It isn’t the total size of the map, it is the spacing between objectives
Keep in mind I haven’t played WvW very much since HoT release as my guild and I are chasing after the other new shinies atm…
In the Alpine BL, the spacing between the towers and keeps created pressure on both offense and defense. An enemy holding a northern tower gave them a foothold to attack your garrison and you were forced to come recap the tower. The same thing occurred between the southeast tower and bay keep. This had the effect of encouraging a fight over the objectives. The so-called “PPT-for-fights” commanders frequently used this simple fact to manipulate an opponent into a response. I’d argue that most guilds and commanders in WvW understand this concept. Desert BL doesn’t seem to have any mechanisms for manipulating an opponent into a response outside of the Oasis event. (Maybe it does, maybe we’ll start being able to realize that after guilds can get upgraded to have WvW buffs. The new BL seems to encourage guilds more to claim an objective and camp it all night.)
Simplest fix: increase the range on trebuchets so that trebuchets at towers can hit keeps and become a threat again.
I wish I gave this feedback earlier during the beta but I was more focused on the up-close sieges rather than the map-as-a-whole.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
It’s a good point, I’d be in favor of that but luckily the new maps do have large inners making it possible to break down an outer gate and sorta set up shop in inner.
If they made a map that was totally flat, half the size of Alpine with none of the gimmicks… that place would be full of players. It is the size, spacing, maze-like style and gimmicks that turns players off.
If they made a map that was totally flat, half the size of Alpine with none of the gimmicks… that place would be full of players. It is the size, spacing, maze-like style and gimmicks that turns players off.
That place would be full of players all standing around waiting to take turns fighting or just spectating the fights. That’s called the OS and is only a place for a certain type of player. I enjoy it personally, but I could never do that all the time.
That place would be full of players all standing around waiting to take turns fighting or just spectating the fights. That’s called the OS and is only a place for a certain type of player. I enjoy it personally, but I could never do that all the time.
Zerg and guild fights like rolling mostly flat terrain to fight in. Choke points end up becoming circle kittens that limit tactical movement. Prior to HoT, most major zerg fights were right outside south Bay or between Bay/Hills and Garri. In EBG they almost all rotate near or in SM in the open areas.
A side bonus of less distance between small objectives is that roamers and small teams skirmish more.
There are no significant benefits to the existing BL map in terms of improving WvW fights.
I actually like that you can’t just have one player safely behind a wall besieging another objective with a trebuchet. I think people need to explore the new maps a bit, there are some super strategic spots to put down a trebuchet and defend it with a few arrow carts and some players. I have already tested one that works well, a trebuchet at 50% power can hit the gate on the ‘wind’ keep from the plateau just next to the spawn tower. This plateau has only a few ways on to it, one guarded by the tower (and the ‘weak’ walls), another is a staircase up to the plateau from below, and the third is a narrow bridge with a sure death if you fall. It’s still a easy to defend location but you don’t have the leisure of leaving a player to use the trebuchet while you do other things, you have to actively defend your siege equipment. Given how the map is set up I’m sure there are other locations similar to this one that allow for a group to set up and truly besiege an objective.
To be fair people complained a lot about trebs being able to hit another structure from inside walls. It was one of the things that many said needed to be changed. The thinking was if you need to build trebs you should be forced to do it open field. Thus generating open field fights.
It seems like these new maps are meant to be played in thirds. Everyone own their third on each BL. And fights will come from everyone being in that smaller area around the side keeps.
And playing in thirds is a good idea. Nothing more boring than logging in and seeing each server owning their whole home BL. That means no fights are happening. Problem is you need sufficient population for it.
So again it comes down to population. I have a feeling they’re going to go to some sort of alliance/megaserver arrangement. Its really the only way to explain these larger, more spaced out, more complex maps.
Having towers and keeps play battleship with trebuchets promotes bad sportsmanship. Who needs ground troops anymore when your keep can just bombard the crap out of a tower and all of its siege placements/supplies? Trebuchets on the premise of a tower or keep should ONLY be capable of defending.
Having towers and keeps play battleship with trebuchets promotes bad sportsmanship. Who needs ground troops anymore when your keep can just bombard the crap out of a tower and all of its siege placements/supplies? Trebuchets on the premise of a tower or keep should ONLY be capable of defending.
Which would be the reason why people want to cap tower and keeps on a strategical level, or keep enemies from capping them. Its not bad sportsmanship, its the threat of an attack. Its the possibility that trebs could be there that matter.
