect and defend, or to pressure an objective there, while another part of your force moves to your BL to defend your garrison.

The movement gating creates the need to have people in multiple places at one time to counter any movements by other forces, or to take advantage of their movement and their inability to return at a click of a waypoint. The opposing forces will need to do the same thing – have people in multiple places to defend and to take advantage. As a result, at least in theory, servers begin to spread their groups around, encouraging smaller sized teams to form up and to spread out. The fights become more reasonably-sized.

What is the issue meant to be distinguished by ‘lower tiers’? Remember, the issue of population imbalance was a given that was assumed to be resolved.

You misunderstood me, the Pyrrhic victory refers to breaking up the blob by making people leave WvW.

Phantom.8130:

One thing I had thought of, and have seen suggested on these forums, is to have EB be the central hub, then have the borderlands connect to it. What I’m thinking, though, is a series of areas. Ok, there’s be 3 asura gates in EB. Each one connected to a unique pass area, that then connects to the corresponding borderlandkinda like a hallway connects rooms. So if you were in EB, you’d have to take the gate to the pass, and then go through the pass to get to another gate that would take you to near the spawn area in that borderland. If you wanted to jump from one borderland to another, you’d have to go through a pass to get to EB, then travel across EB to get to the pass to that borderland, travel the pass and then get to the borderland.

It would have a similar effect, in delaying response times, to limit map hopping, but it wouldn’t result in people just kinda…. sitting there looking at their screen for x amount of time. They’d still be mobile, so they wouldn’t get too bored by it. Hopefully people would realize that they’d be better off breaking up their 80 man map queue blob, into 2-4 smaller groups and spread those out for better response times.

This is a terrible idea. Do you even play WvsW?

@Alloy – I find it difficult to see that this would cause people to leave WvW any more than the queues currently for EB do now, or have in the past.

Forcing players to play on a failed map by not letting them off of it? Are you an Anet dev? Because the idea is that bad.

@Kuru – Support your position with something other than what is intended as an insult to me and to ANet developers if you want to be taken seriously.

Read the proposal. Resorting to exaggeration is no way to counter it. It’s out there for discussion. I asked for ideas. Please don’t waste your time in a discussion if you aren’t interested in having a discussion, or in offering ideas.

Pensadora.9478:

@Kuru – Support your position with something other than what is intended as an insult to me and to ANet developers if you want to be taken seriously.

Read the proposal. Resorting to exaggeration is no way to counter it. It’s out there for discussion. I asked for ideas. Please don’t waste your time in a discussion if you aren’t interested in having a discussion, or in offering ideas.

No exaggeration.

People already hate the new BL and avoid it like the plague. Now you want to lock them in if they enter? You think that’s, in any way, a good idea?

Another objection to this- if it was a close match- is that the enemy server could wait for you to move to a BL and then flood EB with alts, locking you out for the night. We’ve seen 20-30 in some matches as it is (before H0T launched).

Pensadora.9478:

@Alloy – I find it difficult to see that this would cause people to leave WvW any more than the queues currently for EB do now, or have in the past.

OK, and I agree it would not cause as many people to leave as the map/mechanic changes introduced by HoT. But, I still see it as a negative change. I will not belabor the point since we would be discussing a proposed change to a hypothetical situation in which TZ imbalances do not exist. Given that the TZ imbalance has been with us since launch, and that we don’t know what changes will be required to actually fix the imbalance, perhaps we can resume this discussion when we can discuss reality rather than speculation.

They are already planning on adding a true risk, when the mega server technology hits wvw. Good luck finding the instance your guild is in, when you hop maps!

:p

What they mean on lower tiers is that usually on most weekends there is a total of maybe thirty to forty players per server combined for all four maps. Eternal Battlegrounds doesn’t get queued and the response for someone getting their borderland k-trained is someone will backcaping it later because no one cares.

Lord Kuru.3685:

No exaggeration.

People already hate the new BL and avoid it like the plague. Now you want to lock them in if they enter? You think that’s, in any way, a good idea?

