Guild Wars 2

Jski.6180:

Dawdler.8521:

Jski.6180:

You guys do realize the pix for the wvw map comparison cuts off the N and S camps on the old bl. The main differences is the new map is wilder and there is more playable spaces at the spawns.

Lol…

Think you can make a more fair comparison? Then do it. Post a comparison pic (I recommend using some transparency as well, I just used kittenty Paint to do it).

I bet the towers, keeps and camps will still be in the exact same locations, ie on a considerably tighter area than the scattered towers, keeps and camps on desert border. In fact, nothing would change even if you draw 10 “cut off” camps outside the map.

The main combat area, south of the east/west paths out of citadel and from the southern part of the island and up remain exactly the same.

Are you talking about cutting off every thing from maps but the objective to compare things? There is more open spaces in the new BL but that for the players to have spaces to fight if ppl chose to use them or not is up to them. The big thing is in the old BL you have open spaces but they where no part of the map in a lot of ways becuse the objectives where a bit more tighter so there was more waist spaces in the old BL and ppl even complained about this.

The ideal behind the new BL is to brake up blobs so you make smaller and more spread out groups a far better chose then blobbing up. This is done by making the most effect paths chocks and very easy to def vs big groups.
Its also about removing krama training or at least make it less effective. This is done by adding in more environmental def such as having different levels to the map to need to deal with to get to the next point. Also by making tower and keeps take longer to take due to spaces and stronger lords.

So ppl not liking the new maps is very telling on what ppl want vs what they say. Players want to blob players want to karam train they just like to say they do not like these things becuse it makes them feel less “hard core” as players of wvw / rvr. At the end of the day pvp is up to the players more then its up to the game makers. If there are no players to fight then they do not want to truly pvp.

Except that the major reason the border is a failure is because it actively discourages small groups. Everything thats been changed about WvW has made blobbing the most viable option and reduced the importance of small scale, roaming and scouting.

Also, I am still not seeing a comparison image in your post.

Enemy have so big blobs that anet need to lower map cap.

I miss my old WvW, I miss it bad.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Ben K.6238:

Jim Hunter.6821:

You just described why it sucks for roaming.
No one is there upgrading the bl since it’s on auto pilot, and since upgrades require no effort and the towers/keeps are completely disconnected, no one cares to defend.

This means the only way you’ll find a fight is if you just happen to run into each other.

The problem I used to see on the old BLs was that the only people there were the ones upgrading, and they were generally not good fighters. Bad fights are better than no fights, but the changes have just made a major problem in WvW more obvious – defending is a fool’s errand.

A lot of them did suck at fighting, and after dying multiple times they would call in reinforcements. I can’t count the amount of times I had 30+ man groups respond for a handful of us.
This was one of the main objectives of roaming/havocing. We would force the zerg to split up or they would start losing things. Now they just karma train to their hearts content because roaming is no longer effective or meaningful.

Yep ninja groups were vital for breaking up zergs now they cant operate due to the increased cost of guild catas and the increased defence of keeps and towers. Pretty tragic when one of the aims of the new BL is to break zergs up and just another sign they don’t actually understand the mode.

Dream In A Dream.7213:

The map is better than the old one. Its not getting play since its not as easy to zerg.
If they fix pop issues it will be fine.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself… right? You can’t fix pop issues as well as keep the new map when the reason there is a pop issue is the new map.

Not to mention the fact that zerging is WvW and WvW is zerging. Sure, small groups exist (and are vital), but zergs are still the chief mode of gameplay. It wouldn’t feel like a world vs world battle if there weren’t massive clumps of players hitting each other with sharp things. Just look at the concept art for WvW – that’s several banners and a lot of warriors.

Map doesn’t seem to break zerg because nobody care if they lose something. Map should just move part of players other side of map if they try to blob. Or some kind of movement speed debuff should make blobbing impossible.

Dawdler.8521:

Except that the major reason the border is a failure is because it actively discourages small groups. Everything thats been changed about WvW has made blobbing the most viable option and reduced the importance of small scale, roaming and scouting

How so? It might be helpful if you offered some perspective as to how you come to that conclusion.

Fuzzion.2504:

Anyone else feel like the HoT and the huge loss of WvW player base is something like DaOC when they released ToA and that lost a lot of RvR players

Its feels like a coincidence between HoT and ToA. Also given that Anet hired employers from DaOC

DaOC never recovered after losing so many players.

That’s a good point. I was a long time DaoC player, and when ToA was released, forcing the RvR player to pve in group events to get a better skill, weapon, or whatever for RvR…..the game lost A LOT of its playerbase, and never did recover. Wvw players, for the most part, do not seem to like pve much. And most seem to hate being forced into it in new wvw maps. (And that is certainly just my opinion. I don’t presume to know how every wvw player out there feels about pve)

I don’t know if it is coincidence, or planned, or whatever. I think the new bl maps for GW2 are just beautiful. But they don’t work for wvw. Brings too much pve sort of stuff into the equation, and the long distances between points is great for the pve player, but for the wvw player that wants to get into the action quickly…..it just becomes a tedious borefest trying to find fights.

I have been out there several times, now…..and it is extremely tough to find fights. Everyone has migrated back to EB, as it is much more entertaining for the average wvw player.

And yea, the bls might get better as more people progress through HoT and get their elite stuff set up. But they might not. At this point in time, the new bls just seem to be a complete waste to most of the wvw community, imo. Maybe looked like a good idea on paper, and the artwork is just wonderful……but the current bls just do not seem to be conducive to good wvw action.

