Guild Wars 2

I’m starting this thread because I would like to have your honest opinion (with explanation) to the following question :

Is WvW too big? aka do we really need to have 4 maps per match up?

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. Not really, especially compared to the other parts of this MMO.

Each map holds about 75 people per team, so 225 people per map. There are 4 maps, so potentially there could be 900 people playing non-EOTM wvw per each match up. There are 12 matchups per region, right(lost track with linking)? So that’s 10800 for US, and 10800 for EU (I think they have 12 match ups?).

Meaning, at any given time only 21600 players can be in WvW (not counting EOTM overflows). That’s assuming people even choose to play it. The active population is probably less than that.

So again, it’s not too big. In fact, it’s rather small if you consider how many people were there at launch (keeping in mind different timezones throw in other issues). It just hasn’t changed significantly to bring people back to play for long. We are, after all, back to the same home borderland map that was there at launch 4-5 years ago.

Chinchilla.1785:

Nope. Not really, especially compared to the other parts of this MMO.

Each map holds about 75 people per team, so 225 people per map. There are 4 maps, so potentially there could be 900 people playing non-EOTM wvw per each match up. There are 12 matchups per region, right(lost track with linking)? So that’s 10800 for US, and 10800 for EU (I think they have 12 match ups?).

Meaning, at any given time only 21600 players can be in WvW (not counting EOTM overflows). That’s assuming people even choose to play it. The active population is probably less than that.

So again, it’s not too big. In fact, it’s rather small if you consider how many people were there at launch (keeping in mind different timezones throw in other issues). It just hasn’t changed significantly to bring people back to play for long. We are, after all, back to the same home borderland map that was there at launch 4-5 years ago.

Hmmm. I’m not asking about how many player in general play wvw but about how many map do we need per match up.

But thx for the interesting math.

If you can’t que all 4 maps 24/7 then yes.

they should just remove all forms of “servers” pick up eotm and run with that for everyone. Merge servers into 3 alliances, and just populate the maps like eotm.

Largely agree with shrek.1046

I think WvW is a game mode that is designed for a "static" number of players active at all times. So it doesn’t adjust itself well at all to anything outside of the numbers it needs to function.

Obviously our population, coverage/time-zones, fair-weathering on/off, difference in tiers to these etc, changes continually and too much for the system to reach its "preferred numbers".

In lower tiers (you’re T4 iirc) it will feel too large, because population shifts... I’ve been enough down in old T6-7-8 to know that.

Where I’ve last month experienced being linked up with T1/2 server, and seen the crazy queue’s we had the first couple of resets after the linking system was put in. There was more people in queue’s over 5 maps than actually inside the maps.

So, I don’t think it is too large, it just isn’t dynamic enough.

Bringing another consideration to the question :

Is there enough oponents? I’m talking about the number of server.

Having 4 maps to fill means that there can be less servers than if you have 2 maps to fill for example.

Also, having more opponents (servers) can create more match up variety.

When they decided to make na only 4 tiers there is pretty much no room to move up or down in ranks honestly. They intended to make things more interesting but with only 4 tiers we will fight the same people every week for 2 months at a time

Gudradain.3892:

Bringing another consideration to the question :

Is there enough oponents? I’m talking about the number of server.

Having 4 maps to fill means that there can be less servers than if you have 2 maps to fill for example.

Also, having more opponents (servers) can create more match up variety.

The problems with merging 2 servers to 1, in order to create less servers to fill more maps, is that we once again become vulnerable to “Population Stacking”.

The problem with having more or making more servers in order to increase the possible match-ups, is that we once again become vulnerable to “Population Stacking”.

Honestly, unless they can solve how to avoid Server-Stacking, there really is no point trying to correct the symptoms.

I have no idea how to do that, unfortunately. Honestly the simplest solution is using EotM, and change the way they combine servers to even out the population. But Fair-Weathering will still mess that up.

If they turned wvw into eotm that would be the end of gw for me as it would most wvw players.

Sweet Sanity.8593:

If they turned wvw into eotm that would be the end of gw for me as it would most wvw players.