Besides, what you are saying is that alpine and EB promote bad sportsmanship. Arent they the maps we prefer over desert and eotm?
Having towers and keeps play battleship with trebuchets promotes bad sportsmanship. Who needs ground troops anymore when your keep can just bombard the crap out of a tower and all of its siege placements/supplies? Trebuchets on the premise of a tower or keep should ONLY be capable of defending.
No it promotes smart play.
It never failed to amaze me how zerglings would be standing around freaking out that a keep was being trebbed from a tower, and I would walk over with a couple people, spike build a bali or ac, and take it out in seconds.
I actually like that you can’t just have one player safely behind a wall besieging another objective with a trebuchet. I think people need to explore the new maps a bit, there are some super strategic spots to put down a trebuchet and defend it with a few arrow carts and some players. I have already tested one that works well, a trebuchet at 50% power can hit the gate on the ‘wind’ keep from the plateau just next to the spawn tower. This plateau has only a few ways on to it, one guarded by the tower (and the ‘weak’ walls), another is a staircase up to the plateau from below, and the third is a narrow bridge with a sure death if you fall. It’s still a easy to defend location but you don’t have the leisure of leaving a player to use the trebuchet while you do other things, you have to actively defend your siege equipment. Given how the map is set up I’m sure there are other locations similar to this one that allow for a group to set up and truly besiege an objective.
I don’t need siege spots. No one’s coming on these maps.
Having towers and keeps play battleship with trebuchets promotes bad sportsmanship. Who needs ground troops anymore when your keep can just bombard the crap out of a tower and all of its siege placements/supplies? Trebuchets on the premise of a tower or keep should ONLY be capable of defending.
Which would be the reason why people want to cap tower and keeps on a strategical level, or keep enemies from capping them. Its not bad sportsmanship, its the threat of an attack. Its the possibility that trebs could be there that matter.
Besides, what you are saying is that alpine and EB promote bad sportsmanship. Arent they the maps we prefer over desert and eotm?
Just a note that I have never said that the Alpine and EB maps promote bad sportsmanship. It’s like playing soccer on a sandy field. The decision to kick dirt into the other player’s eyes is entirely up to the player. It just so happens that kicking dirt is an effective strategy in the Alpine and EB maps.
By the way, which tower in the new Desert map can treb a keep from within the defense of its walls?
Lastly, we have yet to see how the new Desert map will shape up, and no one can say for sure how it will turn out. From what I’m hearing, it seems quite a majority of the roamers are complaining that the new map is too restricted or too big. That’s completely understandable because the effectiveness of their role has been cut in half. Due to the distance and obstacle from one camp to another, these roamers can no longer capture all the camps in a timely manner. As a roamer myself, I don’t particularly care about capturing camps. I care more about the players I engaged between each camp, and I find each encounter is always unique. My only complaint is the WvW player population which is correlated to the rewards given out by playing in WvW.
(edited by Halcyon.5340)
Just a note that I have never said that the Alpine and EB maps promote bad sportsmanship.
You said and I quote Having towers and keeps play battleship with trebuchets promotes bad sportsmanship.
The proximity of towers to keeps so that they can siege each other is the core principle of alpine and EB WvW map design.
If this wasnt the case, then why would you ever want to bother capping a keep or a tower? Well, ignoring karma trainers. Its just a simple cascade effect that force a server to react to towers and keeps switching owners – if you capture Keep A that is threatened by Tower B and Tower C, you want to capture Tower B and Tower C to secure Keep A. But what’s that? Tower C is within siege range of Keep B. So you want to cap Keep B also to secure Tower C. But unfortunetly Keep B is threatened by Tower D and E. Etc and so on.
When all keeps/towers are disconnected, like on desert and eotm, this completely falls apart. You no longer have a strategical reason to cap things. And that’s what you called bad sportsmanship. IE how alpine and EB is designed.
That place would be full of players all standing around waiting to take turns fighting or just spectating the fights. That’s called the OS and is only a place for a certain type of player. I enjoy it personally, but I could never do that all the time.
Zerg and guild fights like rolling mostly flat terrain to fight in. Choke points end up becoming circle kittens that limit tactical movement. Prior to HoT, most major zerg fights were right outside south Bay or between Bay/Hills and Garri. In EBG they almost all rotate near or in SM in the open areas.
A side bonus of less distance between small objectives is that roamers and small teams skirmish more.