I hope it doesn’t result in the same exodus from the game that ToA caused for DaoC.
It might still be too early after the release of the expansion to make that sort of judgement. The bls might still change in population and action in a few more weeks……it is just that right now, it doesn’t look very good, imo.

coglin.1867:

Dawdler.8521:

Except that the major reason the border is a failure is because it actively discourages small groups. Everything thats been changed about WvW has made blobbing the most viable option and reduced the importance of small scale, roaming and scouting

How so? It might be helpful if you offered some perspective as to how you come to that conclusion.

1) Owning camps has been devalued. Taking camps that supply enemy objectives only slows the upgrade process, it doesn’t halt it. In addition, because upgrading no longer requires supply, and +5 isn’t generally available anymore, much more supply is lying around inside objectives than there used to be. So starving an objective of supply is more difficult. Supply starvation used to be a role of small groups.

2) The increase in supply cost of guild siege means you need more people to build the same amount of siege.

3) Not being able to carry 20 supply also means you need more people for siege building and/or it takes much longer.

4) Auto-upgrades mean in many situations, objectives have stronger walls/gates than before

5) Fortified gates take a very long time to break down with less than 3 superior rams.

There are more reasons, that’s a handful of the obvious ones.

Xernth.8561:

coglin.1867:

Dawdler.8521:

Except that the major reason the border is a failure is because it actively discourages small groups. Everything thats been changed about WvW has made blobbing the most viable option and reduced the importance of small scale, roaming and scouting

How so? It might be helpful if you offered some perspective as to how you come to that conclusion.

1) Owning camps has been devalued. Taking camps that supply enemy objectives only slows the upgrade process, it doesn’t halt it. In addition, because upgrading no longer requires supply, and +5 isn’t generally available anymore, much more supply is lying around inside objectives than there used to be. So starving an objective of supply is more difficult. Supply starvation used to be a role of small groups.

2) The increase in supply cost of guild siege means you need more people to build the same amount of siege.

3) Not being able to carry 20 supply also means you need more people for siege building and/or it takes much longer.

4) Auto-upgrades mean in many situations, objectives have stronger walls/gates than before

5) Fortified gates take a very long time to break down with less than 3 superior rams.

There are more reasons, that’s a handful of the obvious ones.

Seems like Anet has purposefully made it much more difficult for havoc groups to function in the new bls. That just makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, as small havoc groups are one of the more entertaining things to do in wvw, imo. I love running with a good havoc group, and I know quite a few other wvw players who do, too.

Swift.1930:

Dream In A Dream.7213:

The map is better than the old one. Its not getting play since its not as easy to zerg.
If they fix pop issues it will be fine.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself… right? You can’t fix pop issues as well as keep the new map when the reason there is a pop issue is the new map.

Not to mention the fact that zerging is WvW and WvW is zerging. Sure, small groups exist (and are vital), but zergs are still the chief mode of gameplay. It wouldn’t feel like a world vs world battle if there weren’t massive clumps of players hitting each other with sharp things. Just look at the concept art for WvW – that’s several banners and a lot of warriors.

No.

Dream In A Dream.7213:

No.

I mean, the best response to that one is “yes”, but I’ll put some thought into mine…

I enjoyed small fights in WvW. There were a lot of good 10-20 vs 10-20 fights going on when strategy was peaking. But zerging became the response to those fights – the team with the bigger stick wins.

The new map won’t stop zergs completely (unless it stays empty), but one thing it kind of prevents is spotting zergs.

I admit that I was hasty when I said WvW is zergs. Yeah, it’s not just zergs. Not even sure exactly why I mentioned zergs. But the pop drop is still the map. At least one thing’s for sure: without pop, we won’t have zergs.

I guess the only good thing for wvw were the changes made to some of the classes and that they kept EB.

Thank kitten for eb!

Fuzzion.2504:

I guess the only good thing for wvw were the changes made to some of the classes and that they kept EB.

Thank kitten for eb!

Haha, and EB is the epitome of zerg-fests usually. Not that I mind it when it’s 50 VS 50, but 70 attacking 20-30 is boring for both sides.

Xernth.8561:

coglin.1867:

Dawdler.8521:

Except that the major reason the border is a failure is because it actively discourages small groups. Everything thats been changed about WvW has made blobbing the most viable option and reduced the importance of small scale, roaming and scouting

How so? It might be helpful if you offered some perspective as to how you come to that conclusion.

1) Owning camps has been devalued. Taking camps that supply enemy objectives only slows the upgrade process, it doesn’t halt it. In addition, because upgrading no longer requires supply, and +5 isn’t generally available anymore, much more supply is lying around inside objectives than there used to be. So starving an objective of supply is more difficult. Supply starvation used to be a role of small groups.

2) The increase in supply cost of guild siege means you need more people to build the same amount of siege.

3) Not being able to carry 20 supply also means you need more people for siege building and/or it takes much longer.

4) Auto-upgrades mean in many situations, objectives have stronger walls/gates than before

5) Fortified gates take a very long time to break down with less than 3 superior rams.

There are more reasons, that’s a handful of the obvious ones.