To be fair, as the little server tacked onto a big host server in the linking right now. I don’t feel any difference from EotM.

That might or might not be why I haven’t bothered playing much lately. Not entirely certain, EotM has actually felt like a nice option compared at times. shrug

I’m on fc. I understand. But it is still quite different

Depends. There are players who prefer a smaller setting, less players, the roamers and havoc crew basically. If you start taking away maps so it’s queue 24/7, you’re just not going to have much breathing room.

Also they’ve already made their bed in the homebl/ebg concept, only map to take out would be, and well that’s a no no. Like I said in another thread a while ago, I wish they had just went with all ebg concept maps instead, we wouldn’t been in the mess we are in with maps and it’s more flexible if you need to minus or add maps.

Xenesis.6389:

Depends. There are players who prefer a smaller setting, less players, the roamers and havoc crew basically. If you start taking away maps so it’s queue 24/7, you’re just not going to have much breathing room.

Also they’ve already made their bed in the homebl/ebg concept, only map to take out would be, and well that’s a no no. Like I said in another thread a while ago, I wish they had just went with all ebg concept maps instead, we wouldn’t been in the mess we are in with maps and it’s more flexible if you need to minus or add maps.

It’s true that they totally shot themselves in the foot going with home bl concept were you need 3 of the same maps and can’t adjust the number of map at all…

But, I always wondered. When there is 3 identical home bl, the home server has the advantage on his home map because of the layout AND the fact that the other servers focus on keeping their home map too. So, if there was only one “home” map, the server owning the “home” position would feel much more pressure from the 2 other servers and I’m not so sure anymore that it would give them such a big advantage.

Might be interesting to see if having only 1 borderland map can still be balanced enough to be fun

Gudradain.3892:

But, I always wondered. When there is 3 identical home bl, the home server has the advantage on his home map because of the layout AND the fact that the other servers focus on keeping their home map too. So, if there was only one “home” map, the server owning the “home” position would feel much more pressure from the 2 other servers and I’m not so sure anymore that it would give them such a big advantage.

Might be interesting to see if having only 1 borderland map can still be balanced enough to be fun

Hm could be interesting to cut it down to 1 bl and have maybe green be the home team so blue and red can always apply pressure them. In that way you could force what should be happening in matchups but never does, the two lower teams hitting the top team to hold back their points. While the green team will feel more pressure, they have a slight defensive advantage with the north area.

Then if you need to have 3 maps, add another copy of ebg.

I would never call wvsw too big. In terms of less maps i woulda agreed with you back in dbl before the mergers. with the mergers tho and the lack of dbl….we definitely need all 4 maps in the current ‘meta’. For people who like nothing better than to log in and join a giant zerg and move back and forth with no sense of identity and individuality…then yes there should be fewer maps as it would facilitate more of this gameoplay

Cerby.1069:

I would never call wvsw too big. In terms of less maps i woulda agreed with you back in dbl before the mergers. with the mergers tho and the lack of dbl….we definitely need all 4 maps in the current ‘meta’. For people who like nothing better than to log in and join a giant zerg and move back and forth with no sense of identity and individuality …then yes there should be fewer maps as it would facilitate more of this gameoplay

And that is what the game is actually…. kitten game, ironically servers strugle on how Anet wants players to play….

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

EotM is not the only system that could have a dynamic number of map. For example, maps could be closing in off hours and reopen in primetime.

@Jayne.9251, when did Anet tryed to increase the number of maps? it was always 3 copy pasta maps + EB

Gudradain.3892:

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

EotM is not the only system that could have a dynamic number of map. For example, maps could be closing in off hours and reopen in primetime.

Yeah I don’t have the energy to have this same argument again. The dynamic map idea is bad. It punishes those not in a big guild. Most servers defense teams are solo and small guilds. Rip those apart and you’ll have zero defense teams. Zero defense teams = pve champ train maps.

Jayne.9251:

Gudradain.3892:

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

EotM is not the only system that could have a dynamic number of map. For example, maps could be closing in off hours and reopen in primetime.

