Guild Wars 2

One of my guild mates pointed this out and I think he is right. On the Alpin Borderlands every tower has some tactical importance that includes not just hoarding supplies.

On alpin Borderlands:
Spawn tower left: You can open the Bay with a treb from there.
Spawn tower right: It’s on the direct way from spawn to the hill.
West and East tower: Allow you to spot enemies early, if they plan to attack your garrison from the north. You can open the garrison with trebs from there.

All these towers have some tactical use or position while on the desert borderland their only use seems to be hoarding supplies. Also they are pretty big, which makes them harder to defend with few people.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Desert Borderland, but since I noticed the uselessness of the towers, it really bugs me.

Which is one of the many reasons why people don’t like the design of DBL.

That’s because the Deserted BL was originally going to be a pve map (next to Wastes was my guess) but then they didn’t need it. Then they decided to adapt it for wvw- but forgot gliding wasn’t happening in wvw (too much effort to program in).

So we ended up with a pve event in the middle (now thankfully gone), large spaces which serve no purpose, vertical drops (no purpose) and towers thrown on a map that was never designed for them, and then made too big and complicated so a small force can capture them without anyone even noticing- but it doesn’t matter, as none of the towers affect any of the others so why would anyone care?

The only reason it’s stayed is because the option was worded in such a way that most who voted read it as ‘vote to keep it or we’ll never make another wvw map’.

Of course, since then they haven’t made another map anyway..or dealt with the core issues of wvw.

Instead they brought in the badly thought out pip system to keep the bandwagonners aiming for something for the net quarter in the hope that numbers in wvw improve.

Already, we’ve seen numbers almost back to pre PIP levels on some servers after an initial surge as people realise that for your average player, getting 175 tickets a week is a full time job.

They had tactical importance when barriers were still in place, but they removed them becouse people complained about them.

The towers originally had walls attached that would cut off access to some map routes to those who didn’t own the tower. They were incredibly effective at controlling map access. Some people complained, however, and the walls were downgraded to barricades which did not get stronger as the tower tiered up. People kept complaining and the barricades were removed too.

So, yes, DBL towers had a more clear purpose but it has since been largely removed. They’re not just PPT fodder, though.

For the northern towers, they’re needed to get supplies from NWC/NEC into Rampart. They can also give excellent visibility with Watchtower upgrades. The southern towers can also benefit from Watchtower, but it’s not worth the trouble unless you’re able to upgrade them.

There’s no sense listening to people who claim the map was meant for PvE or that there was never any point to the towers. The facts simply do not support such speculation.

Anet saw how towers were used on ABL and saw that the blob vs outmanned case happened more frequently than the other way around. Safe sieging from a tower made it far more difficult to hold anything since the outmanned group had to somehow wrest a tower out from a babysitting blob just to get to their siege. Meanwhile, when the outmanned group staged an assault from a tower, it was quickly overrun by the blob. Thus, sieges were moved into the open field where an outmanned group could as least get to them. At the same time, the map was made less of an open field so that outmanned groups had a chance to hit objectives without being spotted from enemy citadel.

I don’t think Anet does everything right, but even when they do, it gets shouted down by zerglings and teabag heroes.

Actually, Alpine SET is the worst tower of any map. You can’t put a treb up and hit a keep and a treb In hills will make swiss cheese of the walls.

Sviel.7493:

The towers originally had walls attached that would cut off access to some map routes to those who didn’t own the tower. They were incredibly effective at controlling map access. Some people complained, however, and the walls were downgraded to barricades which did not get stronger as the tower tiered up. People kept complaining and the barricades were removed too.

I had enemies helping me getting down the barricades. I left my chars there auto attacking that thing while I went afk for 5 mins – how much fun is that?
You can just block acess to the map – even better control over who enters the map.
Or you can be smart about it.
On a sidenote: Can we please get rid of the DBL for good?

Swamurabi.7890:

Actually, Alpine SET is the worst tower of any map. You can’t put a treb up and hit a keep and a treb In hills will make swiss cheese of the walls.