It is an exaggeration and a generalization. We play on the new BL every night we are out in WvW and we are out 5 of 7 nights. So the ‘people’ that are referred to are not ALL ‘the people’ and not ALL ‘the people’ hate the maps. We do NOT avoid it like the plague. We play those maps, have learned those maps, and are continuing to learn more about those maps. Do we think they need some fixes? Absolutely. But, we are playing those maps and will continue to do so because EB is not as viable an environment for small teams. The same was true for the old Alpine maps – we played the BLs rather than EB, as a small team.

So, the arguments against being ‘locked in’ to a map, as in this proposal, are quite interesting given that the players who refuse to play the new BLs have essentially chosen to lock themselves into one map, EB.

@Sungtaro. Thanks for that clarification. In my givens, I was trying to eliminate discussion around the current imbalances that exist in server and TZ populations. It is pretty clear that these imbalances will have to be addressed to achieve a healthy WvW experience for all players. Therefore, the proposal assumes that some resolution to population – server and TZ – has already been achieved. Once achieved, though, the problem of mass stacking and ktraining over maps with a map blob remains an issue to be solved.

Lots of times I see excellent recommandations yet do not remark on them because not sure how they will work out in the overall game play. That being said it would be nice if things could get a trail period with community feedback before permantly added. I due understand the problems with dev time if something does not work out but the long run would be a healthier wvw in the end.

You can’t change the “safety and success with bigger numbers” zerg gameplay and you can’t punish players for changing maps to help their side or find action.

Well to be fair smaller groups also create this problem them self (and notice i run small groups too so i have no issues with roaming) by ganking smaller groups or players moving alone. It happen far to often that i roam, run in to a group of 4-5 and they jump me with all they have. If the group instead stopped and had a duels aginst the player/players, you would create something that would make more people insterested in fighting instead of avoiding groups.

I am not saying you are a ganker, but this is a real problem that small groups gank as well and creating a enviroment were people who are unsure of their skills rather move with a bigger group or avoid small groups if they know that group wont stop and give good fights instead of gank.

The enemy is the enemy. Fights are fights. Duels can be done without disruption in custom spvp instances. There is no such thing as “ganking” in wvw. Players zoned into wvw knowing the rules of the zone. Winning trumps anyone’s perceived notion of honor or chivalry.

We have an outmanned buff, why not just institute an ‘overmanned debuff’? If your side outmans another, then you get a debuff (which should be small). Don’t like it? Move some people to a different map!

@Daddar: Problem with that idea is that it creates the mentality: "You get off the map or we get the debuff !!!"

ANet will never move in a direction that makes you negative toward having more players on your side/map. It is one of their core principles for the game.

I don’t think A-Net has stuck to a single one of their ‘core principles’ over time. If this would actually make WvW more fun (which I think it would) then it’s worth considering. In its current state WvW is pathetic and boring. It bears no resemblance to the days when it was SO MUCH FUN.

joneirikb.7506:

@Daddar: Problem with that idea is that it creates the mentality: “You get off the map or we get the debuff !!!”

ANet will never move in a direction that makes you negative toward having more players on your side/map. It is one of their core principles for the game.

It doesn’t have to move in the “negative toward having more players on your side”, but to encouraging those players to join the efforts on another map – where X commander is also leading a team. Because we do have more than one commander. We do have commanders that can lead something other than the ktrain blob right?

It is not unlike asking players to move to a different lane in the DS event to spread out coverage to enhance the overall chance of success. (There’s a PvE reference that the devs can relate to, and it hasn’t been prohibited by any ‘core principles’.)

De-stacking the blobs, by whatever method(s) make sense, means that players will have MORE opportunities to play – encouraging the existence of multiple active maps and multiple options for team size and playstyle.

Swagger.1459:

The enemy is the enemy. Fights are fights. Duels can be done without disruption in custom spvp instances. There is no such thing as “ganking” in wvw. Players zoned into wvw knowing the rules of the zone. Winning trumps anyone’s perceived notion of honor or chivalry.

Nah, I understand what is meant. Lots of times when we jump a solo or two to three man group of obviously newish players, I usually remark that the next we see them they will probably be in the blob. We shouldn’t be surprised that blobs eventually is what we have left to fight after a while.