And to add to that:

- Map mechanics that activly prohibit movement of small groups by blocking access

- Sentries scout single players, making it harder to sneak behind enemy lines

- Guilds costs are impossible for small groups and even directly limit them to 3+

- Always on waypoints in border towers and garri and not even available in hills/bay, making the importance of small man scouting/defending to reach the all important waypoint stage of border keeps meaningless

- Autoupgrade system and map information means that small groups/single players no longer need to actively involve themselves in triggering keep upgrades and checking their construction status

- Keeps and towers being too far away means that a single player on a safely placed treb cant threaten the connecting tower/keep, which remove the need to activly scout for this or do this.

- No breakout events with siegerazer vs border towers with even more fortification than before.

- PvE event that need to be completed by a zerg, as opposed to single players capping a ruin.

- Keeps and towers so large its harder for scouts to see where the attack is even coming from

Did we miss anything?

The new maps even on Teir 1 servers simply don’t work. Commanders and guilds don’t care about them, EBG is the only place where any action is actually happening.

Commanders don’t want to PVD empty maps.

The game is doomed, less and less people are forming up for wvw now.

You now have long term wvw players not playing anymore.

It’s a lessen that Anet will learn the hard way by loss of player base, you DO NOT make a massive change like this, untested, and expect things to fall in place.

Jwoww.4315:

It’s a lessen that Anet will learn the hard way by loss of player base, you DO NOT make a massive change like this, untested, and expect things to fall in place.

The big question is whether is it salvageable.

They also changed reset night to make things more convenient for them as opposed to the player base. Golem week, no swords week", EOTM and now this fiasco.

This is my first forum post, and it will probably be my last. I do this out of desperation because wvw as a game mode is showing no signs of hope for recovery. As a pure wvw player on Blackgate, it is the only content that I find fun and repeatable in GW2. HoT has killed this game mode.

The vast majority of wvw players do not want to play on the new maps at all, I will go further into this point later. During NA, guilds that aren’t able to squeeze into EBG are forced to raid on the new maps, not because they want to. During SEA last week, we had a 60 man queue on EBG and nobody else on the other maps. It is apparent that the vast majority of wvw players do not welcome this new addition. The situation is simple, either play in EBG or get in the EBG queue.

The problem with desert borderlands map:
1) Fights. The main point of wvw is to have large scale pvp combat. Players don’t want to run around to pvd. Sure you could get some champ bags in the process but you might as well go pve for profit. As noted, players are flocking to EBG because you don’t have to run half a map and pvd for ages and pv guards/cannons/etc. to find that your opponent couldn’t even be bothered with the desert bl.

2)Too large. With the dwindling population and same player cap, players from all worlds are more spread out and waste a lot of time just trying to get to the enemy. With the new upgrades and fortified structures, it takes too much time to get through (see point 1) even with a large zerg let alone a small guild. I even cannot imagine how it would be like for the lesser populated worlds.

3) Verticality. Once again, wvw is about the fights. It is frustrating to navigate through the different levels in wvw and waste time because you have to go up and down and sometimes back in the same direction on a different level. Its not for pve players, don’t try to emulate pve maps. Keep it simple, design it for the fights.

Inb4: “HoTs release so players are building their guild halls and exploring new maps etc.” No. The active wvw population has not increased since day 1 of the expansion, in fact it has dropped even more because players realise that the new maps are not conducive for wvw.

Anet, don’t waste anymore time waiting for players to appreciate the new wvw content because we have already decided. You are hemorrhaging players by the day, like myself. I have been patient for the past 3 weeks through all the negative criticism of the new wvw and decided to give it a chance and put in some proper time played in before I make a judgement. It is beyond obvious now that the majority does not like the new desert bl and something has to been done NOW.

Until any of these issues are fixed, I will be playing other games as there is no reason to continue with this game mode that has turned to kitten.

Tl;dr
New maps are too big horizontally and vertically. Make it smaller and remove all the pve rubbish.

Samis.1750:

The big question is whether is it salvageable.

It is not. At least not in the foreseeable future.

Even if Anet perform magic and reset WvW to pre hot, the damage has been done. And I seriously doubt they would go all the way after not even admitting there are any issues with WvW.

Things not strictly WvW but affecting it negativly like guild halls upgrades… how would they backtrack and save face? Players have already plowed down thousands of gold.

Maybe in a year its back in buisness. If players are still here.

coglin.1867:

Sich.7103:

the old map with the new mechanic will be the same problem…. It’s not only the map… It’s all around…

How so?

I have seen no real evidence of any issue with the maps that would cause this, other then players feeding on one another fear and refusal to accept something new.

The maps are equivalent size.

They added varying aspects to each keep as was overwhelmingly demanded.

They changed the upgrade system to prevent the excessive supply trolls, as was a very popularly demanded.

They added an important event in the middle to draw all 3 sides into 3 way battles away from keeps.

They made it more difficult to turtle down and treb keeps from inside the safety of another keep, that was also strongly demanded to have done. Meaning you have to expose yourself more in order to attack and start a siege against another keep.

All changes that satiated the overwhelming demands of the public here on the forums.

How so?

It’s so automated that there is no personal interaction nor responsiblity to any solo person or small three man guilds and WOW are there a LOT of them.

Its sickening to see Anet nerft WvW instead of listening to the players in the first place.

We need far more health.

We need our pets to have at least as much life as pvE

We need mechanics that work.

We need our darn Alpine maps BACK, these are the worst ever and the daily to find the ruins can’t be done.

Fifty to twenty – Anet has no idea how to balance WvW but players do and many have said it, use only those who are playing to “place” any WvW server.