No idea what is the worst tower on any map, butI can tell you: You can hit Garri from NE and NW tower, also hit NW and NE tower from Garri, you can hit Hills from SE tower and bay from SW tower. SE can be hit from hills, SW can’t be hit from bay though.
I think that’s pretty okay/more that one could hope for on the DBL.

As Sviel stated, the first purpose of towers was to control access to some areas with walls and barricades. If you didn’t own the towers, you had to walk around them, i.e. take the long way. That wasn’t impossible of course, and took far less work than getting the barricade down on your own.

I also think, but I’m really not sure about it, that towers were intended to get the waypoints, instead of keeps.

Anyway, these ideas had their own logic which can be argued upon. Unfortunately, as that logic was impairing the k-train’s movement, it’s been broadly despised, and they were removed, letting the towers in their current state.

I think that they could get back some interest if towers connected each other through a teleporting system NE-NW-SW-SE-NE etc. As the devs put this idea in keep’s shrines, it has very few odds to appear, though.

If you remember, the south towers on dbl were originally the waypointed structures for there, not the side keeps, they were suppose to be the quick port to access the middle part of the map especially when the cannon event was up. North towers never had any real purpose (even with the barriers), other than trying to avoid the stupid earth crap around garrison.

ThomasC.1056:

As Sviel stated, the first purpose of towers was to control access to some areas with walls and barricades. If you didn’t own the towers, you had to walk around them, i.e. take the long way. That wasn’t impossible of course, and took far less work than getting the barricade down on your own.

I also think, but I’m really not sure about it, that towers were intended to get the waypoints, instead of keeps.

Anyway, these ideas had their own logic which can be argued upon. Unfortunately, as that logic was impairing the k-train’s movement, it’s been broadly despised, and they were removed, letting the towers in their current state.

I think that they could get back some interest if towers connected each other through a teleporting system NE-NW-SW-SE-NE etc. As the devs put this idea in keep’s shrines, it has very few odds to appear, though.

I like your idea. It sure beats the “remove the map altogether” mantra you hear from some people. It’s a great map in many ways. So what if you can’t treb a keep from a tower or vice versa? Real world scenarios never had that, or rarely did at least to my understanding. You’d march your armies for miles and for months to get to an enemy keep. Anyway, I appreciate ideas like yours which focus on what could be done to improve the existing map. I also appreciate Anet’s attempt on this map and really wished the players didn’t bash it as badly as they did and still do. I think Anet would be wise to first introduce any new maps in EoTM fro players to test out, and I think it would be cool if maybe they had a map design contest to see if those players could come up with anything better.

Yes, it was the towers which had the WPs – Anet intended us to play like we’re playing now: All 3 fractions are present on all maps. But it did disadvantage the ones who’s borderland it was and the barricades, probably set up to adjust that, disadvantaged single players/small groups because you better have to have supply to get through the barricades/walls.
Whatever they intended it wasn’t smart, sorry.

Swamurabi.7890:

Actually, Alpine SET is the worst tower of any map. You can’t put a treb up and hit a keep and a treb In hills will make swiss cheese of the walls.

Set, sec, hills, and sentry make an obnoxiously easy defensive area for the server that controls that spawn.

Justine.6351:

Swamurabi.7890:

Actually, Alpine SET is the worst tower of any map. You can’t put a treb up and hit a keep and a treb In hills will make swiss cheese of the walls.

Set, sec, hills, and sentry make an obnoxiously easy defensive area for the server that controls that spawn.

But if that side loses hills they might as well move to another map.

Which is fine from a map design standpoint. The problem comes when the hills spawn side server just doesn’t have the players to defend their third of EBG, their home BL AND their hills side spawn. The bay spawn map usually is the first to be given up as a lost cause. Then that server just defends home and EBG.

They should really rethink the population problem and only have two maps. One for the top server to defend and EGB, since the newly full servers will never have as many players as the overstacked full servers. Give hills spawn to the weaker of the three server.