You see, people play games to entertain themselves, not to feed our egos.

erm this is a bad idea. i know some of u hate blobs…well welcome to wvw since this game was released there were zergs.

you method will punish also small guilds. my old guild used to port all over and all the time to counter such zergs and u know what? if u are organized which many of the massive blobs arent as they are just 11111 spammers, u can easily 18 vs 40+ .

I run in zergbusting guilds only and blobs can be countered which is fun. i was always on the outnumbered servers and would transfer off if they were too stacked to get better fights.
blobs will always form in this gamemode, but destroying them over and over with a much smaller number is where the fun for me is. well wvw will always have zergs and no u dont need a massive blob to counter a massive blob.

Worst idea ever!

There’s an enemy zerg on our BL!
OK we’re coming……Where’s the zerg?
The zerg moved to EB, they attacking all our towers and keep at the same time!
OMG we cant move maps for another 10 minutes! There’s not enough people to defend! We’re gonna lose everything!

10 minutes later

K move back to EB and recap everything!
Enemy zerg is on our BL again taking all the towers!
That’s it I’m calling it.

How did you not see this issue before suggesting a time gate to changing maps.
Add that and everyone will leave for sure!

Pensadora.9478:

As an active WvW player and a small ops team member, I’ve watched the blobs in WvW grow larger and larger, and small teams disappearing.

They have a blob and we can only counter that blob by forming up into our blob, and sometimes your blob is so blobby that we can’t even counter that, and so your blob becomes a ktrain, because the game doesn’t make us take risks when we stay blobish, instead it rewards this blobishness, and we are all bored with this.

So, here’s an idea:

Make it risky to move maps as a blob/zerg.

The goal – to create opportunities for smaller forces to take advantage of the blob meta and the blob’s movements, to encourage dispersal of the blobs into smaller groups covering more maps and encouraging more reasonably-sized fights.

Currently, zergs and map blobs come through BLs, to cap whatever they decide is their next target – with little risk to their homeland, since they can just as easily map the entire blob back to defend if it is threatened.

So, what if we time gated the ability to transfer OFF map after transferring on – to add an element of risk to map movements?

Groups would have to think about whether the ENTIRE group can afford to map off, or whether you should send a smaller subset of your blob/zerg. Opponents will have a window of opportunity created when the entire zerg/blob maps out. IF the whole group maps out.

The actual time gate (5-10-15 minutes) is not what’s important here – make the time gate longer or shorter – but just long enough to create a true risk around map movement.

These are givens: (1) currently there is a map population cap that creates a risk, at certain times, that some of the blob may not make it onto the map (2) sometimes the map blobs are running on totally empty maps with absolutely no risk of any counter from anywhere at any time (TZ coverage imbalance/ktrain), and (3) because TZ imbalance is a core issue needing a fix, let’s assume it’s getting fixed/or is fixed, just for discussion sake.

Interested to hear your feedback and alternative ideas to achieve the same goal.

This is an extremely horrible idea on many levels and from many perspectives which have been pointed out by other players here so far. I will list my own reasons and repeat or add to that.

1. It would limit defense response time, mostly this would affect the servers that are already undermanned vs larger servers but who are better coordinated or being double teamed. They will never be able to get to the action fast enough which is already a huge problem on the new BL. This will not only skew the score towards the more blobby servers but will make many people quit out of frustration.

2. it will make many players “sit there and stare at the screen” until they can join their guild, group or squad which they are running with. Again, as a person looking for fun and entertainment there is only so much of that anyone can take, after a little while there will be less and less people logging in because they can’t just jump into action.

3. A far better idea is to lower back the map caps, so when you are running in a group of 30-40 and being double teamed, you don’t end up going vs 160 or vs 200 (or whatever 2x map cap is now) but go vs 120 ish like it used to be. Blobs are now larger then they used to be due to increased map caps.

4. The main reason why you see small guilds disappear and merge into large groups or just quit is because of Guild Hall upgrades situation. I know because I was (or I still am) in 2 small WVW guilds, but just can’t effectively play WVW. My personal small guild is so useless now, I only play as part of a larger group now. And it has nothing to do with hopping maps. In fact, from havoc stand point, we NEED the ability to hop maps and do different things and go after meaningful different objectives, not have it limited. Small guilds need to “run circles” around their larger opponents to be effective, this includes switching maps.

