Guild Wars 2

Jana.6831:

Using uncommon words doesn’t make you smarter or more mature

I never said it did?

Jana.6831:

I never said that map should be deleted, I just think it’s unfair to have only 1 DBL as the server who’s it assigned to either has an advantage or disadvantage.

Sure it’s a PPT benefit, and that’s reasonable as a critique. But it’s a very short list of people who care about PPT- short enough that people voted over 75% in the poll on whether mixed BLs was a better option than rotating BLs. The reasons that PPT is a joke remain the same whether DBL is around or not.

Jana.6831:

I also said it’s an unsuitable wvw map for the wvw we have.

Which is wrong.

Jana.6831:

No one ever said the DBLs should be deleted – try to get that into your head, ok? =)

An objectively false statement.

Jana.6831:

If you have been able to solo flip a whole BL then there wasn’t a single enemy around. You can solo everything on the vanilla maps as well – In fact I soloed everything there and duo-loed all keeps including SM.

Not the point.

Jana.6831:

If you have enemies then solo roaming is a pain on the DBL.

If you have enemies, solo roaming is a pain on any WvW map. This is high school level logic.

Rashagar.8349:

You equated “I like having multiple coordinated small groups being capable of outmaneuvering a blob” with “I want a 5v5 pvp map”, where it would be literally impossible on a 5v5 pvp map to have more than two tiny groups vs one slightly larger group. So no, they’re not the same.

Has never been said in that way or I missed it – and it’s pretty hard to be muliple groups of 15 on the DBL as every server has got 1 spawn – depending on what keeps they hold. So at some point they might still turn into a blob.

Rashagar.8349:

“DBL is not a strategic map”. If by that you mean that the strategies that are most optimal on alpine aren’t most optimal on desert then we agree, but you seem to be saying that the strategies that are most optimal on desert aren’t strategies and don’t belong in wvw as an equally valid play style, which is where I disagree. Strongly.

Apologies if this still isn’t as clear as I would have liked, it’s the first thing in the morning here.

I explained why the vanilla maps are strategical and why this is good.
In short: You’re forced to act if briar, lake, the two northern towers are held by the enemies. The enemy uses strategy, you use strategy – it doesn’t matter what you hold on the DBL because the objectives don’t interact with each other.
We could make this a huge discussion about the pros and cons of each map but that has already been done for a year.
The ABL isn’t perfect, EB isn’t perfect but every small change goes further away from what makes this maps great: strategy.

Good Morning then =)

Sarrs.4831:

If you have enemies, solo roaming is a pain on any WvW map. This is high school level logic.

It isn’t because I’m able to move faster on the vanilla maps, the DBL has got too many obstacles – the spawn alone is placed unfortunate as is NC – I can’t just run to NC to save it or to get some supply, it’s a journey. It’s better to be 2+ so you can either be rezzed if you died or your ally can rush to that camp to save it.

But alas, I’m a veteran with highschool logic.

Jana.6831:

Rashagar.8349:

You equated “I like having multiple coordinated small groups being capable of outmaneuvering a blob” with “I want a 5v5 pvp map”, where it would be literally impossible on a 5v5 pvp map to have more than two tiny groups vs one slightly larger group. So no, they’re not the same.

Has never been said in that way or I missed it – and it’s pretty hard to be muliple groups of 15 on the DBL as every server has got 1 spawn – depending on what keeps they hold. So at some point they might still turn into a blob.

Rashagar.8349:

“DBL is not a strategic map”. If by that you mean that the strategies that are most optimal on alpine aren’t most optimal on desert then we agree, but you seem to be saying that the strategies that are most optimal on desert aren’t strategies and don’t belong in wvw as an equally valid play style, which is where I disagree. Strongly.

Apologies if this still isn’t as clear as I would have liked, it’s the first thing in the morning here.

I explained why the vanilla maps are strategical and why this is good.
In short: You’re forced to act if briar, lake, the two northern towers are held by the enemies. The enemy uses strategy, you use strategy – it doesn’t matter what you hold on the DBL because the objectives don’t interact with each other.
We could make this a huge discussion about the pros and cons of each map but that has already been done for a year.
The ABL isn’t perfect, EB isn’t perfect but every small change goes further away from what makes this maps great: strategy.

Good Morning then =)

You missed it then hehe, speed reading has it’s costs.