Yeah I don’t have the energy to have this same argument again. The dynamic map idea is bad. It punishes those not in a big guild. Most servers defense teams are solo and small guilds. Rip those apart and you’ll have zero defense teams. Zero defense teams = pve champ train maps.

But that is what WvW already is

Aeolus.3615:

Jayne.9251:

Gudradain.3892:

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

EotM is not the only system that could have a dynamic number of map. For example, maps could be closing in off hours and reopen in primetime.

Yeah I don’t have the energy to have this same argument again. The dynamic map idea is bad. It punishes those not in a big guild. Most servers defense teams are solo and small guilds. Rip those apart and you’ll have zero defense teams. Zero defense teams = pve champ train maps.

But that is what WvW already is

Maybe in NA. Not so much in EU.

@Jayne.9251, well for my experience on NA server, theres a huge gap on this broken WVW system, and imo link system make it worse, just stacked more players to spam…. server A blob during morning, server B blob few hours later or still get blobbed by A, while server C is contantly being blobbed by both, this is T4 NA.

Meanwhile server X atacks server Y if is 10 vs 5 defending, those 5 wont defend BL and change to a empty karma able BL to farm…

Xenesis.6389:

Gudradain.3892:

But, I always wondered. When there is 3 identical home bl, the home server has the advantage on his home map because of the layout AND the fact that the other servers focus on keeping their home map too. So, if there was only one “home” map, the server owning the “home” position would feel much more pressure from the 2 other servers and I’m not so sure anymore that it would give them such a big advantage.

Might be interesting to see if having only 1 borderland map can still be balanced enough to be fun

Hm could be interesting to cut it down to 1 bl and have maybe green be the home team so blue and red can always apply pressure them. In that way you could force what should be happening in matchups but never does, the two lower teams hitting the top team to hold back their points. While the green team will feel more pressure, they have a slight defensive advantage with the north area.

Then if you need to have 3 maps, add another copy of ebg.

This is a fantastic idea!

Because yes, there are too many maps for the number of people playing.

I’ve heard people say cut down on the maps but the argument is always that you can’t because then there would be a server(s) without a BL. But the way you two have framed the setup it works.

Anet I think you should beta this idea.

Johje Holan.4607:

Xenesis.6389:

Gudradain.3892:

But, I always wondered. When there is 3 identical home bl, the home server has the advantage on his home map because of the layout AND the fact that the other servers focus on keeping their home map too. So, if there was only one “home” map, the server owning the “home” position would feel much more pressure from the 2 other servers and I’m not so sure anymore that it would give them such a big advantage.

Might be interesting to see if having only 1 borderland map can still be balanced enough to be fun

Hm could be interesting to cut it down to 1 bl and have maybe green be the home team so blue and red can always apply pressure them. In that way you could force what should be happening in matchups but never does, the two lower teams hitting the top team to hold back their points. While the green team will feel more pressure, they have a slight defensive advantage with the north area.

Then if you need to have 3 maps, add another copy of ebg.

This is a fantastic idea!

Because yes, there are too many maps for the number of people playing.

I’ve heard people say cut down on the maps but the argument is always that you can’t because then there would be a server(s) without a BL. But the way you two have framed the setup it works.

Anet I think you should beta this idea.

Yup. A beta would be nice. I wonder how to convince them to consider it..

It is too big if there are not enough players to fill it (late night).
It is not big enough if there are too many players (reset).

Justine.6351:

It is too big if there are not enough players to fill it (late night).
It is not big enough if there are too many players (reset).

It’s not really my question. Let me explain :

For example, currently (on NA) we have 12 opponents battling in 4 match up containing 4 maps each. We could also have 3 opponents battling in 1 match up containing 16 maps. Or we could have 48 opponents battling in 16 match up containing 1 map each.

My question is : “What should be the number of map per match up?”

Note that the number of maps in a match up directly affect the total number of opponents. More opponents can lead to more match up variety and better balanced match up.

