Guild Wars 2

This idea is not a replacement for WvW, this is an idea for a game mode to replace eotm that utilizes the desert map

Remove the desert map from the bl and stick it in its own megaserver instance as a new game mode.
Call it ”War”, ” Thunderdome”, or whatever you want, but make it a red vs blue game mode that you can instantly join.

Score will be based on capturing objectives and ppk, no ppt. Have it reset once every 60 min.

When you join you are immediately assigned to a team. If you really want to join 1 specific color team to play alongside a friend you can queue up for it, but to keep things fair the game will never allow you to join a team if they have 5 more players than the other team.

So say red and blue have 30 players each, then blue has 10 log off, this means no one can join red until blue gets back up to 26, at that point red will have 1 open spot and blue will still have 9 spots.

The only changes to the map would be the removal of the northern spawn… Or they could leave it there and make it a neutral zone for selling, repairing, accessing the bank.

I figure let in a hundred per side and see how the servers handle it.

edit:

To make this work Eotm should be temporarily removed for a slight rework. The rework could be something as simple as disabling the WP in the 3rd keep and adding something there that makes it valuable to fight over. Maybe make that map a large scale capture the flag map and you have to grab the flag from the 3rd keep and return it to your home keep.
Once that is done they could either rotate the maps or have them both running and allow you to queue up for whichever game mode you prefer.

I would go far… take the Eotm idea where you do not defend a server but a team, it could start just like the same maybe by server current color and then they could make a better way to select in what team you will be, this way guilds could still stick together.

Make all maps like EBG and Eotm, no team is the owner of the borderlands, all of them would have 3 spawns, no citadel…. with that we would have a large wvw population and we could have 4 maps Eotm, EBG, Desert and Alpine all counting to PPT. I think 4 maps would be enough to hold everyone, if not keep a version of Eotm as instance for queues with not ppt.

No more population inbalance, nightcappting would be more balanced too… and we would have 24 hours of action. At least it is my first impression did not thought a lot of possible drawbacks.

Some might say we would lose server identity… but I prefer to have good matchs with people playing then the current situation… and this game is about guilds not servers our identities and loyalty should stick to the guilds.

I’m not suggesting this as a replacement for WvW, just as another game mode to make use of the map. I’d suggest removing eotm, reworking that map a bit and then adding it in with this one in the “War” game mode. Let people queue up for both maps, or select them individually if they prefer.

albotelho.2931:

No more population inbalance, nightcappting would be more balanced too… and we would have 24 hours of action. At least it is my first impression did not thought a lot of possible drawbacks.

Haha no. None of your ideas would work. There is no way entire EU or NA would fit on 4 maps. It would also do nothing against nightcapping. Instead of a server being stacked, a color will be stacked – which already happen in EOTM where certain servers dominate coverage.

Dawdler.8521:

albotelho.2931:

No more population inbalance, nightcappting would be more balanced too… and we would have 24 hours of action. At least it is my first impression did not thought a lot of possible drawbacks.

Haha no. None of your ideas would work. There is no way entire EU or NA would fit on 4 maps. It would also do nothing against nightcapping. Instead of a server being stacked, a color will be stacked – which already happen in EOTM where certain servers dominate coverage.

Maybe… so create more than 1 match… keep the tiers and merge some servers… I dont know… but something must change. There is no way we need 8 tiers now, 3 tiers may be enough.

Dawdler.8521:

albotelho.2931:

No more population inbalance, nightcappting would be more balanced too… and we would have 24 hours of action. At least it is my first impression did not thought a lot of possible drawbacks.

Haha no. None of your ideas would work. There is no way entire EU or NA would fit on 4 maps. It would also do nothing against nightcapping. Instead of a server being stacked, a color will be stacked – which already happen in EOTM where certain servers dominate coverage.

That’s why I suggested the flexible player cap and the relatively short matches. There would be no reasonable way to stack 1 side.
The only way you could would be to coordinate 2 large groups to queue up together, hope they get the same instance, and then have 1 of the groups instantly quit, sacrificing all rewards for themselves so that the remaining group could PvD for an hour.
Not saying it would never happen but it seems unlikely that anyone would go through the trouble, especially since once the first group leaves there is nothing to stop another group from taking their place and rebalancing the sides.

albotelho.2931:

Dawdler.8521:

albotelho.2931:

No more population inbalance, nightcappting would be more balanced too… and we would have 24 hours of action. At least it is my first impression did not thought a lot of possible drawbacks.