As to your 2nd paragraph, we may be using different definitions of “strategy”. Because strategy is used in both border maps. It’s just that the effective strategies for alpine are more widely understood. If you can’t see a strategy for desert it doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist =P

Rashagar.8349:

You missed it then hehe, speed reading has it’s costs.

As to your 2nd paragraph, we may be using different definitions of “strategy”. Because strategy is used in both border maps. It’s just that the effective strategies for alpine are more widely understood. If you can’t see a strategy for desert it doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist =P

Then enlighten me, I’m always eager to learn – what strategy is there on the DBL?

Jana.6831:

It isn’t because I’m able to move faster on the vanilla maps, the DBL has got too many obstacles – the spawn alone is placed unfortunate as is NC – I can’t just run to NC to save it or to get some supply, it’s a journey.

If you know how to move around the map, you will have no difficulty reaching your targets in similar timeframes to what you would have on ABL. This is why I said that technical skill is required to navigate the map. If you understand how to move through the keeps and the north section you will be able to reach north camp quite quickly from either Garri or your spawn.
Besides, why do you think your DBL north camp should be as easy to defend as ABL north camp, considering it’s not as important to upgrade your objectives and supplies more PPT?

Jana.6831:

It’s better to be 2+ so you can either be rezzed if you died or your ally can rush to that camp to save it.

Of course it’s better to have more people. It always is and always has been. To say this is an acute weakness of DBL is absurd.
If your camps are so important to hold, you should leave someone there. In the modern game it is easy to get the cap bar filled by the time swords even appear on the objective.

Jana.6831:

But alas, I’m a veteran with highschool logic.

No, you’re missing the high school logic. When you have an equation with an identical element on both sides, you remove it. All WvW maps are more difficult when you have competition- so it’s not a fair complaint to level against DBL.

Sarrs: The point is I can cap and hold camps and objectives on my own on the vanilla maps – it’s very hard to do that on the DBLs because the map is full of obstacles, the objectives are too big and so on. It’s okay if you think otherwise but well, I won’t change my opinion on that. I’m mainly a solo roamer since I started playing wvw 3 years ago.

Rashagar.8349:

Where I disagree with some people is when they say dbl is unsuitable for “wvw play”, because invariably what they mean is that the alpine borderland solution isn’t the most optimal solution there, but that’s a good thing! I know that the alpine solution is comfortable and widely understood and has the weight of nostalgia behind it, but that’s not enough in the long term for a lot of people. Variety and options are needed.

Well you see the problem here is that you’re not supposed to have that kind of variety and options in the same game mode. We have sPvP, thats an option for those wanting small scale PvP. We have EoTM, thats variety under a different set of rules than WvW.

WvW is supposed to follow the same basic rules. EB is the gold standard – keeps protected by towers (and towers protected by the keeps). ABL trim down the scale and split the map into a defender area (garri+its two towers) and attacker area (keeps+their single tower) but it still follows the exact same mantra of connected objectives. That thin red thread that make you see the logic of the design.

DBL… well we dont even know wtf kind of rules it follows because it sure isnt WvW. None of the objectives are connected and its like a kitten 3-way split that doesnt give defenders any advantage.

Dawdler.8521:

Rashagar.8349:

Where I disagree with some people is when they say dbl is unsuitable for “wvw play”, because invariably what they mean is that the alpine borderland solution isn’t the most optimal solution there, but that’s a good thing! I know that the alpine solution is comfortable and widely understood and has the weight of nostalgia behind it, but that’s not enough in the long term for a lot of people. Variety and options are needed.

Well you see the problem here is that you’re not supposed to have that kind of variety and options in the same game mode. We have sPvP, thats an option for those wanting small scale PvP. We have EoTM, thats variety under a different set of rules than WvW.

WvW is supposed to follow the same basic rules. EB is the gold standard – keeps protected by towers (and towers protected by the keeps). ABL trim down the scale and split the map into a defender area (garri+its two towers) and attacker area (keeps+their single tower) but it still follows the exact same mantra of connected objectives. That thin red thread that make you see the logic of the design.

DBL… well we dont even know wtf kind of rules it follows because it sure isnt WvW. None of the objectives are connected and its like a kitten 3-way split that doesnt give defenders any advantage.

So you’re not someone that liked the idea of a possible 3rd borderland map then I take it? Cos I don’t know why you’d like the idea of it if you didn’t want it to add any variety or options to the game mode haha!