My gosh this is getting old after three years – now many of us have been told not to play our toons if they have specific bugs.

You may not know what’s going on in WvW, but the rest of us who have been here since pre-Release do and we are highly insulted by Anet.

Don’t hold your breath on massive changes. It took 18months to “fix” party options in the original and i think same will be true to the dailies as its 2 weeks and still not being fixed/removed.

They should make a variation between Alpine and Desert Borderlands. Obviously in an ideal world, ArenaNet would have had 3 different Borders similar like the old plan. However, as we only have 2 currently, I would try to get Desert map for the green server and Alpine for Red and Blue.

I actually enjoy the new map and I honestly think, if the map was played and full, it could bring exciting fights. However, that simply doesn;t happen right now and thus I’d set a variation between Alpine and Desert map.

Me too. Rework BL and EB. Droping EB doing thre diffrent BL Maps.
If they are not even in defending give the best defender map to the lowest realm.

So we get thre maps as BL. Alpine, Desert and current BL all with a central keep.
And make it strongly suply dependent! No free upgrades! Batte about resources is a key for strategic WvW play and players meeting in battle. Increase Realm rewards so people get somthing out of taking points personaly maybe like adding % coresponding to realm points to luck.

Dawdler.8521:

Jski.6180:

Dawdler.8521:

Jski.6180:

You guys do realize the pix for the wvw map comparison cuts off the N and S camps on the old bl. The main differences is the new map is wilder and there is more playable spaces at the spawns.

Lol…

Think you can make a more fair comparison? Then do it. Post a comparison pic (I recommend using some transparency as well, I just used kittenty Paint to do it).

I bet the towers, keeps and camps will still be in the exact same locations, ie on a considerably tighter area than the scattered towers, keeps and camps on desert border. In fact, nothing would change even if you draw 10 “cut off” camps outside the map.

The main combat area, south of the east/west paths out of citadel and from the southern part of the island and up remain exactly the same.

Are you talking about cutting off every thing from maps but the objective to compare things? There is more open spaces in the new BL but that for the players to have spaces to fight if ppl chose to use them or not is up to them. The big thing is in the old BL you have open spaces but they where no part of the map in a lot of ways becuse the objectives where a bit more tighter so there was more waist spaces in the old BL and ppl even complained about this.

The ideal behind the new BL is to brake up blobs so you make smaller and more spread out groups a far better chose then blobbing up. This is done by making the most effect paths chocks and very easy to def vs big groups.
Its also about removing krama training or at least make it less effective. This is done by adding in more environmental def such as having different levels to the map to need to deal with to get to the next point. Also by making tower and keeps take longer to take due to spaces and stronger lords.

So ppl not liking the new maps is very telling on what ppl want vs what they say. Players want to blob players want to karam train they just like to say they do not like these things becuse it makes them feel less “hard core” as players of wvw / rvr. At the end of the day pvp is up to the players more then its up to the game makers. If there are no players to fight then they do not want to truly pvp.

Except that the major reason the border is a failure is because it actively discourages small groups. Everything thats been changed about WvW has made blobbing the most viable option and reduced the importance of small scale, roaming and scouting.

Also, I am still not seeing a comparison image in your post.

It promotes small groups working with other small groups to take down big groups. That how the map is set up if you just blob you will be attked from 2 sides most of the time due to the small spaces of the map. I am not sure how it takes away from small group. Are you maybe mixing up the new bl maps with the new upgrade system becuse these are 2 very different things. Look the more open a map is the more it favor big groups the more small spaces the more it favor small groups. What the new BL is doing is making the more effect paths the small spaces but at the same time leaving opened spaces for big groups just not as effect.

Any way i only need to say the map that was put at hand is missing the N camp and S camp and this is true so… not sure why i would need to make my own map?

atheria.2837:

coglin.1867:

Sich.7103:

the old map with the new mechanic will be the same problem…. It’s not only the map… It’s all around…

How so?

I have seen no real evidence of any issue with the maps that would cause this, other then players feeding on one another fear and refusal to accept something new.

The maps are equivalent size.

They added varying aspects to each keep as was overwhelmingly demanded.

They changed the upgrade system to prevent the excessive supply trolls, as was a very popularly demanded.

They added an important event in the middle to draw all 3 sides into 3 way battles away from keeps.

They made it more difficult to turtle down and treb keeps from inside the safety of another keep, that was also strongly demanded to have done. Meaning you have to expose yourself more in order to attack and start a siege against another keep.

All changes that satiated the overwhelming demands of the public here on the forums.

How so?

It’s so automated that there is no personal interaction nor responsiblity to any solo person or small three man guilds and WOW are there a LOT of them.

Its sickening to see Anet nerft WvW instead of listening to the players in the first place.

It is not near as sickening as players who do not appear to know what was actually asked for. They listened to players, then they gave them changes that fir the criteria of what the posters unspecifically demanded.

If you lack of awareness of what was requested, “sickens” you, perhaps you should go back and read the “demands” for changes.

atheria.2837:

We need far more health.

We “need” it? Why?

atheria.2837:

We need our pets to have at least as much life as pvE

That already exist. Go to PvE and enjoy it. Personally, I am not a fan of being dependent on AI for my gameplay.

atheria.2837:

We need mechanics that work.

Which mechanics don’t work? How do they not work?

atheria.2837:

We need our darn Alpine maps BACK, these are the worst ever and the daily to find the ruins can’t be done.