Fun fact: people used to complain on this forum that trebs could be set up at northern towers on Alpine and hit the garrison. That enemy servers would just sit inside there and not come out to fight because they could just treb safely inside.

Jana.6831:

I had enemies helping me getting down the barricades. I left my chars there auto attacking that thing while I went afk for 5 mins – how much fun is that?
You can just block acess to the map – even better control over who enters the map.
Or you can be smart about it.
On a sidenote: Can we please get rid of the DBL for good?

It took me 40-90 seconds to take down a barricade without siege, though even that was excessive considering that they only took 20 supply to fully repair. With a catapult, it took like 2 hits. I usually just walked around them, though. A single person can avoid being funneled whereas a zerg may want to avoid the side roads as they tend to have more dangerous chokes.

Also, and I’m a little afraid to ask, what would being smart about it look like to you?

Sviel.7493:

what would being smart about it look like to you?

EB
It would be a rehash of Eternal Battlegrounds, the most popular map for a reason.

All the environmental effects and falling to your death are major flaws of DB: and EotM
The map doesn’t need to be a star, the combat is,

LetoII.3782:

Sviel.7493:

what would being smart about it look like to you?

EB
It would be a rehash of Eternal Battlegrounds, the most popular map for a reason.

All the environmental effects and falling to your death are major flaws of DB: and EotM
The map doesn’t need to be a star, the combat is,

Yeah, seems like catering to mindless zerging would’ve been the best approach. Being aware of your surroundings interferes too much with the combat experience.

Nana.9512:

One of my guild mates pointed this out and I think he is right. On the Alpin Borderlands every tower has some tactical importance that includes not just hoarding supplies.

On alpin Borderlands:
Spawn tower left: You can open the Bay with a treb from there.
Spawn tower right: It’s on the direct way from spawn to the hill.
West and East tower: Allow you to spot enemies early, if they plan to attack your garrison from the north. You can open the garrison with trebs from there.

All these towers have some tactical use or position while on the desert borderland their only use seems to be hoarding supplies. Also they are pretty big, which makes them harder to defend with few people.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Desert Borderland, but since I noticed the uselessness of the towers, it really bugs me.

I love the Desert BL but you’re right, tactically both south towers have zero reason other than to be ‘near’ the enemy spawn.

Would I move Garri to the middle? Yep, I just might.

LetoII.3782:

Sviel.7493:

what would being smart about it look like to you?

EB
It would be a rehash of Eternal Battlegrounds, the most popular map for a reason.

All the environmental effects and falling to your death are major flaws of DB: and EotM
The map doesn’t need to be a star, the combat is,

What environmental effects, specifically? As for falling to your death, is there any area in particular that gives you trouble?

EBG ‘works’ because it’s a 3v3 with a center objective. It would not work as a borderland. Even if it did, having multiple EBGs would severely hamper how well the map worked. Unlike the borderlands, EBG is very difficult to do much on if you’re outnumbered. There’s not enough space to do anything other than clash over and over—which is fine, for that map.

Borders have always supported a different mode of play from EBG. Removing that would not be smart.

Swamurabi.7890:

Actually, Alpine SET is the worst tower of any map. You can’t put a treb up and hit a keep and a treb In hills will make swiss cheese of the walls.

Which is exactly the point that drives WvW. When the invaders cap the border tower, hills automaticly become a priority target because its a major threat to the tower. Without hills, the tower is always in danger. This create a zone of conflict in that area when the two objectives are held by different sides.

When a tower on DBL is captured, no one gives a flying kitten because its not threatened by anything nor do they create any particular zone of conflict.

Chaba.5410:

Fun fact: people used to complain on this forum that trebs could be set up at northern towers on Alpine and hit the garrison. That enemy servers would just sit inside there and not come out to fight because they could just treb safely inside.

And in response, home defenders started setting up spawn seige to take down the walls of those towers to force the enemies out. Guess what happened next? Yep, the tower hugging enemies got Anet to veto spawn seige because it was unfair, so to this day enemies can still camp those towers and treb Garri to their hearts content and unless you have a couple of dozen people, there’s very little you can do about it.