Dawdler.8521:

Well you see the problem here is that you’re not supposed to have that kind of variety and options in the same game mode. We have sPvP, thats an option for those wanting small scale PvP. We have EoTM, thats variety under a different set of rules than WvW.

But sPvP is the exact example that you don’t want to use, because Stronghold is miles away from Conquest yet they are both considered equally valid gametypes for the purposes of Ranked play.

DBL is just a different map. It has the same structure for scoring, with slightly different attributes for the locations which are relevant to the scoring. If you were to apply the same standards to ranked sPvP, which should be the most stringent gametype available, there would only be one ranked map available for play at any one time (every single map and their objectives have different properties)- but we have four, and a second gametype entirely.

Dawdler.8521:

WvW is supposed to follow the same basic rules. EB is the gold standard – keeps protected by towers (and towers protected by the keeps). ABL trim down the scale and split the map into a defender area (garri+its two towers) and attacker area (keeps+their single tower) but it still follows the exact same mantra of connected objectives. That thin red thread that make you see the logic of the design.

DBL… well we dont even know wtf kind of rules it follows because it sure isnt WvW. None of the objectives are connected and its like a kitten 3-way split that doesnt give defenders any advantage.

These are arbitrary map design elements that don’t have any bearing on the core mechanics on the map. Towers give score. Keeps give score. They both still provide strategic advantages, just different ones.

Here are the rules for a WvW map:
There are three teams in competition
There are objectives which give points

Here are the rules for a Borderlands map:
It has three keeps
It has four towers
It has six camps

DBL meets all of these criteria. It’s a qualified WvW Borderlands map.

Rashagar.8349:

Ok Jana, not trying to get between whatever’s going on here with you and Sarss but you did ask so I’m going to attempt to answer coherently, I’d appreciate it if you put similar effort into trying to understand what I’m saying and where I’m coming from.

You equated “I like having multiple coordinated small groups being capable of outmaneuvering a blob” with “I want a 5v5 pvp map”, where it would be literally impossible on a 5v5 pvp map to have more than two tiny groups vs one slightly larger group. So no, they’re not the same.

The bolded bit, however, is the part I find most disagreeable.
The way I see it:
Alpine borderlands have been essentially “solved” for a very long time, by which I mean people know the most optimal ways to do most things.
A certain play style has arisen around this solution. Not just where to place siege and routes between objectives but encompassing everything from zergs to havoc to solo roamers, where they act and what they do.
The desert borderlands are a different map, ie a different puzzle, with a slightly different solution.
Where I disagree with some people is when they say dbl is unsuitable for “wvw play”, because invariably what they mean is that the alpine borderland solution isn’t the most optimal solution there, but that’s a good thing! I know that the alpine solution is comfortable and widely understood and has the weight of nostalgia behind it, but that’s not enough in the long term for a lot of people. Variety and options are needed.

“DBL is not a strategic map”. If by that you mean that the strategies that are most optimal on alpine aren’t most optimal on desert then we agree, but you seem to be saying that the strategies that are most optimal on desert aren’t strategies and don’t belong in wvw as an equally valid play style, which is where I disagree. Strongly.

Apologies if this still isn’t as clear as I would have liked, it’s the first thing in the morning here.

This was very well said.

TheGrimm.5624:

This was very well said.

I’m still waiting on the explanation why the DBL is strategical after all though.

Sarrs.4831:

Dawdler.8521:

Well you see the problem here is that you’re not supposed to have that kind of variety and options in the same game mode. We have sPvP, thats an option for those wanting small scale PvP. We have EoTM, thats variety under a different set of rules than WvW.

But sPvP is the exact example that you don’t want to use, because Stronghold is miles away from Conquest yet they are both considered equally valid gametypes for the purposes of Ranked play.

DBL is just a different map. It has the same structure for scoring, with slightly different attributes for the locations which are relevant to the scoring. If you were to apply the same standards to ranked sPvP, which should be the most stringent gametype available, there would only be one ranked map available for play at any one time (every single map and their objectives have different properties)- but we have four, and a second gametype entirely.

Dawdler.8521:

WvW is supposed to follow the same basic rules. EB is the gold standard – keeps protected by towers (and towers protected by the keeps). ABL trim down the scale and split the map into a defender area (garri+its two towers) and attacker area (keeps+their single tower) but it still follows the exact same mantra of connected objectives. That thin red thread that make you see the logic of the design.

DBL… well we dont even know wtf kind of rules it follows because it sure isnt WvW. None of the objectives are connected and its like a kitten 3-way split that doesnt give defenders any advantage.