You keep dishonestly saying “we”. Are you an elected public representative? “We” do not need them back. To be more accurate, some whiners simply claim to “want” them back. Their is a difference.

I do agree that they need to fix that daily.

atheria.2837:

Fifty to twenty – Anet has no idea how to balance WvW but players do and many have said it, use only those who are playing to “place” any WvW server.

Fiftey to twenty?

They do okay at balance. I can tell you one thing though, most players are worse at balance then Anet will ever be.

What does your personal agenda about professional balance have to do with the new BLs in any way?

atheria.2837:

My gosh this is getting old after three years – now many of us have been told not to play our toons if they have specific bugs.

I feel your dishonestly making this up. Do you have a link to this being officially stated?

atheria.2837:

You may not know what’s going on in WvW, but the rest of us who have been here since pre-Release do and we are highly insulted by Anet.

I know what is going on. I guess you chose to go with personal attacks and accusations, when your argument is weak on actual facts? Interesting route, not my first choice, but to each their own I guess.

Odd you would say such things when I am almost positive you were on my pin, and following my lead most of the evening last night.

Jski.6180:

Any way i only need to say the map that was put at hand is missing the N camp and S camp and this is true so… not sure why i would need to make my own map?

Because you are talking like it matter to the comparison of how much tighter the main combat area of alpine is compared to the main combat area of desert, rather than being “same size” as was claimed.

So that’s why I would welcome to see someone post an unbiased comparison, compared to my apparently biased comparison.

But so far no one seem to have stepped up and done it. Not even Coglin. I am disappointed :/

Well, it does matter. We are talking about a map comparison. Not what you deem as the “main combat area”. You literally gerrymandered the map, and excluded obvious portions of the map, in a dishonest manner. Thus, it suggest to me that your more concerned about attempting to be right over actual being honest.

Given that I already stepped up and done it, and proved I am correct. The onus to disprove it is on you. You were the one supporting claims that were presented with no actual facts or evidence.

Done with WvW for now. Not even sure why but something just isn’t right with the new map. Everyone just queue’s up eb and it is just a blob lagfest that i avoid. Went from playing wvw every day to nothing.

coglin.1867:

It is not near as sickening as players who do not appear to know what was actually asked for. They listened to players, then they gave them changes that fir the criteria of what the posters unspecifically demanded.

If you lack of awareness of what was requested, “sickens” you, perhaps you should go back and read the “demands” for changes.

Once again…..

Specific, detailed suggestion on the map design: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Beside-bug-lag-Bal-how-to-improve-WvW/first#post3024534

And in the CDI: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/cdi/Collaborative-Development-World-Population/page/11#post3127179

And here, with a Dev post directly after it: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Three-Likes-Three-Hates/page/3#post3550372

And here, and someone even included a picture for them to work from: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/I-think-WvW-needs-more-updates/first#post3921113

And a mention here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Three-Likes-Three-Hates/page/4#post3555006

And another mention here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Serious-zerg-question-for-REAL-discussion/first#post3678370

And after HoT launched, the same exact thing here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Constructive-Feedback-Desert-Borderlands/page/2#post5700665

And here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Like-or-Dislike-new-WvW-Bordelands/page/4#post5701734

Every time you try pulling this “it wasn’t clear!!!” card, I’m going to post these exact same links. These are extremely clear, and there’s even a picture if they couldn’t figure it out. Stop lying, stop bullying people, stop trying to play the victim after you do so. Respond to these. How are these not clear? How are these not specific? How can anyone not understand them?

Last night I actually stumbled upon an enemy havoc group attacking one of our keeps in their borderlands. No seriously…..I am not lying!!

I was so shocked to see anyone there that I just stood there as the 5 of them jumped me and killed me in seconds flat.

But, lying there dead, I still smiled just seeing that there were others out there. First havoc group I have seen since I started exploring the bls. That makes probably around 10 people total I have seen out there…..and I am on T4 wvw. No problem on EB….tons of action there…..but man, the bls are a dusty, near ghost town.

Conner.4702:

Phantom.8130:

coglin.1867:

Than you Phantom, for supporting my argument so whole heartedly.

When you look at the older threads, you can clearly see multiple posters making demands. When you look at some of the new map aspects that they are complaining about, you can clearly see what they are complaining about, fulfills what they were demanding in the earlier threads.

Thanks for your help Phantom.

No. really, not even remotely. The map design that was being discussed, with a picture mind you, is completely different than what was made. The map that was discussed, with the picture, is a good map with strategic relevance and directs the flow of traffic. The maps that were made have zero strategic relevance, even less than the old maps had, and actively scatter people.

Stop being intellectually dishonest. Stop acting like this is some cable news politics show. Stop being pretending to be completely obtuse. Stop blatantly trolling. Stop sidestepping and skirting the issue. How were these suggestions unclear?

Got one for you. Stop arguing with someone who’s only goal is to argue. He’s not out to make the game better or get people to play. The only goal in mind is to argue and argue more while ignoring any and all proof. For proof look at post history.

^

Oh, I’m well aware of it, and that’s exactly why I’m making this point. I don’t wan’t some false narrative to be pushed, and silence allows that to happen. Facts speak louder than bluster, but the facts must be presented in order for them to be able to speak. And presented in an undeniable fashion, and a spotlight shined on them.

Granted, those who are familiar with the facts are easily able to ignore the bluster entirely. However, those who aren’t familiar with all of the facts start believing the bluster, and the narrative successfully gets pushed through. It’s an annoying headache to deal with, but it’s the only way to successfully counter this pattern of deceitful behavior.