There are no significant benefits to the existing BL map in terms of improving WvW fights.
There’s a desert plateau above Bay by the last fire shrine that’s easily the same size as the old alpine Bay/Garri area. It might be even larger. It’s wide open.
The proximity of towers to keeps so that they can siege each other is the core principle of alpine and EB WvW map design.
To whose standards?
The proximity of towers to keeps so that they can siege each other is the core principle of alpine and EB WvW map design.
To whose standards?
The maps standard. Just look at EB, how towers and keeps are placed, you will see that everything is in fact connected. Its not everything that WvW is when it comes to gameplay, but its the way WvW maps are designed.
But of course it is also possible that some drunk dude at Anet randomly placed keeps and towers by tossing darts at a crudely drawn map on the side of a noodle box they got with takeaway. Maybe they just got lucky.
(edited by Dawdler.8521)
The proximity of towers to keeps so that they can siege each other is the core principle of alpine and EB WvW map design.
To whose standards?
The maps standard. Just look at EB, how towers and keeps are placed, you will see that everything is in fact connected. Its not everything that WvW is when it comes to gameplay, but its the way WvW maps are designed.
But of course it is also possible that some drunk dude at Anet randomly placed keeps and towers by tossing darts at a crudely drawn map on the side of a noodle box they got with takeaway. Maybe they just got lucky.
Honestly speaking, I have never seen an in-game objective telling me to use a trebuchet to assault a location on the map. It’s completely subjective, and the map itself has no standards.
It’s like playing soccer on a sandy field. The decision to kick dirt into the other player’s eyes is entirely up to the player. It just so happens that kicking dirt is an effective strategy in the Alpine and EB maps.
We can introduce nuclear missiles into the game without touching the trebs. Seriously talking, map must be redisigned. No other way.
It isn’t the total size of the map, it is the spacing between objectives
This is a great point and ties in with the other points about the map being over designed with too many choke points making it easy for forces to avoid each other and objectives not being placed well to encourage servers to take objectives to progress forward. NE and NW towers on the new BL are so separated from the new central keep that its ridiculous.
The map is just plain too big. Don’t get me wrong, I like the style of the map and size of the actual keeps, but the distance in between and maze like features are a bit of a turn off.
What I personally would like to see is this:
Make one Borderland the Desert Map (just shrink it a bit and make it less maze-like)
Bring back the Alpine map and make that another Borderland.
Create a 3rd map to act as the 3rd borderland. Maybe make it Jungle themed like HoT.
I’d actually be happy to see an existing PvE map in the game made into a Borderland. Hell, make some adjustments to the Auric Basin map to be more WvW friendly and turn that into a borderland map complete with gliding.
I suggest this because there doesn’t seem to be enough WvW players anymore to populate 3 versions of the same map
The maps standard. Just look at EB, how towers and keeps are placed, you will see that everything is in fact connected. Its not everything that WvW is when it comes to gameplay, but its the way WvW maps are designed.
Actually they are not all connected. For example Mendons Tower can treb exactly 0 other towers/keeps. Also Red Keep in Eternal Can treb SM and the other two can’t. If this was a core map design don’t you think they would have balanced it out a bit?
The maps standard. Just look at EB, how towers and keeps are placed, you will see that everything is in fact connected. Its not everything that WvW is when it comes to gameplay, but its the way WvW maps are designed.
Actually they are not all connected. For example Mendons Tower can treb exactly 0 other towers/keeps. Also Red Keep in Eternal Can treb SM and the other two can’t. If this was a core map design don’t you think they would have balanced it out a bit?
It is/was balanced though.
Red keep in EB has always been intended for the weakest (by numbers) team which is why you can treb all towers and SMC from it. Red, especially before the randomization was added to match-ups, was always meant for the weakest team. That is also why red, blue, and green spawn positions on the Alpine borderland map are where they are, the differences in the difficulty of offense/defense between old Bay and Hills were originally dictated by server rank and advantages/disadvantages were handed out to balance population inequality.
I’ll have more to add to this subject after work…
(edited by Chaba.5410)
I like the new maps but the triangles within triangles design the other maps had are sort of scrambled some terrain decisions seem a bit backward, like having smaller expanses between structures full of winding canyons or deep woods to funnel players while the large flat spaces seem to be inside bases which will be largely ignored since once you’re inside you’re shooting for the boss kill.