These are arbitrary map design elements that don’t have any bearing on the core mechanics on the map. Towers give score. Keeps give score. They both still provide strategic advantages, just different ones.

Here are the rules for a WvW map:
There are three teams in competition
There are objectives which give points

Here are the rules for a Borderlands map:
It has three keeps
It has four towers
It has six camps

DBL meets all of these criteria. It’s a qualified WvW Borderlands map.

I don’t know that there are any official rules for a WvW map, other than the first two that are the basis of the game mode. Sure Anet came up with a certain map design and layout but I see no reason they need to keep exactly the same layout from map to map.

And I do think the objectives need to have a purpose other than score. Because given how unbalanced the mode is, score is not sufficient to make capturing an objective feel worth it. The Keeps are worth a lot of score, plus they can have waypoints; this makes them valuable. Camps have a purpose – supply. Towers should have a purpose other than score too.

In the original design of DBL, towers did have a purpose. They had the waypoints. And there were the barricades. But the waypoints in the towers instead of the keeps made people feel like the keeps didn’t have enough purpose; a high score wasn’t enough. So the waypoints moved to the keeps and now the towers feel like they don’t have a purpose.

I disagree with people who say that the towers necessarily need to be within treb range of the keeps though. I think the DBL should have a different way of making giving the towers purpose rather than just copying ABL. Suggestions I have heard include:

• Give the tower a waypoint.
• The tower grants some bonus to the nearby keep. So that it will be valuable to own the tower if you own the keep, but it will also be valuable to take it if you want to attack the keep.

I’m sure there are others. And I think on the next round of changes Anet should implement something.

Jana.6831:

TheGrimm.5624:

This was very well said.

I’m still waiting on the explanation why the DBL is strategical after all though.

That’s quite easy.

It has structures that provide the major basis for scoring for the game mode that can be controlled by any side. It has camps that provide supply, it has towers that can be used as bases to cut off that supply, it has keeps that control large areas of the map and provide the most points. Earth keep allows quicker access to either of the other two keeps. Air/fire allow quicker access to east/west sides of map. South side of map is more exposed, but that like ABL, is part of the design.

This thread I think is showing the different mindsets.

Some people are fixated on how the towers interact with the keeps and others are looking at that regardless of their interaction they have value to be controlled because of scoring. You don’t have to control a tower to attack a keep in ABL, it just makes it easier if you want to attack from inside a fortified position. But that doesn’t mean you can’t also do that from atop a hill or in an open field surrounded by a zerg or against a wall.

The other purpose of towers in both ABL and DBL is a fall back point, somewhere to put your back against if you need it. Some where to stage or rally from. They have more value then camps so that also makes them more valuable.

Camps act like camps on both maps.

Even if the towers were used as a siege placement point the DBL keeps are large enough that even when you thru the outer you still have another layer. The outer and inner walls are more like the tower to keep relationship in ABL. A map v map zerg fight in Air this weekend showed that. If the enemy controls your outer wall it can be hard to dislodge them from pushing from inner. But controlling outer will allow you to siege inner.

DBL’s tower to keep relationship is closer to EoTM. I think that people that played EoTM in the past are less tied up with the concept that the towers are more distant to the keep. That relationship is not what defines WvW. WvW is about controlling the map and that is defined by the control of the structures on the map. Its not defined by where something is located on a map.

So…I think your biggest issue is you can’t use the towers to place siege in to attack a keep. There are 100 other ways to attack the larger DBL keeps at any way so……choose a different direction of attack.

Johje Holan.4607:

In the original design of DBL, towers did have a purpose. They had the waypoints. And there were the barricades. But the waypoints in the towers instead of the keeps made people feel like the keeps didn’t have enough purpose; a high score wasn’t enough. So the waypoints moved to the keeps and now the towers feel like they don’t have a purpose.

I disagree with people who say that the towers necessarily need to be within treb range of the keeps though. I think the DBL should have a different way of making giving the towers purpose rather than just copying ABL. Suggestions I have heard include:

• Give the tower a waypoint.
• The tower grants some bonus to the nearby keep. So that it will be valuable to own the tower if you own the keep, but it will also be valuable to take it if you want to attack the keep.

I’m sure there are others. And I think on the next round of changes Anet should implement something.