So I was going back through some of the links that Phantom had posted, as I had not read them all……and the one with the crude sketch as to how wvw should be laid out caught my eye the most. While the drawing might be crude, it is very accurate in general placement of things that encourage battles, defenses, etc.

So I went and looked at a picture of the current borderlands. I have to say, it is a real head scratcher. Has the person/people who designed the new borderlands ever even played good wvw before? The placement of the major structures doesn’t make much sense, whatsoever. Scouts will be pretty much completely useless, as there are so many different ways to get around structures and areas where scouts might position themselves. Supply camps are like little defense points of their own, since they are now located even further out from anything. And because of all the different routes that exist, people aren’t funneled into each other……very few actual choke points, or specific ways to get to keeps and towers. The land is so massive in area, that it is really difficult to spot enemies for fights.

And maybe the new bls are what Anet interpreted players to be wanting from feeedback on these forums and elsewhere. I really don’t know.

In any case, from a pure wvw sense, the new borderlands just don’t seem to make a great deal of practical sense, imo. It is like Anet had this beautiful vision of what the lands should LOOK like, that they gave absolutely no thought as to how different servers would be channeled toward each other, either via pathways or structures, to encourage fights/battles/etc.

Right now, it just looks pretty, with very little practical use.

Hopefully that will change as people get through HoT and return to populate some of these new borderlands. Right now, I just don’t see that happening. Hopefully, I am wrong, and as people get used to how the bls work(myself included), they’ll become more popular.

Jski.6180:

It promotes small groups working with other small groups to take down big groups. That how the map is set up if you just blob you will be attked from 2 sides most of the time due to the small spaces of the map. I am not sure how it takes away from small group. Are you maybe mixing up the new bl maps with the new upgrade system becuse these are 2 very different things. Look the more open a map is the more it favor big groups the more small spaces the more it favor small groups. What the new BL is doing is making the more effect paths the small spaces but at the same time leaving opened spaces for big groups just not as effect.

That is only effective if the map is decently populated with all 3 sides which maybe happens once per week, even then it may fail due to the multiple paths being available. This is the failure of this map as well as the HOT maps. They rely on the map being full. Once the map is sparse the fact that it is harder to move around in comes into play and puts players off.

coglin.1867:

It is not near as sickening as players who do not appear to know what was actually asked for. They listened to players, then they gave them changes that fir the criteria of what the posters unspecifically demanded.

If you lack of awareness of what was requested, “sickens” you, perhaps you should go back and read the “demands” for changes.

The fact that they may have been trying to satisfy player demands doesn’t mean they actually succeeded and it doesn’t mean they didn’t introduce more issues via poor design and lack of testing and indeed listening to testers.

coglin.1867:

Well, it does matter. We are talking about a map comparison. Not what you deem as the “main combat area”. You literally gerrymandered the map, and excluded obvious portions of the map, in a dishonest manner. Thus, it suggest to me that your more concerned about attempting to be right over actual being honest.

Given that I already stepped up and done it, and proved I am correct. The onus to disprove it is on you. You were the one supporting claims that were presented with no actual facts or evidence.

I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing any proof you have posted in this thread. You have said that the maps are similar size. I dont count that as proof.

I stepped up and posted an image. No one has posted another comparison in this thread, even though I said that people can post a complete alpine-over-desert comparison if they want to. If you cannot post that comparison that prove your claim and disprove mine, I will take it as you cannot prove it. Saying you proved you where correct without presenting any actual facts or evidence seems pretty dishonest to me.

Phantom.8130:

coglin.1867:

It is not near as sickening as players who do not appear to know what was actually asked for. They listened to players, then they gave them changes that fir the criteria of what the posters unspecifically demanded.

If you lack of awareness of what was requested, “sickens” you, perhaps you should go back and read the “demands” for changes.

Once again…..

Specific, detailed suggestion on the map design: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Beside-bug-lag-Bal-how-to-improve-WvW/first#post3024534

And in the CDI: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/cdi/Collaborative-Development-World-Population/page/11#post3127179

And here, with a Dev post directly after it: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Three-Likes-Three-Hates/page/3#post3550372

And here, and someone even included a picture for them to work from: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/I-think-WvW-needs-more-updates/first#post3921113

And a mention here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Three-Likes-Three-Hates/page/4#post3555006

And another mention here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Serious-zerg-question-for-REAL-discussion/first#post3678370

And after HoT launched, the same exact thing here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Constructive-Feedback-Desert-Borderlands/page/2#post5700665

And here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Like-or-Dislike-new-WvW-Bordelands/page/4#post5701734

Every time you try pulling this “it wasn’t clear!!!” card, I’m going to post these exact same links. These are extremely clear, and there’s even a picture if they couldn’t figure it out. Stop lying, stop bullying people, stop trying to play the victim after you do so. Respond to these. How are these not clear? How are these not specific? How can anyone not understand them?

I have a question.

With three years of threads with complaints, players demands, criticism, and discussion, Why do none of the threads you chose go back more then a year?

Are you cherry picking your threads or discounting any thread?

I find it a little convenient That you claimed to have been away from the game for extended periods of time, and thus chose to completely ignore many of the larger threads that occurred during the time you said you were away.

Is there a reason your ignoring 2/3 of the overall discussion?