Haha no. None of your ideas would work. There is no way entire EU or NA would fit on 4 maps. It would also do nothing against nightcapping. Instead of a server being stacked, a color will be stacked – which already happen in EOTM where certain servers dominate coverage.

Maybe… so create more than 1 match… keep the tiers and merge some servers… I dont know… but something must change. There is no way we need 8 tiers now, 3 tiers may be enough.

This isn’t a “merge the tiers” thread. There are plenty of those on the forum, let’s try to stay on topic.

Jim Hunter.6821:

That’s why I suggested the flexible player cap

GW2 lag apart with current caps. Theres no way the engine will ever support more unless they replace it.

Dawdler.8521:

Jim Hunter.6821:

That’s why I suggested the flexible player cap

GW2 lag apart with current caps. Theres no way the engine will ever support more unless they replace it.

I also said red vs blue, up to a hundred per side and see how the server handles it. With only 2 sides instead of 3 that should be less players on the map than the current pop cap allows.

If they remove the barricades and have the dino event run every match there should be a good amount of open field fighting in the center of the map.
As terrible as the dino event is for WvW, it wouldn’t be bad in this mode since the sides would be relatively even.

What about this?

No more home map. Two maps (alpine + desert) with three starting points each.
So ist not 3 Maps per Server its two and these are diffrent.

Both maps exist. A small redesign seting a new start point at the top, one less selection bar and off we go. Ranking deside start positions on the two maps.

Effect more players on one map, both maps used.

Wolfric.9380:

What about this?

No more home map. Two maps (alpine + desert) with three starting points each.
So ist not 3 Maps per Server its two and these are diffrent.

Both maps exist. A small redesign seting a new start point at the top, one less selection bar and off we go. Ranking deside start positions on the two maps.

Effect more players on one map, both maps used.

That would require completely redesigning both maps. It took 3 years to get the numbers tweaked on WvW achievements, how long do you think it would take to redesign 2 maps?

That’s why I suggested this game mode should be a 2 way fight instead of 3 way. Start the teams in the southern corners and no one ends up with the home field advantage. No redesign required.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Wolfric.9380:

What about this?

No more home map. Two maps (alpine + desert) with three starting points each.
So ist not 3 Maps per Server its two and these are diffrent.

Both maps exist. A small redesign seting a new start point at the top, one less selection bar and off we go. Ranking deside start positions on the two maps.

Effect more players on one map, both maps used.

That would require completely redesigning both maps. It took 3 years to get the numbers tweaked on WvW achievements, how long do you think it would take to redesign 2 maps?

That’s why I suggested this game mode should be a 2 way fight instead of 3 way. Start the teams in the southern corners and no one ends up with the home field advantage. No redesign required.

No redesign required, except well, you know, the entire code base for WvW, the matchup system and it would also rebalance all WvW maps from scratch including EoTM.

Anet has several ways forward but I seriously doubt they would ever consider such an option. Then again they have a tendancy to throw curveballs at us. Wouldnt surprise me the slightest if they announce the complete closure of WvW next week, EoTM and desert will run alternating 3 hour 3 way instanced matchups from now on.

Dawdler.8521:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Wolfric.9380:

What about this?

No more home map. Two maps (alpine + desert) with three starting points each.
So ist not 3 Maps per Server its two and these are diffrent.

Both maps exist. A small redesign seting a new start point at the top, one less selection bar and off we go. Ranking deside start positions on the two maps.

Effect more players on one map, both maps used.

That would require completely redesigning both maps. It took 3 years to get the numbers tweaked on WvW achievements, how long do you think it would take to redesign 2 maps?

That’s why I suggested this game mode should be a 2 way fight instead of 3 way. Start the teams in the southern corners and no one ends up with the home field advantage. No redesign required.

No redesign required, except well, you know, the entire code base for WvW, the matchup system and it would also rebalance all WvW maps from scratch including EoTM.

Anet has several ways forward but I seriously doubt they would ever consider such an option. Then again they have a tendancy to throw curveballs at us. Wouldnt surprise me the slightest if they announce the complete closure of WvW next week, EoTM and desert will run alternating 3 hour 3 way instanced matchups from now on.