The WPs lost value once their bug has been fixed and you can’t port while a keep is being attacked anymore. They held a much higher value before.
The reason why WPs in the towers was a problem: Anet didn’t tell us what they wanted the DBLs to be like – tiny EBs in which all 3 servers are presented. We were too used to having the WPs in the keeps and it does make more sense as it makes the map smaller for whoever is holding a/the WPs.

I don’t know if a passive buff would be enough, maybe imminent danger is better. But actually I’d like a lot of what has been changed even on the vanilla maps to be changed back, like the most recent changes to the walls of WC – don’t dumb that mode down – it already has become pretty shallow as no one knows how to place and use siege anymore as all veterans are scratching their heads what anet did to their gamemode.

Dawdler.8521:

Well you see the problem here is that you’re not supposed to have that kind of variety and options in the same game mode. We have sPvP, thats an option for those wanting small scale PvP. We have EoTM, thats variety under a different set of rules than WvW.

WvW is supposed to follow the same basic rules. EB is the gold standard – keeps protected by towers (and towers protected by the keeps). ABL trim down the scale and split the map into a defender area (garri+its two towers) and attacker area (keeps+their single tower) but it still follows the exact same mantra of connected objectives. That thin red thread that make you see the logic of the design.

DBL… well we dont even know wtf kind of rules it follows because it sure isnt WvW. None of the objectives are connected and its like a kitten 3-way split that doesnt give defenders any advantage.

I thought you were joking with the first bit but after re-reading your not.

I am not sure I have every seen any official rules for WvW.

That said the only rules I would have assumed were that there is a weekly score that is made up of points for your side capturing and controlling objectives over time in addition to points for killing things like players and some npcs. That score is compiled from the score on 4 maps but could one day include more or less. Once upon a time that would have also implied that there were 3 servers in that fight, but that definition would now no longer be true but instead may need to be stated as 3 opposing sides of servers.

But I wouldn’t have assumed that any WvW rules included anything in relation to how a map was laid out apart from each side having a way to gain access to the map.

As far as EoTM, ANet just doesn’t have an answer they like on how to deal with the fact that the map has overflows and that the sides are mixed and therefore there is more of a challenge to include it in scoring. But nothing about the design of the map itself prevents it from being defined as WvW. It has scoring for capture & controlling and for killing other players. If the other bit could be worked out it could be added to the weekly scores and would play like EBG/ABL/DBL.

So no, WvW is not defined by where a tower or camp sits in regards to a keep or even if a map has to have a keep versus more towers. But maybe I missed how the game mode was sold to people during beta prior to game launch.

Johje Holan.4607:

In the original design of DBL, towers did have a purpose. They had the waypoints. And there were the barricades. But the waypoints in the towers instead of the keeps made people feel like the keeps didn’t have enough purpose; a high score wasn’t enough. So the waypoints moved to the keeps and now the towers feel like they don’t have a purpose.

I think you hit it here. There were posts during the design of this map asking that the towers be more of a roadblock since on ABL you could just ignore them and go right around. They were good for placing siege in, but they didn’t block an approach. That’s where the barricades came in. Now you could still bypass, but at a price of having to go much further around. But once those barricades were removed from the DBL towers to allow people quicker movement it now removed the tower’s role as a road block.

The strategies are still the same:

Check if keep is paper.
Check if is abandoned.
Check if have 2x than them.
Check cheap and easy places to take walls down, when ic design of places above a keep or castle to build sige…. castles in valeys… that can be bombarded by serveral places… everything is designed to make game easy for bad players and blobbers.

No matter what BL, or EB it is a Ktrain model…..

In this thread—

TheGrimm.5624:

I think you hit it here. There were posts during the design of this map asking that the towers be more of a roadblock since on ABL you could just ignore them and go right around. They were good for placing siege in, but they didn’t block an approach. That’s where the barricades came in. Now you could still bypass, but at a price of having to go much further around. But once those barricades were removed from the DBL towers to allow people quicker movement it now removed the tower’s role as a road block.

The problem with barricades is that they were completely worthless in barring zergs as they would just melt in seconds while making harder to small groups to go around because they would take forever to go down by just attacking them. And they would only take 10 supplies to be repaired to full (so if there was an enemy player behind it you could forget going throught for a while since he would problably be able to repair once, maybe twice).

We don’t need more stuff delaying small group play. It’s already almost impossible to take a upgraded structure that have ONE player defending with a small group. Thus why we asked the barricades to go.