5. This would greatly contribute to one of the main overall issues of WVW in its current state on the new BL map which is : Unable to get to the action fast enough. As such I am greatly against it, please make suggestions for changes which solve that situation, not add to it.

Bad idea that opens the possibilities of trolling by a fake call. On another hand I don’t see the reason to punish the fact that a commander responds to someone’s call and bring forces to defend an objective, for example.

Not a good idea at all.

Sometimes I stop in the home BL to make use of the crafting stations (there’s never a queue on the map even with a 50 man queue on EB) before moving on to EB or EOTM if I have to wait out an EB queue. I don’t want an artificial timer locking me in a zone I don’t want to play in.

Blockhead Magee.3092:

Not a good idea at all.

Sometimes I stop in the home BL to make use of the crafting stations (there’s never a queue on the map even with a 50 man queue on EB) before moving on to EB or EOTM if I have to wait out an EB queue. I don’t want an artificial timer locking me in a zone I don’t want to play in.

This proposal does not lock you in until you swap maps. So, starting on your home BL to wait out the EB queue doesn’t lock you. It’s the move to EB that would. Assuming it did, in most cases the timegate would have expired by the time the EB queue pops.

It is interesting that players who are willing to sit in a queue for EB find it a hardship to have a timegate on movement to other BLs, given that they also claim they don’t play those maps at all. For those who don’t play outside of one map, the timegate would not affect them at all.

Gaab.4257:

Bad idea that opens the possibilities of trolling by a fake call. On another hand I don’t see the reason to punish the fact that a commander responds to someone’s call and bring forces to defend an objective, for example.

There is already the possibility of trolling with fake calls. I would argue that it is even worse now, as there are so few players in the BLs that any troll could make a call for help without being found out. This introduces nothing new to that issue, and encourages the player population to spread out around the maps.

The time gate is not a punishment. What this is intended is to introduce a real risk of movement of a map blob by eliminating the security of massive map hopping via waypoint click. The attacking force would be faced with the same risk. Since it applies to both sides, both would then need to consider taking a smaller force (due to the need to leave defending forces), unless the risk was consider worth taking. It would take very little time for commanders to adjust their play to accommodate the risk of the movement timegate.

Tongku.5326:

This is an extremely horrible idea on many levels and from many perspectives which have been pointed out by other players here so far. I will list my own reasons and repeat or add to that.

1. It would limit defense response time, mostly this would affect the servers that are already undermanned vs larger servers but who are better coordinated or being double teamed. They will never be able to get to the action fast enough which is already a huge problem on the new BL. This will not only skew the score towards the more blobby servers but will make many people quit out of frustration.

2. it will make many players “sit there and stare at the screen” until they can join their guild, group or squad which they are running with. Again, as a person looking for fun and entertainment there is only so much of that anyone can take, after a little while there will be less and less people logging in because they can’t just jump into action.

3. A far better idea is to lower back the map caps, so when you are running in a group of 30-40 and being double teamed, you don’t end up going vs 160 or vs 200 (or whatever 2x map cap is now) but go vs 120 ish like it used to be. Blobs are now larger then they used to be due to increased map caps.

4. The main reason why you see small guilds disappear and merge into large groups or just quit is because of Guild Hall upgrades situation. I know because I was (or I still am) in 2 small WVW guilds, but just can’t effectively play WVW. My personal small guild is so useless now, I only play as part of a larger group now. And it has nothing to do with hopping maps. In fact, from havoc stand point, we NEED the ability to hop maps and do different things and go after meaningful different objectives, not have it limited. Small guilds need to “run circles” around their larger opponents to be effective, this includes switching maps.

5. This would greatly contribute to one of the main overall issues of WVW in its current state on the new BL map which is : Unable to get to the action fast enough. As such I am greatly against it, please make suggestions for changes which solve that situation, not add to it.

Your first point is exactly why OP’s idea is a positive. You can’t simply just make it a negative when those negative aspects of changing the map are the entire reason to implement it in the first place.