Yes. Cut out the slot reserved for the DBL.

You’re basically asking for dynamic maps. EotM…

Johje Holan.4607:

Xenesis.6389:

Gudradain.3892:

But, I always wondered. When there is 3 identical home bl, the home server has the advantage on his home map because of the layout AND the fact that the other servers focus on keeping their home map too. So, if there was only one “home” map, the server owning the “home” position would feel much more pressure from the 2 other servers and I’m not so sure anymore that it would give them such a big advantage.

Might be interesting to see if having only 1 borderland map can still be balanced enough to be fun

Hm could be interesting to cut it down to 1 bl and have maybe green be the home team so blue and red can always apply pressure them. In that way you could force what should be happening in matchups but never does, the two lower teams hitting the top team to hold back their points. While the green team will feel more pressure, they have a slight defensive advantage with the north area.

Then if you need to have 3 maps, add another copy of ebg.

This is a fantastic idea!

Because yes, there are too many maps for the number of people playing.

I’ve heard people say cut down on the maps but the argument is always that you can’t because then there would be a server(s) without a BL. But the way you two have framed the setup it works.

Anet I think you should beta this idea.

Don’t think adding another copy of any map when one gets full is good idea. What if you are the only extra player? Are you gonna be soloing the whole map? What if your side is the only one with extra players? What about scoring. Don’t think it’s a good idea. Only works in EotM as it doesn’t really affect scoring, but how would you score this type of layout so that it doesn’t support server stacking.

What you could do is scrap the idea of home borderland and have the maps work like EB. Could tweak the layout of the current maps to support this.

Loosmaster.8263:

You’re basically asking for dynamic maps. EotM…

Not at all.

I’m asking if you think there are too many maps to cover.

For example, would it be better if instead of 4 maps you only had 1 map to cover? One week, EBG would be the only map in the match up. Then the following week, alpine borderland would be the only map (only 1 not 3 copy).

Of course, the servers we currently have are too big to fit all the population in one map so they would probably split into smaller server. And yes, some maps were not designed to be balanced on all 3 side (ex.: Alpine borderland). But still…

Is there too many map to cover?

Weli.4568:

Johje Holan.4607:

Xenesis.6389:

Gudradain.3892:

But, I always wondered. When there is 3 identical home bl, the home server has the advantage on his home map because of the layout AND the fact that the other servers focus on keeping their home map too. So, if there was only one “home” map, the server owning the “home” position would feel much more pressure from the 2 other servers and I’m not so sure anymore that it would give them such a big advantage.

Might be interesting to see if having only 1 borderland map can still be balanced enough to be fun

Hm could be interesting to cut it down to 1 bl and have maybe green be the home team so blue and red can always apply pressure them. In that way you could force what should be happening in matchups but never does, the two lower teams hitting the top team to hold back their points. While the green team will feel more pressure, they have a slight defensive advantage with the north area.

Then if you need to have 3 maps, add another copy of ebg.

This is a fantastic idea!

Because yes, there are too many maps for the number of people playing.

I’ve heard people say cut down on the maps but the argument is always that you can’t because then there would be a server(s) without a BL. But the way you two have framed the setup it works.

Anet I think you should beta this idea.

Don’t think adding another copy of any map when one gets full is good idea. What if you are the only extra player? Are you gonna be soloing the whole map? What if your side is the only one with extra players? What about scoring. Don’t think it’s a good idea. Only works in EotM as it doesn’t really affect scoring, but how would you score this type of layout so that it doesn’t support server stacking.

What you could do is scrap the idea of home borderland and have the maps work like EB. Could tweak the layout of the current maps to support this.

I don’t think he’s talking about dynamically adding map during the week but rather determine the number of map the current population is able to fill before the week start and keep it the same across all the week.

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

What? They didn’t do anything of the sort with HOT maps. And no I’m not talking about a EOTM setup there are more ways to do it than just the EOTM system.