I’m all in favor of adding a WP to all the towers in DBL as T3 upgrade (like it is on keeps). It give them some strategic value and is a much better concept than the treb wars concept we have in ABL and EBG.

Rotteny.8743:

The problem with barricades is that they were completely worthless in barring zergs as they would just melt in seconds while making harder to small groups to go around because they would take forever to go down by just attacking them. And they would only take 10 supplies to be repaired to full (so if there was an enemy player behind it you could forget going throught for a while since he would problably be able to repair once, maybe twice).

We don’t need more stuff delaying small group play. It’s already almost impossible to take a upgraded structure that have ONE player defending with a small group. Thus why we asked the barricades to go.

I’m all in favor of adding a WP to all the towers in DBL as T3 upgrade (like it is on keeps). It give them some strategic value and is a much better concept than the treb wars concept we have in ABL and EBG.

Sorry, I think I mis-implied something there. I agree, the barricades where more harmful to the smaller force and the zergs would mow through them. I was in favor or removing them and in favor that the towers should be points of control.

I go round and round on waypoints in towers. On one side I agree that would significantly increase their value. But does that remove value from the keep and remove the amount of fighting found in the open fields since people can blink forward to next area.

What if the the T3 towers added more roaming partols that had both a snare and the ability to detect/report like the sentries that extended the range of the tower detection by another 50-100% coverage? They could then act as bigger blocks to yaks, alert your side to enemy presence and slow but not stop enemy forces. That way the towers could then return to their role as a slow down to be bypassed, addressed or act as a hindrance if not assaulted. Thoughts?

I like that idea.

TheGrimm.5624:

I go round and round on waypoints in towers. On one side I agree that would significantly increase their value. But does that remove value from the keep and remove the amount of fighting found in the open fields since people can blink forward to next area.

Just because they can blink to the next area doesn’t mean they won’t be found in the open. After all, it’s not ABL. You cannot just set up a few trebs inside a tower and siege another objective from the safety of your walls. You are forced to be in the open if you are to advance in the map.

Sure, keep lose some of their value since the waypoints will no longer be exclusive. But what is harder to take? A tower or a keep? Even T3 towers flips in seconds to omniblobs if you cannot respond instantly to it. Keeps however do not. So, a Keep Waypoint still outvalue a Tower Waypoint merely for the fact it is likely to last longer.

Besides, you still need to get these towers to T3 to give them a waypoint, so there will be a lot of fighting over the camps in the open and assaults against the structures before they upgrade.

TheGrimm.5624:

What if the the T3 towers added more roaming partols that had both a snare and the ability to detect/report like the sentries that extended the range of the tower detection by another 50-100% coverage? They could then act as bigger blocks to yaks, alert your side to enemy presence and slow but not stop enemy forces. That way the towers could then return to their role as a slow down to be bypassed, addressed or act as a hindrance if not assaulted. Thoughts?

This will be just another thing that will hinder small groups while not affecting a zerg. Have you ever fought a T3 gate guards + patrols while they have Iron Guards on a small group? It’s already bad enough as it is. Having MORE guards added will just add more of what everyone complains to be a nuissance in WvW: More “PvE”.

The towers already block yaks and can work as sentries anyway. They need another role, and I feel that roadblock isn’t a good one as it will always hurt more small groups while being completely bypassed by zerg. Also, making the roadblock big enough to annoy a zerg it will problably be nigh impossible for a small group to bypass (In the first DBL beta, the barricades were actually full walls that upgraded just as the tower walls. You can still see them on the map.)

This because I’m sick of DBL

I love dbl for solo/small group roaming and would miss it immensely

I’m sick of everybody being sick of DBL. I preferably play on DBL but feel a huge uselessness because everybody else’s attitude towards DBL is made of ignorance and indifference.

I used to kind of enjoy it. Especially since I basically only roam. Now I just have a negative attitude towards it as there are so many siege spots on the map that are just ridiculous and almost impossible to defend against. Much harder to siege up a keep properly imo. The landscape is terrible, at least they improved the Earth keep shrine with those rocks being gone. I think the mobility on the shrines is silly. Trying to knock people off cliffs near Air keep is just absolutely silly too. It’s not ignorance at all. I’ve played the map A LOT.

I believe you have your reasons and I don’t judge them. But, to put it crudely, playing on DBL means being alone and knowing it means being overqualified. By the way, I don’t completely agree to what you say about siege. Don’t you think ABL has difficult spots too (trebs in one of the towers being the cheapest examples)?