Dude….. I click on the first link, and it says “2 years ago”

Furthermore, the game has changed a lot in 3 years; what was said in 2012 may not be accurate today. Opinions can shift, with or without changes as people play the game more and gain more experience as such.

Personally, I think both sides are attempting to place this vague concept of player demands into some monolithic entity, and to lump all opinions over the past 3 years into this doesn’t seem like it’d be very meaningful. Even if it could be proven players asked for X, how would you determine the consensus and dissenting opinions? How many topics does one expect the community as a whole to have a singular opinion?

I can think of one off the top of my head— salvaging wvw gear and that went over without a hitch, as expected.

ArchonWing.9480:

Dude….. I click on the first link, and it says “2 years ago”

Furthermore, the game has changed a lot in 3 years; what was said in 2012 may not be accurate today.

Though the game may have changed, it doesn’t mean many of the request did. The game changing, does not dismiss others view, opinions, and request, unless those very aspects the posters were discussing, were specifically addressed.

I Just do not see how 1 picture in one threads, represents what everyone wanted, as he appear to be attempting to imply.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Phantom.8130:

coglin.1867:

It is not near as sickening as players who do not appear to know what was actually asked for. They listened to players, then they gave them changes that fir the criteria of what the posters unspecifically demanded.

If you lack of awareness of what was requested, “sickens” you, perhaps you should go back and read the “demands” for changes.

Once again…..

Specific, detailed suggestion on the map design: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Beside-bug-lag-Bal-how-to-improve-WvW/first#post3024534

And in the CDI: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/cdi/Collaborative-Development-World-Population/page/11#post3127179

And here, with a Dev post directly after it: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Three-Likes-Three-Hates/page/3#post3550372

And here, and someone even included a picture for them to work from: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/I-think-WvW-needs-more-updates/first#post3921113

And a mention here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Three-Likes-Three-Hates/page/4#post3555006

And another mention here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Serious-zerg-question-for-REAL-discussion/first#post3678370

And after HoT launched, the same exact thing here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Constructive-Feedback-Desert-Borderlands/page/2#post5700665

And here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Like-or-Dislike-new-WvW-Bordelands/page/4#post5701734

Every time you try pulling this “it wasn’t clear!!!” card, I’m going to post these exact same links. These are extremely clear, and there’s even a picture if they couldn’t figure it out. Stop lying, stop bullying people, stop trying to play the victim after you do so. Respond to these. How are these not clear? How are these not specific? How can anyone not understand them?

I have a question.

With three years of threads with complaints, players demands, criticism, and discussion, Why do none of the threads you chose go back more then a year?

Are you cherry picking your threads or discounting any thread?

I find it a little convenient That you claimed to have been away from the game for extended periods of time, and thus chose to completely ignore many of the larger threads that occurred during the time you said you were away.

Is there a reason your ignoring 2/3 of the overall discussion?

1. As ArchonWing said, the very first link is from 2 years ago.
2. I went back through some of my own posts, since those were easy enough to find. If you expect me to produce a comprehensive list of every good suggestion that’s ever been made in this section of the forums, you have very unrealistic expectations.
3. Are you honestly trying to say the CDI wasn’t one of the larger threads that occurred in the WvW section?
4. Because the overall discussion is the same exact discussion that’s happening in multiple threads right now. People don’t like the new maps and they’re letting their opinions be known. However, It seems that some people feel the need to attack them for their opinions, in the most dishonest ways possible. I want facts to matter, not manipulative narrative.
5. Is there a reason you’re blatantly trying to call my credibility into question instead of actually addressing any of the points that were made? Give it a try. Argue against the points that I made. Tell me how the suggestions I made weren’t clear. Tell me how they wouldn’t be a positive change for WvW. Tell me anything that has anything to do with the points that were made. Argue honestly.

dancingmonkey.4902:

ArchonWing.9480:

Dude….. I click on the first link, and it says “2 years ago”

Furthermore, the game has changed a lot in 3 years; what was said in 2012 may not be accurate today.

Though the game may have changed, it doesn’t mean many of the request did. The game changing, does not dismiss others view, opinions, and request, unless those very aspects the posters were discussing, were specifically addressed.

I Just do not see how 1 picture in one threads, represents what everyone wanted, as he appear to be attempting to imply.

My problem is that you suggested that the poster was cherrypicking threads based on their age, but clicking on the first link already renders your statement false! Mistakes are fine, but this shows that you haven’t really put forth the effort to even consider what was being linked. And this shows again, when you haven’t acknowledged the issue.

Obviously time in and of itself does not inherently dismiss the validity of someone’s statement if it is still fundamentally sound, but context is very important, because by now we are almost talking about an entirely different map.

And sure, I also agree that there is no way to tell what “everyone” wanted because the forums logically cannot represent everyone that is or has playing the game.

That doesn’t make any sense. How does clicking one link mean he isn’t cherry picking? All that means is that I was mistaken about one threads age. Cherry picking (which it obviously is) and being mistaken about a threads creation date are not related in any way that I am aware of.

Phantom.8130:

I went back through some of my own posts, since those were easy enough to find. If you expect me to produce a comprehensive list of every good suggestion that’s ever been made in this section of the forums, you have very unrealistic expectations.

Precisely. Cherry picking indeed. This also implies that if you didn’t participate in a discussion, that it didn’t happen.

Phantom.8130:

Are you honestly trying to say the CDI wasn’t one of the larger threads that occurred in the WvW section?

I have no idea how anything I said even begins to imply anything of that nature. Mind specifying something in my post that implies this, so I can address it specifically.