I already said this isn’t a replacement for WvW. This game mode would be a replacement for eotm.
WvW should have the alpine map returned and the new map should be used for the “War” game mode.

It will basically be the hotjoin version of WvW, that should end up working better than eotm currently does since the sides will be better balanced. If they balance PPK and rewards well enough it will promote fighting over karma training.

Maybe make each player kill worth 3 points (5 if stomped), 5 points for camps, 10 for towers, 25 for keeps. Give bags for player kills but increase the odds on getting gold/exotic/ascended drops. Reward players with tricks, traps, or siege from camps towers and keeps. The bonus for winning could be something simple like a chunk of wxp. Ideally they will add reward tracks to WvW and this could benefit from the reward track as well.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I already said this isn’t a replacement for WvW. This game mode would be a replacement for eotm.

And for those that genuinely like EotM? Especially those that like EotM and dislike the new desert map??? So how about no and no and then maybe another no.

DeWolfe.2174:

Jim Hunter.6821:

I already said this isn’t a replacement for WvW. This game mode would be a replacement for eotm.

And for those that genuinely like EotM? Especially those that like EotM and dislike the new desert map??? So how about no and no and then maybe another no.

You like eotm?….. gross….

I did already address that though.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I’m not suggesting this as a replacement for WvW, just as another game mode to make use of the map. I’d suggest removing eotm, reworking that map a bit and then adding it in with this one in the “War” game mode. Let people queue up for both maps, or select them individually if they prefer.

Eotm can be added back into it. The rework could be something as simple as disabling the WP in the 3rd keep and adding something there that makes it valuable to fight over. Maybe make that map a large scale capture the flag map and you have to grab the flag from the 3rd keep and return it to your home keep.

That would be a thousand times better than the karma train that has been occurring on that map since its release.

Edited the opening post to include more info. Would love to hear suggestions or arguments as to why this wouldn’t work.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Edited the opening post to include more info. Would love to hear suggestions or arguments as to why this wouldn’t work.

I’ll throw one out there…..how do you handle people leaving? The idea works well on capping people going in, but what happens when 20 people log out of the red team? Does it boot 15 people from the blue team? If so what criteria do you use to choose who gets booted or who doesn’t? If you don’t boot people then you still have an overstacking situation that will happen…

Wolfric.9380:

What about this?

No more home map. Two maps (alpine + desert) with three starting points each.
So ist not 3 Maps per Server its two and these are diffrent.

Both maps exist. A small redesign seting a new start point at the top, one less selection bar and off we go. Ranking deside start positions on the two maps.

Effect more players on one map, both maps used.

Do like, been advocating this for a while. But must agree that it is off-topic :p

Jim Hunter.6821:

That would require completely redesigning both maps. It took 3 years to get the numbers tweaked on WvW achievements, how long do you think it would take to redesign 2 maps?

That’s why I suggested this game mode should be a 2 way fight instead of 3 way. Start the teams in the southern corners and no one ends up with the home field advantage. No redesign required.

To be fair, the main change needed would be either eliminating the advantages of citadel (mostly services) or share those with the other starting positions. Place red in north so they get the “advantage” since most of the time they’re the weakest team (all modes).

Dawdler.8521:

No redesign required, except well, you know, the entire code base for WvW, the matchup system and it would also rebalance all WvW maps from scratch including EoTM.

Anet has several ways forward but I seriously doubt they would ever consider such an option. Then again they have a tendancy to throw curveballs at us. Wouldnt surprise me the slightest if they announce the complete closure of WvW next week, EoTM and desert will run alternating 3 hour 3 way instanced matchups from now on.

I have no idea how much work it would be to change the internal work code for WvW, but I’m not sure if they even need to change it, save reduce the number of maps by one. They could probably just rename “Red Home Borderland” to “Desert” and nobody would notice the difference.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I already said this isn’t a replacement for WvW. This game mode would be a replacement for eotm.
WvW should have the alpine map returned and the new map should be used for the “War” game mode.

It will basically be the hotjoin version of WvW, that should end up working better than eotm currently does since the sides will be better balanced. If they balance PPK and rewards well enough it will promote fighting over karma training.

Maybe make each player kill worth 3 points (5 if stomped), 5 points for camps, 10 for towers, 25 for keeps. Give bags for player kills but increase the odds on getting gold/exotic/ascended drops. Reward players with tricks, traps, or siege from camps towers and keeps. The bonus for winning could be something simple like a chunk of wxp. Ideally they will add reward tracks to WvW and this could benefit from the reward track as well.