Ychiju.7960:

By the way, I don’t completely agree to what you say about siege. Don’t you think ABL has difficult spots too (trebs in one of the towers being the cheapest examples)?

Which is why ABL works for WvW.

Is your bay being trebbed by SW tower? Well then you need to attack SW tower. And you probably need to secure that camp as well. Scouts see everything going on here. This create a whole active battlezone in that corner of the map, both inside and outside the objectives.

On DBL, who cares about the camp or the tower. Bay is too far anyway. The tower cant siege bay, no need to secure it. Need to go past bay? Lol just go on top, no ones gonna see you. Or go next to the walls for that matter chances are no one gonna see you anyway due to clutter. A battlezone does not exist, not inside or outside the objectives.

On DBL you cap objectives for the sake of PPT.

On ABL you do WvW.

Dawdler.8521:

The tower cant siege bay

The camp can. It’s undefendable. Nobody seems to know or care.
But anyway, I get your point, it sounds reasonable.

Map needs replaced simply for the fact that most people will not play on it. You only have to look at kills made on each border on each MU to see that red is vastly underplayed by the WvW population.

Yes, many people like it and there are some nice parts of it but on the whole it is not fun (personally speaking) to play and the majority of wvw players certainly seem to be in agreement

Ychiju.7960:

Dawdler.8521:

The tower cant siege bay

The camp can. It’s undefendable. Nobody seems to know or care.
But anyway, I get your point, it sounds reasonable.

Thanks for this, we’re now trebbing FSP bay as I type.

The poll was open to anyone to vote including players who don’t play world vs world. They gave players who hardly have experience in WvW as much say as players who played it 6+ hours a day for 4 years.

I am glad that some people who play it got their way, but the rest of the players who voted for it never cared or were never part of the wvw comuunity where are they now?

There should of been a poll that asked how much desert BL killed the game I am sure that would go over 65%.
The vote was way Less than 75% it was 65%

I have never seen 65% of wvw players in desert BL it is more like 5% guys.

I’m getting kittening tired of being stuck with DBL as the home map. 8 out of the last 10 weeks. Rotation and randomness is a joke. DBL is a sloppy, poorly designed map for wvw, plain and simple.

Warlord.9074:

I have never seen 65% of wvw players in desert BL it is more like 5% guys.

I don’t know how accurate wvwintel is. But if it’s accurate you a pretty wrong.

Kills are much lower than on alpine borderlands, but far away form 5%. It’s more like 50%.

Personally I like the desert borderlands.

(Screen shows the current matchup between Kodash, Baruch Bay and Augury Rock)

Please get rid of Desert BL. All those weeks when it is the home border, it is much less fun and less fights.

Anet, keeping the dream alive

I find it a very weird design to have 2 alpines and 1 dbl. To me it should be 2 weeks of 3 abl and 1 week of dbl so all 3 servers gets the same maps at the same time.

I find the best use of DBL is for when I don’t want to see any other players at all- I can have a wonder around, maybe slap a yew yaks, and after 10-15 minutes of utter boredom get on a map with some people or go play another game.

Since they got rid of those idiotic rocks popping up in front of me and added the ruins, I actually don’t mind playing on that map now. I’d still rather play on Alpine, but my group has been finding a decent amount of fights in red BL even in T4.

Now they just need to get rid of that mist stuff that stealths enemies and I think it will be golden.

KrHome.1920:

Warlord.9074:

I have never seen 65% of wvw players in desert BL it is more like 5% guys.

I don’t know how accurate wvwintel is. But if it’s accurate you a pretty wrong.

Kills are much lower than on alpine borderlands, but far away form 5%. It’s more like 50%.

Personally I like the desert borderlands.

(Screen shows the current matchup between Kodash, Baruch Bay and Augury Rock)

Well there you go! Sorry but many national servers love to try and blob that map for easy caps usually. The international servers I rarely see there. Check out the international server MUs and screenshot those over here.

KrHome.1920:

Warlord.9074:

I have never seen 65% of wvw players in desert BL it is more like 5% guys.

I don’t know how accurate wvwintel is. But if it’s accurate you a pretty wrong.

Kills are much lower than on alpine borderlands, but far away form 5%. It’s more like 50%.

Personally I like the desert borderlands.

(Screen shows the current matchup between Kodash, Baruch Bay and Augury Rock)

I think that its less than 50%, so less than a simple majority. Thus I am right and other people are wrong.