Phantom.8130:

Because the overall discussion is the same exact discussion that’s happening in multiple threads right now. People don’t like the new maps and they’re letting their opinions be known. However, It seems that some people feel the need to attack them for their opinions, in the most dishonest ways possible. I want facts to matter, not manipulative narrative.

You may not want to be so quick to point figures. Some of your comments to people who appear to like the maps, or who do not see why other dislike them, could very easily be called attacks.

dancingmonkey.4902:

ArchonWing.9480:

Dude….. I click on the first link, and it says “2 years ago”

Furthermore, the game has changed a lot in 3 years; what was said in 2012 may not be accurate today.

Though the game may have changed, it doesn’t mean many of the request did. The game changing, does not dismiss others view, opinions, and request, unless those very aspects the posters were discussing, were specifically addressed.

I Just do not see how 1 picture in one threads, represents what everyone wanted, as he appear to be attempting to imply.

That’s nowhere even remotely true. Nowhere did I imply that it “represents what everyone wanted”. The threads that I linked showed very clearly that suggestions were made, that the suggestions were extremely clear in what they conveyed, that they weren’t demands, and that they were presented in a constructive, respectful manner. It was a counter point to coglin saying that things were"unspecifically demanded".

There were plenty of specific suggestions in this section. Some by me, some by others. They were specific. So “Unspecified” isn’t true. They were suggestions. So “Demands” isn’t true. Unless you can read those posts that I linked, as a small sample, and think they’re “unspecified demands”. But, considered they were very clear, and even had a picture, you really can’t.

dancingmonkey.4902:

That doesn’t make any sense. How does clicking one link mean he isn’t cherry picking? All that means is that I was mistaken about one threads age. Cherry picking (which it obviously is) and being mistaken about a threads creation date are not related in any way that I am aware of.

Phantom.8130:

I went back through some of my own posts, since those were easy enough to find. If you expect me to produce a comprehensive list of every good suggestion that’s ever been made in this section of the forums, you have very unrealistic expectations.

Precisely. Cherry picking indeed. This also implies that if you didn’t participate in a discussion, that it didn’t happen.

No. It really doesn’t. At all.

dancingmonkey.4902:

That doesn’t make any sense. How does clicking one link mean he isn’t cherry picking? All that means is that I was mistaken about one threads age. Cherry picking (which it obviously is) and being mistaken about a threads creation date are not related in any way that I am aware of.

I never made the claim that he wasn’t cherry picking.

Perhaps I am reading your post wrong. Let’s replay this with the post broken down in bold.

I have a question.

With three years of threads with complaints, players demands, criticism, and discussion, Why do none of the threads you chose go back more then a year?/quote]

What was the purpose of this question, then, that made you choose it to be an initial point of disagreement?

Are you cherry picking your threads or discounting any thread?

Now, you’re insulating that there’s cherry picking going on, or discounting threads. Where did that come from, if not judging it based on time.

So you follow up with

find it a little convenient That you claimed to have been away from the game for extended periods of time, and thus chose to completely ignore many of the larger threads that occurred during the time you said you were away.

Okay, so you claim the poster is ignoring a section of the total discussion. That’s fine. Where does that come from?

And then it ends with

Is there a reason your ignoring 2/3 of the overall discussion?

Alright, let’s be honest. Where did this arbitrary number “2/3” come from? Judging by the rest of the post, the game has been out for 3 years, you asked about why posts were only aged one year, so you’re passing off a question that suggests that the poster has been ignoring 2 out of 3 years.

Perhaps it’s a wording issue, but yes, as posted, the posting date is fairly critical seemed to be a large part of the argument.

I think I’m making plenty of sense. I’m not trying to disprove your argument; but honestly I think you’re downplaying this issue quite a bit.

dancingmonkey.4902:

That doesn’t make any sense. How does clicking one link mean he isn’t cherry picking? All that means is that I was mistaken about one threads age. Cherry picking (which it obviously is) and being mistaken about a threads creation date are not related in any way that I am aware of.

Phantom.8130:

I went back through some of my own posts, since those were easy enough to find. If you expect me to produce a comprehensive list of every good suggestion that’s ever been made in this section of the forums, you have very unrealistic expectations.

Precisely. Cherry picking indeed. This also implies that if you didn’t participate in a discussion, that it didn’t happen.

Phantom.8130:

Are you honestly trying to say the CDI wasn’t one of the larger threads that occurred in the WvW section?

I have no idea how anything I said even begins to imply anything of that nature. Mind specifying something in my post that implies this, so I can address it specifically.

Phantom.8130:

Because the overall discussion is the same exact discussion that’s happening in multiple threads right now. People don’t like the new maps and they’re letting their opinions be known. However, It seems that some people feel the need to attack them for their opinions, in the most dishonest ways possible. I want facts to matter, not manipulative narrative.

You may not want to be so quick to point figures. Some of your comments to people who appear to like the maps, or who do not see why other dislike them, could very easily be called attacks.

Really? Show me where I ever attacked anyone for liking the new maps. You can’t. Because I never have. If people like the new maps, it’s their right to have their opinion of them, and I respect that opinion. If they don’t like the new maps, that’s their right to have their opinion of them, and I respect that opinion.

What I don’t respect are people attacking other people for their opinions. I don’t respect blatant trolls. I don’t respect manipulative behavior. I don’t respect intellectual dishonesty. I do respect opinions, though.