I think some of this sounds fun, and something I’d love to try. I’m not sold on making it red vs blue, and think this could work just as well with 3 teams as we have it now. I like the way you suggest the points work, as it would actively discourage zerging for one thing, and work best if people split up and take multiple thing (and fights). Though, I don’t see any reason or reward to defending, is this intentional wit this being a “hot-join” ?

If you kept it 3 side, with the same rules for joining etc, you could cycle all the existing maps with no problems (ebg, eotm, alpine, desert).

MasterD.4790:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Edited the opening post to include more info. Would love to hear suggestions or arguments as to why this wouldn’t work.

I’ll throw one out there…..how do you handle people leaving? The idea works well on capping people going in, but what happens when 20 people log out of the red team? Does it boot 15 people from the blue team? If so what criteria do you use to choose who gets booted or who doesn’t? If you don’t boot people then you still have an overstacking situation that will happen…

Jim Hunter.6821:

So say red and blue have 30 players each, then blue has 10 log off, this means no one can join red until blue gets back up to 26, at that point red will have 1 open spot and blue will still have 9 spots.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Dawdler.8521:

albotelho.2931:

No more population inbalance, nightcappting would be more balanced too… and we would have 24 hours of action. At least it is my first impression did not thought a lot of possible drawbacks.

Haha no. None of your ideas would work. There is no way entire EU or NA would fit on 4 maps. It would also do nothing against nightcapping. Instead of a server being stacked, a color will be stacked – which already happen in EOTM where certain servers dominate coverage.

That’s why I suggested the flexible player cap and the relatively short matches. There would be no reasonable way to stack 1 side.
The only way you could would be to coordinate 2 large groups to queue up together, hope they get the same instance, and then have 1 of the groups instantly quit, sacrificing all rewards for themselves so that the remaining group could PvD for an hour.
Not saying it would never happen but it seems unlikely that anyone would go through the trouble, especially since once the first group leaves there is nothing to stop another group from taking their place and rebalancing the sides.

joneirikb.7506:

Wolfric.9380:

What about this?

No more home map. Two maps (alpine + desert) with three starting points each.
So ist not 3 Maps per Server its two and these are diffrent.

Both maps exist. A small redesign seting a new start point at the top, one less selection bar and off we go. Ranking deside start positions on the two maps.

Effect more players on one map, both maps used.

Do like, been advocating this for a while. But must agree that it is off-topic :p

Jim Hunter.6821:

That would require completely redesigning both maps. It took 3 years to get the numbers tweaked on WvW achievements, how long do you think it would take to redesign 2 maps?

That’s why I suggested this game mode should be a 2 way fight instead of 3 way. Start the teams in the southern corners and no one ends up with the home field advantage. No redesign required.

To be fair, the main change needed would be either eliminating the advantages of citadel (mostly services) or share those with the other starting positions. Place red in north so they get the “advantage” since most of the time they’re the weakest team (all modes).

Dawdler.8521:

No redesign required, except well, you know, the entire code base for WvW, the matchup system and it would also rebalance all WvW maps from scratch including EoTM.

Anet has several ways forward but I seriously doubt they would ever consider such an option. Then again they have a tendancy to throw curveballs at us. Wouldnt surprise me the slightest if they announce the complete closure of WvW next week, EoTM and desert will run alternating 3 hour 3 way instanced matchups from now on.

I have no idea how much work it would be to change the internal work code for WvW, but I’m not sure if they even need to change it, save reduce the number of maps by one. They could probably just rename “Red Home Borderland” to “Desert” and nobody would notice the difference.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I already said this isn’t a replacement for WvW. This game mode would be a replacement for eotm.
WvW should have the alpine map returned and the new map should be used for the “War” game mode.

It will basically be the hotjoin version of WvW, that should end up working better than eotm currently does since the sides will be better balanced. If they balance PPK and rewards well enough it will promote fighting over karma training.

Maybe make each player kill worth 3 points (5 if stomped), 5 points for camps, 10 for towers, 25 for keeps. Give bags for player kills but increase the odds on getting gold/exotic/ascended drops. Reward players with tricks, traps, or siege from camps towers and keeps. The bonus for winning could be something simple like a chunk of wxp. Ideally they will add reward tracks to WvW and this could benefit from the reward track as well.