KrHome.1920:

Warlord.9074:

I have never seen 65% of wvw players in desert BL it is more like 5% guys.

I don’t know how accurate wvwintel is. But if it’s accurate you a pretty wrong.

Kills are much lower than on alpine borderlands, but far away form 5%. It’s more like 50%.

Personally I like the desert borderlands.

(Screen shows the current matchup between Kodash, Baruch Bay and Augury Rock)

Assumption #1: Kills roughly equals “activity”.

Assumption #2: The numbers are decently accurate (though snapshot halfway through a matchup) and my kindergarten level math isnt quite as off as usual.

Reality (some rounding done, DBL kills out of all 3 border kills):
EU T1 – 4492 out of 33042 kills, or 14%
EU T2 – 8175 out of 40608 kills, or 20%
EU T3 – 7464 out of 37342 kills, or 20%
EU T4 – 5614 out of 23768 kills, or 23%
EU T5 – 7662 out of 31889 kills, or 24%

= An average 80% of the borderland WvW activity is going on the two ABLs.

So you’re right, not 5%.

Still loving DBL. Obliterating all those clowns who don’t know the terrain.

Dawdler.8521:

KrHome.1920:

Warlord.9074:

I have never seen 65% of wvw players in desert BL it is more like 5% guys.

I don’t know how accurate wvwintel is. But if it’s accurate you a pretty wrong.

Kills are much lower than on alpine borderlands, but far away form 5%. It’s more like 50%.

Personally I like the desert borderlands.

(Screen shows the current matchup between Kodash, Baruch Bay and Augury Rock)

Assumption #1: Kills roughly equals “activity”.

Assumption #2: The numbers are decently accurate (though snapshot halfway through a matchup) and my kindergarten level math isnt quite as off as usual.

Reality (some rounding done, DBL kills out of all 3 border kills):
EU T1 – 4492 out of 33042 kills, or 14%
EU T2 – 8175 out of 40608 kills, or 20%
EU T3 – 7464 out of 37342 kills, or 20%
EU T4 – 5614 out of 23768 kills, or 23%
EU T5 – 7662 out of 31889 kills, or 24%

= An average 80% of the borderland WvW activity is going on the two ABLs.

So you’re right, not 5%.

So this means

40% kills on blue borderlands
40% kills on green borderlands
20% kills on red borderlands

which results in 50% less kills on red borderlands.

Right?

XTR.9604:

Since they got rid of those idiotic rocks popping up in front of me and added the ruins, I actually don’t mind playing on that map now. I’d still rather play on Alpine, but my group has been finding a decent amount of fights in red BL even in T4.

Now they just need to get rid of that mist stuff that stealths enemies and I think it will be golden.

The mist stuff that stealths is also gone. It’s been done in the very same release. The mist in itself is still here, but it doesn’t stealth anymore. Yet, it prevents “you” (i.e. if you don’t own the keep and ruins) from using stealth.

ThomasC.1056:

The mist stuff that stealths is also gone. It’s been done in the very same release. The mist in itself is still here, but it doesn’t stealth anymore. Yet, it prevents “you” (i.e. if you don’t own the keep and ruins) from using stealth.

You gain stability and protection now instead of stealth.

Just check one of the NA matches: There are, as of right now (according to wvwintel) 59,337 total kills in the match. Of which only 5741 are in the DBL – so 9.7%.

That’s bad. Really bad. Oddly, the top tier in NA only has 33059 total kills, and 3556 in the DBL – 10.7%. So few kills also doesn’t bode well…not for tier 1.

misterman.1530:

That’s bad. Really bad. Oddly, the top tier in NA only has 33059 total kills, and 3556 in the DBL – 10.7%. So few kills also doesn’t bode well…not for tier 1.

No zerg fights, just karma train. xD

ThomasC.1056:

XTR.9604:

Since they got rid of those idiotic rocks popping up in front of me and added the ruins, I actually don’t mind playing on that map now. I’d still rather play on Alpine, but my group has been finding a decent amount of fights in red BL even in T4.

Now they just need to get rid of that mist stuff that stealths enemies and I think it will be golden.

The mist stuff that stealths is also gone. It’s been done in the very same release. The mist in itself is still here, but it doesn’t stealth anymore. Yet, it prevents “you” (i.e. if you don’t own the keep and ruins) from using stealth.

Ah good to know, thanks. I saw it revealing my group, so I assumed it still stealthed.