The new maps are nice and I hope the devs don’t turn them into small flat boxes as some people seem to want, it would just be an overpopulated spvp match at that point. Though, there does need to be some changes based on how actual players and teams move around and engage each other and how each base should be a presence. On the other maps for the most part there were clear triangles where two opposing structures could threaten or defend a third and one or two of the locations would have to answer.
kitten i miss the old maps now… i couldn’t handle more than 1 hour in the new maps it was so boring and big – please bring the old maps back!
That place would be full of players all standing around waiting to take turns fighting or just spectating the fights. That’s called the OS and is only a place for a certain type of player. I enjoy it personally, but I could never do that all the time.
Zerg and guild fights like rolling mostly flat terrain to fight in. Choke points end up becoming circle kittens that limit tactical movement. Prior to HoT, most major zerg fights were right outside south Bay or between Bay/Hills and Garri. In EBG they almost all rotate near or in SM in the open areas.
A side bonus of less distance between small objectives is that roamers and small teams skirmish more.
There are no significant benefits to the existing BL map in terms of improving WvW fights.
Sure, lots of zerg and guild fights happen in rolling terrain and using terrain is a lot of fun, IMHO, and offers a different kind of experience, or at least a change up to the flat area fights of an arena. You may be overlooking a few things though: outnumbered fights and diversity of players.
Outnumbered fights almost always required clever use of terrain. In no way was tactical movement limited other than by player creativity or lack thereof. The new map has quite a diversity of terrain with plenty of open space. It is also rather good to have a lack of open space right nearby the objectives since the proximity of siege in objectives was always a source of friction for those players fighting right outside Bay, for example.
Also, this is WvW we are talking about. It’s always been a large sandbox and the best WvW IMHO has always come from having a good mix of different kids in the sandbox. What you describe seems to only cater to a subset of kids. We must consider the diversity of playstyles so that WvW remains inclusive.
In beta I was on an attacking team so I didn’t think about the map from a defending server’s perspective. Then after release I ended up leading a rally on home bl. At the moment, I see little incentive for why an attacking team would want to take a northern tower or why I, as a defender, should spend time retaking a northern tower. I don’t need the tower to go after a server’s garrison. Nor does the need to retake a northern tower seem as pressing as it once was when the northern towers could treb garrison. I can see how the Oasis event creates a need that somewhat replicates this, but that event is not controlled by players.
Agree with Chaba. In order of priority based on what I think could be done without a complete rebuild of maps: 1) drop the gimmicks; “I want fricking sharks with laser beams” was funny in a movie but here its just bad design, ..seriously who cares, 2) put waypoints back in keeps..allows for response to defend..one of the best “old” ways to actually get fights and helps movement around these maps that are rediculously big 3) drop 6-9 servers from the line up and allow free transfers up for short period of time 4) rethink about how WvW matches the name of your game “Guild Wars” vs use of server based approach when servers seem irrelevant in days of megaserver. 3 years in and while I like the look of the maps (they are beautiful) what happened with HoT WvW design..is a mistake. Mulligans please:)
The Alpine BL was carefully designed with the ranges of trebs in mind. The Desert BL threw out those concerns. I have yet to see anything taken by trebs.
We mentioned the utterly pointless positioning of NET and NWT to Tyler during the beta when he was on the map with us, but it too late in the design phase for them to really do anything about it imo.
Honestly the WvW team really just needs to get the community involved in the design process much, much earlier.
Imho the map is great, it HAS room for tactical play (like chocke points ARE chocke points for real), you have shrines, and you have to plan really well before attack.
My suggestion? Less QQ, more PewPew. People just need to get used.
@Chaba.5410 agreed.
@Gaaroth.2567 – people should get used … but they don’t want to.
Area EB = 100 %
Area HoT-BL = 150 %
Structures EB: 1 castle 3 keeps 12 towers 6 camps (=22 !)
Structures HoT-BL: 3 keeps 4 towers 6 camps (=13 ?)
Walk EB: from Aldons to Bravost you meet: 2 towers, sm, 1 camp
Walk HoT-BL: from NW-Tower to SE-Tower you meet: nearly NOTHING!
Levels EB: most of the area has one ground level, 1 small level underground at keeps, 1 level above on walls
Levels HoT-BL: besides ground level, we have up to 2 underground levels and 2 above …
Shrines for speed up, winds or invis are imo a good idea for the new BL, as well as sentries for NPC-scouting areas. But dollies lost their previous value.