Honestly, on the second point, there’s nothing new about that. People sit in 30-man queus to get into EB regardless. Does that make them quit? Yeah, right. Blobby servers will always have players sitting and “staring at their screen” until their queue pops.
On a side note, if you didn’t know already, you can minimize the queue screen and do something else until your queue pops. The people you’re talking about that will sit there and stare at a screen then log off because of 5 minutes of boredom don’t even exist. Got a day job? It’s gonna be boring for more than a few hours. Waiting 5 minutes for having fun in WvW is something people do all the time.

Don’t even get me started on how people sit in LFG waiting to pug into a PvE raid. Your taking their attention span for something like a mouse.

On 3. Yes, perfectly good idea. However, it deserves its own thread. This doesn’t relate to the topic at all. slow clap

On 4. Are you referencing your bank guild? Because all the small guilds on my server have not merged into bigger ones. And I’m in tier 1.
But hey! Look at me I can cite my personal experience as absolute fact instead of using proper reasoning.
Oh yeah, another funny thing you did. That part where you said,

Small guilds need to “run circles” around their larger opponents to be effective, this includes switching maps.

If large guilds can just move around as they please, that makes it impossible for small guilds to out-maneuver them. If they can instantly port to two different BLs whenever they want and defend a keep on both maps from opposing forces, they’re essentially two places at once.
But yeah, ignore the fact that large guilds have much more mobility than small guilds because they run over every single obstacle faster. I think that’s perfectly sound logic.

5. Not able to get to the action fast enough? The travel time to your home BL garrison (earth keep if you haven’t learned the maps, which is quite obvious at this point) is less than it was in the Alpine maps by use of the portals to take you up and down the cliffs.
But hey! Let’s also ignore the fact that the only thinkittening our travel is 40% additional movement speed on taking a shrine, we can go straight through the oasis area without running around random walls like we had to in the bloodlust areas.
But yeah, you’re right. The fact we don’t have straight lines to travel with is a problem. I mean, who wants to actually learn the map?
You mean to say that we actually have to figure out how to get through these canyons and cliffs and all this jazz? This map is sooo hard!

This is extremely horrible logic on many levels. Look, I can use words without backing them up with proper reasoning too! Oh wait-

@Gaab: Good point, but also keep in mind that a coordinated server will only take serious calls from other commanders and well-known scouts. I doubt guild leaders on a server will mistrust those calls. Yes, you might get the troll call-out once in a while that’s responded to. However, that problem will only exist in the first week if an idea like this is implemented. Overall, this problem is just going to be a very short-term symptom of a much bigger solution to a much bigger problem.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, though. Glad to see some of the people responding are actually thinking about real problems that would be caused by most of the posts.

@Blockhead Magee: Wait, so you’re against the idea because you use the BLs as a bank? Are you kittening serious? LOL
Get real, man. Sorry, I’m not sorry. Your response is just hilarious.
But no, seriously. Get a serious response. That doesn’t even pertain to the discussion.

Most of the responses on this thread are extremely weak.
OP: Let’s make a timer so that it punishes groups for leaving their maps!
Everyone else: Omg noooooo, it’d be so kitten, you’d get punished for leaving your map! Everyone would quit the gaaaame Q_Q.

Lol, seriously. You guys are terrible at making a negative case. If I wanted to oppose OP’s idea, I wouldn’t use the entire reason the solution is a pro as a con. If someone doesn’t start using critical thinking responding to this thread I’m going to start losing brain cells.

Tongku.5326:

Pensadora.9478:

snip

This is an extremely horrible idea on many levels and from many perspectives which have been pointed out by other players here so far. I will list my own reasons and repeat or add to that.

1. It would limit defense response time, mostly this would affect the servers that are already undermanned vs larger servers but who are better coordinated or being double teamed. They will never be able to get to the action fast enough which is already a huge problem on the new BL. This will not only skew the score towards the more blobby servers but will make many people quit out of frustration.

2. it will make many players “sit there and stare at the screen” until they can join their guild, group or squad which they are running with. Again, as a person looking for fun and entertainment there is only so much of that anyone can take, after a little while there will be less and less people logging in because they can’t just jump into action.

3. A far better idea is to lower back the map caps, so when you are running in a group of 30-40 and being double teamed, you don’t end up going vs 160 or vs 200 (or whatever 2x map cap is now) but go vs 120 ish like it used to be. Blobs are now larger then they used to be due to increased map caps.