Gudradain.3892:

I’m starting this thread because I would like to have your honest opinion (with explanation) to the following question :

Is WvW too big? aka do we really need to have 4 maps per match up?

there are too many match ups. it’s obvious that even 24 servers can’t fill up 4 different matches and 16 total maps.

shrek.1046:

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

What? They didn’t do anything of the sort with HOT maps. And no I’m not talking about a EOTM setup there are more ways to do it than just the EOTM system.

Then you never played dbl after hot because it was the tri-setup. WPs were in south towers, then moved to east/west keeps, and only usable by the enemy.

It was universally disliked.

Gudradain.3892:

Weli.4568:

Johje Holan.4607:

Xenesis.6389:

Gudradain.3892:

But, I always wondered. When there is 3 identical home bl, the home server has the advantage on his home map because of the layout AND the fact that the other servers focus on keeping their home map too. So, if there was only one “home” map, the server owning the “home” position would feel much more pressure from the 2 other servers and I’m not so sure anymore that it would give them such a big advantage.

Might be interesting to see if having only 1 borderland map can still be balanced enough to be fun

Hm could be interesting to cut it down to 1 bl and have maybe green be the home team so blue and red can always apply pressure them. In that way you could force what should be happening in matchups but never does, the two lower teams hitting the top team to hold back their points. While the green team will feel more pressure, they have a slight defensive advantage with the north area.

Then if you need to have 3 maps, add another copy of ebg.

This is a fantastic idea!

Because yes, there are too many maps for the number of people playing.

I’ve heard people say cut down on the maps but the argument is always that you can’t because then there would be a server(s) without a BL. But the way you two have framed the setup it works.

Anet I think you should beta this idea.

Don’t think adding another copy of any map when one gets full is good idea. What if you are the only extra player? Are you gonna be soloing the whole map? What if your side is the only one with extra players? What about scoring. Don’t think it’s a good idea. Only works in EotM as it doesn’t really affect scoring, but how would you score this type of layout so that it doesn’t support server stacking.

What you could do is scrap the idea of home borderland and have the maps work like EB. Could tweak the layout of the current maps to support this.

I don’t think he’s talking about dynamically adding map during the week but rather determine the number of map the current population is able to fill before the week start and keep it the same across all the week.

Fine, but it is known that activity decreases towards the end of the week. You can’t judge the overall activity for that week just from, let’s say, reset.

Gudradain.3892:

Loosmaster.8263:

You’re basically asking for dynamic maps. EotM…

Not at all.

I’m asking if you think there are too many maps to cover.

For example, would it be better if instead of 4 maps you only had 1 map to cover? One week, EBG would be the only map in the match up. Then the following week, alpine borderland would be the only map (only 1 not 3 copy).

Of course, the servers we currently have are too big to fit all the population in one map so they would probably split into smaller server. And yes, some maps were not designed to be balanced on all 3 side (ex.: Alpine borderland). But still…

Is there too many map to cover?

The only way that will work is if you have a static population. There is just too many things in the players hands that can alter the outcome.

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

What? They didn’t do anything of the sort with HOT maps. And no I’m not talking about a EOTM setup there are more ways to do it than just the EOTM system.

Then you never played dbl after hot because it was the tri-setup. WPs were in south towers, then moved to east/west keeps, and only usable by the enemy.

It was universally disliked.

Yes I did play it but thats not a tri pointed setup like EB at all.

shrek.1046:

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

What? They didn’t do anything of the sort with HOT maps. And no I’m not talking about a EOTM setup there are more ways to do it than just the EOTM system.

Then you never played dbl after hot because it was the tri-setup. WPs were in south towers, then moved to east/west keeps, and only usable by the enemy.

It was universally disliked.

Yes I did play it but thats not a tri pointed setup like EB at all.

How is it not like EB? There was a keep near enemy spawn that only the enemy could use the WP. The map favoured one team over another based on dissection from spawn, into thirds.

And it was not liked/enjoyed.

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

What? They didn’t do anything of the sort with HOT maps. And no I’m not talking about a EOTM setup there are more ways to do it than just the EOTM system.