The changes resulted on my server in players refusing HoT-BL, previous engaged Scouts feel useless and don’t engage for sieging and defending a keep over hours. Guilds don’t claim structures for +5 or other advantages. And Guilds started to raid on EB while the EB queue gets longer and loger. HoT Borderlands instead were newer known as to be this empty at primetime. Who likes this hide and seek game on those large maps and less than one dramatic fight per hour? [Except some servers where players just like brainless karmatrain and fighting vs. gates and NPC.]
After some unsuccessful trials to tag up on the new desert borderlands, i prefer now queuing on EB what I rarely did before HoT.
How about a desert-designed, triangular 2nd EB with about 22 structures to capture or defend and less fall-into-death labyrinths?
Boa
(edited by Boa Cinderella.1298)
The new maps are so dead there is no need to be strategic or crafty with trebuchets.
You can just pvd with no siege for 30mins and have nobody show up. Then you get to pve the lord down for another 30mins.
Nobody cares about defending automatically upgraded structures.
I used to love commanding and attempting to force a waypoint into an enemy borderland. Those projects could take 5-8hrs sometimes if the enemy sniped dolyaks. This entire style of struggle is no more…there is nothing left for me in WvW anymore except fights in EB.
Actually they are not all connected. For example Mendons Tower can treb exactly 0 other towers/keeps. Also Red Keep in Eternal Can treb SM and the other two can’t. If this was a core map design don’t you think they would have balanced it out a bit?
Mendons can hit Overlook outer wall with ease. The inverse is not true which is why Red cannot easily defend Mendons with counter siege unlike Bravo, Langor, Jerri, Aldons.
As for the SM trebbing from Red Keep, the disadvantage is that Red Keep can be trebbed from SM.
Outnumbered fights almost always required clever use of terrain. In no way was tactical movement limited other than by player creativity or lack thereof. The new map has quite a diversity of terrain with plenty of open space. It is also rather good to have a lack of open space right nearby the objectives since the proximity of siege in objectives was always a source of friction for those players fighting right outside Bay, for example.
If by “good” you mean most of the population dislikes that style and won’t even go to the map, then yeah that diversity of terrain is “good”.
Until players go to the new map, my point stands. Big maps with complex terrain and NPC gimmicks are an antithesis to enjoyable WvW game play for most WvW players.
Well played waypoints in towers + keeps might realy do much. Its important that players can reach points considerable fast. I did start a romaing round.. Unfortunately died at half on top of the map by a jump mistake .. and logged off because i had to run across the map again … Running more then 2 minutes to reach anny point on the map is to much … And no relevant point should be reachable in less then 30 seconds. If i need 3-5 minutes to get from start to the top camp or reach a siege group i might even logg off.
This is so true:
Big maps with complex terrain and NPC gimmicks are an antithesis to enjoyable WvW game play for most WvW players.
Complex terrain is negotiable and enjoyable if well plced, but big and NPC gimmiks are a pain for WvW.
(edited by Wolfric.9380)
Outnumbered fights almost always required clever use of terrain. In no way was tactical movement limited other than by player creativity or lack thereof. The new map has quite a diversity of terrain with plenty of open space. It is also rather good to have a lack of open space right nearby the objectives since the proximity of siege in objectives was always a source of friction for those players fighting right outside Bay, for example.
If by “good” you mean most of the population dislikes that style and won’t even go to the map, then yeah that diversity of terrain is “good”.
Until players go to the new map, my point stands. Big maps with complex terrain and NPC gimmicks are an antithesis to enjoyable WvW game play for most WvW players.
If a map design reduces the friction between two sets of players: those who enjoy siege/defense and those who enjoy open field PvP, then that is good in that the design achieved the goal of something that players in the two sets had essentially been asking for. It means entering a map and not seeing players qq at each other for cowing two guilds trying to open field and the resultant action of guild going to supply/siege troll in retaliation. That’s a good thing!
I’ve gotten enough action on the new bl (during PST) without having to go to EBG this past weekend during my rally. Your point does not stand I guess.
The Alpine BL was carefully designed with the ranges of trebs in mind. The Desert BL threw out those concerns. I have yet to see anything taken by trebs.
We mentioned the utterly pointless positioning of NET and NWT to Tyler during the beta when he was on the map with us, but it too late in the design phase for them to really do anything about it imo.
Honestly the WvW team really just needs to get the community involved in the design process much, much earlier.