4. The main reason why you see small guilds disappear and merge into large groups or just quit is because of Guild Hall upgrades situation. I know because I was (or I still am) in 2 small WVW guilds, but just can’t effectively play WVW. My personal small guild is so useless now, I only play as part of a larger group now. And it has nothing to do with hopping maps. In fact, from havoc stand point, we NEED the ability to hop maps and do different things and go after meaningful different objectives, not have it limited. Small guilds need to “run circles” around their larger opponents to be effective, this includes switching maps.

5. This would greatly contribute to one of the main overall issues of WVW in its current state on the new BL map which is : Unable to get to the action fast enough. As such I am greatly against it, please make suggestions for changes which solve that situation, not add to it.

Thanks for the detailed response. By item:

1. My givens included the balancing of server populations and TZs. So, the objection relates to the current situation of imbalance, not what was given as an underlying assumption. To have a healthy, fun WvW community the server populations and coverage issue must be addressed and include balance within TZs. There are many threads discussing this need along with possible solutions. This proposal assumes that there is a relatively balanced matchup, not as is being experienced currently on many servers from many tiers.

2. The player is not timegated until the first map move. If a guild member enters the home BL and then moves to another map to join their guildmates, the timegate begins on the first map hop. At any rate, my guildmates seldom enter a different map from the one we are on, since they can see in guild panel where their guild is currently located and enter that map directly. Either that, or they can connect via guild chat, whisper, TeamSpeak, etc. Not seeing this as a real issue.

3. I think that the map caps should be looked at again, as it seems those caps have permitted both assembly and movement of ever larger and larger blobs.

4. I’m not sure the source of information regarding the absorption of many small guilds into larger ones because of the guild hall upgrade requirements. I have not seen that happen on my server, so doubt that it is the root cause for disappearance of small guilds. It is related to many factors – but the one this proposal attempts to address is the implications of continuing to see larger and larger blobs in WvW, and the elimination and lack of viability of other styles of play – roamers, small havocs, etc.

Agreed – that a havoc’s role is achieved from greater mobility, and since they are seldom the ‘defending’ force, a timegate on them would have less impact than on the map blob which can now: (1) move to a map and take an objective much quicker than a small havoc team and (2) move that overwhelming blob force back to defend against the small havoc in a click of a waypoint – unless….. there is a timegate to their movement.

5. I don’t agree that the main issue is ‘not able to get to the action fast enough’. In our experience it is that once we get there, we cannot counter a blob. The defense systems in the keeps and garrison are too easily overwhelmed by blob sized forces – able to haze defensive siege and those manning them, lay down multiple catas and rams and overwhelm any smaller force in a brief period of time. And, those same defensive systems are proving very difficult for small havoc teams. So, the game itself appears to favor blob-style play, which is a huge departure from what was the stated intention, and from what was possible prior to HOT, which is being discussed in other threads not here.

SoopaTroopa.1395:

@Blockhead Magee: Wait, so you’re against the idea because you use the BLs as a bank? Are you kittening serious? LOL
Get real, man. Sorry, I’m not sorry. Your response is just hilarious.
But no, seriously. Get a serious response. That doesn’t even pertain to the discussion.

It was serious. You may not like it or may not use it that way, but that’s your choice.

SoopaTroopa.1395:

Lol, seriously. You guys are terrible at making a negative case. If I wanted to oppose OP’s idea, I wouldn’t use the entire reason the solution is a pro as a con. If someone doesn’t start using critical thinking responding to this thread I’m going to start losing brain cells.

You mistakenly assume his proposition is a positive. It is not. That is why his solution is not ‘pro’. The entire premise if faulty.

The idea is terrible. And given Anet’s turn around time on ideas that are actually worthwhile, its safe to assume this rotten one will never see the light of day.

One thing I have always admired about the WvW setup was that what you are talking about is somewhat built in already since the size of the maps means you have to run from your waypoint to the actual objective. If your objective is not your home Garrison or something like that you are going to be about 1 minute out, at best. If anything the alpine borderlands felt bigger in this respect, once you learn the desert BLs and have enough of a presence in the shrines you can get around the map very very quickly.