Then you never played dbl after hot because it was the tri-setup. WPs were in south towers, then moved to east/west keeps, and only usable by the enemy.

It was universally disliked.

Yes I did play it but thats not a tri pointed setup like EB at all.

How is it not like EB? There was a keep near enemy spawn that only the enemy could use the WP. The map favoured one team over another based on dissection from spawn, into thirds.

It wasn’t even, it was still a home BL for whatever server it was home to.

Loosmaster.8263:

If you can’t que all 4 maps 24/7 then yes.

Disagree very strongly. Having every map filled to the brim forces people into playing in a certain way. Having a variety of map populations is for the better; a variety in activity levels lets players who enjoy the low-pace times do what they like. Map size does a similar thing but can only do so much with a fixed number of objectives per map.

Sarrs.4831:

Loosmaster.8263:

If you can’t que all 4 maps 24/7 then yes.

Disagree very strongly. Having every map filled to the brim forces people into playing in a certain way. Having a variety of map populations is for the better; a variety in activity levels lets players who enjoy the low-pace times do what they like. Map size does a similar thing but can only do so much with a fixed number of objectives per map.

False, it is a choice to blob up or not.
More fights=more fun

Loosmaster.8263:

If you can’t que all 4 maps 24/7 then yes.

I don’t agree with that. The extra space gives wiggle room for borderhopping when needed.

LittleAussieMozzie.7425:

they should just remove all forms of “servers” pick up eotm and run with that for everyone. Merge servers into 3 alliances, and just populate the maps like eotm.

Spoken like an EOTM Hero.

Terrible idea.

Gudradain.3892:

I don’t think he’s talking about dynamically adding map during the week but rather determine the number of map the current population is able to fill before the week start and keep it the same across all the week.

The problem with that idea (determine # of maps for the match-up) is again static, you still have say 3 maps in NA time and perhaps even queue’s, and then 3 maps at eu time with 20 people running around. So you’re just pushing the problem around.

If you first want to change the size of WvW, you should go for a dynamic solution right away, so it can adapt itself, to avoid these kind of problems in the future.

Say you make 2 “base” maps, and rather add on maps to that to fit the population, anything short of the old T7-8 before linking, should have enough population to have a few players on 2 maps for most of the day/night etc.

Old T7-8 Could have done just fine with a single map all week long.

You seem to forget the purpose of the maps… There are 3 ‘home bl maps because there are 3 servers. One “home” borderland per server, and then the Eternal Battle Grounds. There is a purpose behind having a homeland to defend, for those that do it. What you’re suggesting is really just a potential muddle of lands to fight in for simply the purpose of fighting and for points I guess. Sure a lot of people just want to fight so making a couple of EB type areas would make sense for that… but ALL people don’t want that. Some actually like the idea of having a home Borderland to defend, then having others that they can go havoc, roam, blob, to death. As for points/winning I personally don’t even care a tiny bit whether or not we “win” the week. What I care about is having the variety that WvW can offer which is, havoc, roam, zerg/blob battle now and then, and of course cause trouble for the people trying to cap stuff in our homeland.

Been wondering if it’s possible for them to run ebg or alpine or desert along with eotm map, so you give players a choice of map to play while they’re waiting in queue or just want to play eotm style on a different map.

The points don’t matter in eotm, you’re just running it for zerg fights but mostly ktraining anyways, so it shouldn’t matter if a map is fair like eotm or ebg, or uneven like alpine or desert. I haven’t been in eotm in a long while so I dunno what’s the population like in there now, and I know this would split up the population for eotm as well.

But if they keep shrinking the tiers, and increase queues it would give eotm section more bodies. Roamers can take to alpines if they want, hell even gvg teams could use ebg or alpines for flat open places to gvg.

If I get on prime time and I see ebg queued, maybe I’ll just run into eotm ebg instead until I get into the prime wvw ebg. Dunno just a thought.

Some would say its questions like this that got 24 Servers reduced to 12, and as we learned, it really doesn’t matter what just anyone thinks, it only matters what 75% think. So, if 75% think wvw is too big, then I guess it is.