I think some of this sounds fun, and something I’d love to try. I’m not sold on making it red vs blue, and think this could work just as well with 3 teams as we have it now. I like the way you suggest the points work, as it would actively discourage zerging for one thing, and work best if people split up and take multiple thing (and fights). Though, I don’t see any reason or reward to defending, is this intentional wit this being a “hot-join” ?

If you kept it 3 side, with the same rules for joining etc, you could cycle all the existing maps with no problems (ebg, eotm, alpine, desert).

I honestly can’t say how important defending would end up being. I think it would depend on how the meta evolved. You might end up seeing small groups running to the enemy side to harass the groups they have over there attacking structures. I doubt anyone would try to push a structure that you had already capped and were actively defending from the inside due to the short time limit for the games. But you also couldn’t just camp 1 person in every structure without sacrificing bodies on the field, this is the advantage of having a game mode with relatively equal numbers.

A solution to this could be to add points for every structure your team has at the end of the game instead of rewarding the points when you flip them. Or possibly keep the points per flip and add bonus points for what you hold at the end.

I’m also thinking the skysplitter might need to be manually fired at one target at a time so that players fight over it instead of just letting the other team open the doors for them and capping whatever they can.

As far as making it a 3 way fight instead of 2 teams…… it still just seems like the desert map design doesn’t give the same fair chance to all 3 sides.

3 teams might work on the eotm map but I think the 3rd keep would be the perfect place to put the flag. At the start of the match you would likely have some small groups trying to snag structures for points, some running to the enemy side to try and slow them down, and probably 2 or 3 fights at the flag keep. The fights would be centered around where each team is trying to break in. And the 3rd keep is far enough away from each teams spawn that dying would have a huge impact on the match.

Jack of all Trades…Master of None.

Too many game modes…I would prefer that they don’t do another game mode.

WvW will bleed even more troops to this game mode imho.

I still want to WvW & think ANet needs to fix the Base Map Mechanic for WvW.

If ANet does take your suggestion & creates a new game mode…will you next ask for the Old Alpine Maps back for the WvW game mode?

I liked the Old Alpine Maps…but ANet is trying to move us forward on a new map that needs to integrate with all the new game mechanics. Using the old maps will lock us into developing on that map into the foreseeable future.

New maps aren’t really liked at the moment….but I think once a critical mass of WvW players fills it…then the fun will begin. Also, the jumping puzzles…I’m not a huge fan of it…will get learned or not…the newer PvE players that come & join WvW will have these skills…so over time…the old Veterans of WvW will get replaced by PvE players that grew up on it…sorry for that rant…I’m an old Veteran of WvW…and lately it’s been a hard pill to swallow…but I think I’ll adjust.

Diku.2546:

Jack of all Trades…Master of None.

Too many game modes…I would prefer that they don’t do another game mode.

WvW will bleed even more troops to this game mode imho.

I still want to WvW & think ANet needs to fix the Base Map Mechanic for WvW.

---

If ANet does take your suggestion & creates a new game mode…will you next ask for the Old Alpine Maps back for the WvW game mode?

---

I liked the Old Alpine Maps…but ANet is trying to move us forward on a new map that needs to integrate with all the new game mechanics. Using the old maps will lock us into developing on that map into the foreseeable future.

New maps aren’t really liked at the moment….but I think once a critical mass of WvW players fills it…then the fun will begin. Also, the jumping puzzles…I’m not a huge fan of it…will get learned or not…the newer PvE players that come & join WvW will have these skills…so over time…the old Veterans of WvW will get replaced by PvE players that grew up on it…sorry for that rant…I’m an old Veteran of WvW…and lately it’s been a hard pill to swallow…but I think I’ll adjust.

I’m pretty sure I said it somewhere in this thread already, but yeah, they should return the alpine map and use the desert one for the new game mode.

The desert map isn’t a bad map but it is a bad map for WvWs.
In the “War” game mode the population won’t be spread out across 4 maps, the scoring promotes fighting but also encourages players to spread out on the map so there would still be skirmishing fights.

I understand your concern that this would split the player base but I think by putting this in place of eotm you would be returning a lot of those players back into WvW. If they made WvW more rewarding than this game mode I bet the pug blob would grow pretty fast.

Forgot to mention. The shrines in the desert bl would need to be removed. Their effects discourage fighting.