Yea in beta the placement of the waypoints was also talked about. I was disappointed that they were not moved back to the side keeps. (was also disappointed that the waypoint bug still existed where enemy could use it at the spawn towers) It devalues the keeps in such a way where players question why own them.
For me, the Desert BL has been promoting a different strategy, one where we focus our attention on one side of the map more than we did with Alpine. So far most of our activity has been around the NE or NW corners while we hold both the tower and keep and make pokes at garrison. TC had a guild working as defenders on their BL so we were able to get consistent action most of the night without having to go to EBG. SoS even managed to show up in garrison a few times.
“Players threatening towers and keeps” is definitely a different style of play, one that is not very obvious and a big change from the original WvW where towers and keeps threatened each other, for better or for worse.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
It isn’t the total size of the map, it is the spacing between objectives
(…)Simplest fix: increase the range on trebuchets so that trebuchets at towers can hit keeps and become a threat again.
I wish I gave this feedback earlier during the beta but I was more focused on the up-close sieges rather than the map-as-a-whole.
Not only the range of trbs should be superior but also the resistance.
The map is excellent problem was mechanics stayed behind or went to shrine/mega laser gimmicks(Anet can do much better at shrines boons, they failed a bit there).
There are plenty of stuff that needs to be in pair with the new bl map, another thing is we dont know if they will had random cheese stuff or eventually “make the bl a better place”.
It does feel more boring.
In the alpine borderlands, when assaulting a borderland, taking a certain tower would make laying siege to a keep much easier, or losing a keep would make travel rather difficult to defend other structures. But now travel’s a pain anyways, and the towers sorta become thingies. I do find the tower WPs somewhat interesting but not enough to compensate.
Of course the very idea of large spacing can also result in a bit more bordedom. If there was more stuff to fight over, that wouldn’t be the case, but the pace it sets for being so big and empty just translates to boredom. This kind of map design isn’t bad for new players to learn mechanics and not get overwhelmed, but for WvW it doesn’t seem to serve much purpose other than to act as filler; I see this problem in the new pve maps in parts too.
@ArchonWing.9480, what if they add some sorta map control “control terrain” mechanics where guilds could deploy a waypoint (with a CD to avoid abuse), we have only towers to cap nothing more, since we dont have the siege razor npc, this could be also the new breackout event, guild officer/leader could deploy a camp that would control that map area with access to some resources and boost to some siege.
Also we still need to see those charr panzers :|
(edited by Aeolus.3615)
You know, I actually didn’t realize Siegerazer was missing. Maybe he was lost too. I do think some kind of breakout event would be useful though I’m afraid some would fear it to be pve or something.
Control terrain mechanics do sound good in theory I suppose. It’s a bit hard to visualize for me with the new map though.
@ArchonWing.9480, what if they add some sorta map control “control terrain” mechanics where guilds could deploy a waypoint (with a CD to avoid abuse)
That’s what Emergency Waypoint is supposed to be for. It isn’t available until guild level 31 though. Most guilds I’m familiar with are only at level 15 so we’re talking like another 2 months before we start seeing something like that in game.
@Chaba.5410 tks or the info,but if im not in mistake is a bit hard for smaller guilds increase lvl?
Btw guys, what if map control could give access to mine/plantations exploring for the guild that control that zone, would that make us fight more for resources that could help guilds?
trying to brainstorm a bit if u guys dont mind, i know this thing feel a bit pve’s ish but a bit of sanboxing would be fine (actually gw2 problem is being fully themeparked and timegated).
(edited by Aeolus.3615)
Those new BL maps just make me sad. I’m playing less and less lately as EB is always queued to the gills by the time I get off work.
New BL’s in T2 are all but deserted on any given day or night. And now that reset is moved to Saturday night? Saturday mornings & afternoons are a virtual standstill as the match is usually pretty well decided by then.
Oh well…was fun while it lasted.
I don’t know..I just played the map for the 1st time and it seems
fine.It’s how it’s supposed to be.At least in my opinion.
Overall it’s more or less the same as the old maps,in terms of the
dimensions of it’s periphery and the distance from North to South,
and East to West,but it utilizes space more effectively and it does not
leave a lot of unused space.
Which is good.
I can’t say the same about the new mechanics and all the PvE stuff though.
Maybe Anet should have released the maps first,without altering the
game and then partially add the gameplay changes.
The way I see it the problem is not the map,but the lack of players in it.
T1 EU is more or less a graveyard when compared to what it was 6 months ago.
Maybe it’s time to merge WvW servers.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.