HazyDaisy.4107:

Chaba.5410:

Fun fact: people used to complain on this forum that trebs could be set up at northern towers on Alpine and hit the garrison. That enemy servers would just sit inside there and not come out to fight because they could just treb safely inside.

And in response, home defenders started setting up spawn seige to take down the walls of those towers to force the enemies out. Guess what happened next? Yep, the tower hugging enemies got Anet to veto spawn seige because it was unfair, so to this day enemies can still camp those towers and treb Garri to their hearts content and unless you have a couple of dozen people, there’s very little you can do about it.

Remember when you could treb Bay from Garrison? Good times.

Ish, I saw it once before it went away.

Sviel.7493:

Jana.6831:

I had enemies helping me getting down the barricades. I left my chars there auto attacking that thing while I went afk for 5 mins – how much fun is that?
You can just block acess to the map – even better control over who enters the map.
Or you can be smart about it.
On a sidenote: Can we please get rid of the DBL for good?

It took me 40-90 seconds to take down a barricade without siege, though even that was excessive considering that they only took 20 supply to fully repair. With a catapult, it took like 2 hits. I usually just walked around them, though. A single person can avoid being funneled whereas a zerg may want to avoid the side roads as they tend to have more dangerous chokes.

Also, and I’m a little afraid to ask, what would being smart about it look like to you?

Took a bit longer than that to take down a barricade. It also meant small roamers etc would have to take these things down before moving on- or walk around them. They were also ‘porous’ to a couple of classes who could just go over them in certain spots. You either stood there for 5 minutes trying to knock it down, or if more than one of you, build a catapult and then have to visit a supply before you could move on and set up a catapult with your ninja buddy- which meant a long return trip.

The barriers contributed nothing other than annoyance to the vast majority.

The barriers were supposed to be a hindrance. It would have been better if they were walls as they would not have been ‘porous’ and would have been consistent in their job across classes, but oh well.

Your hyperbolic complaints about them belie their effectiveness.

The way to fix middle desert BL/home towers (towers can see portal area) would be to put portals in the middle portion of the map that transported near to the NE, NW, and S camps of the map. It would make the desert BL map travel times smaller and allow for greater use of the big blank area in the middle.

Barriers were badly designed ideas. Chokes/higher-level terrain on sides advantage are much better and serve the same purpose. If you need a temporary wall, your side can build shield generators.

That being said, highly vertical terrain is generally badly implemented in this game when it comes to WvW. There are too many advantages for teleport-based classes and defensive placed siege. It basically discourages player on player battles even when one can see others since vertical differences requires large side tracks to just meet the enemy. Hay bales are too few and should be everywhere. And there also needs to be jump pads everywhere to return to those same areas too from below.

Personally I like that it is this way. Makes it more fun imho.

People are to use to the EBG and AB one level thinking. That is the huge flaw with those BL’s. On the DBL, then southern towers are staging towers for attacks on Air and Five Keeps. Same can be said for northern towers. They are all key for controlling supply camps, which would choke the Major Keeps.

People need to think more strategically.

High DPS classes could take the barriers down quickly. Besides, you didn’t have to destroy them, there was never one at mid sentry in the south, you could just walk past if you didnt want to bother with them.

Sviel.7493:

The barriers were supposed to be a hindrance. It would have been better if they were walls as they would not have been ‘porous’ and would have been consistent in their job across classes, but oh well.

Your hyperbolic complaints about them belie their effectiveness.

A hindrance/annoyance to roamers or small groups, but not to zergs, and the point of the map was to break up or hinder those bigger groups.

Dusty Moon.4382:

People are to use to the EBG and AB one level thinking. That is the huge flaw with those BL’s. On the DBL, then southern towers are staging towers for attacks on Air and Five Keeps. Same can be said for northern towers. They are all key for controlling supply camps, which would choke the Major Keeps.

People need to think more strategically.

Do you like, take your group to the towers and go through a hour long strategic meeting of the upcoming siege of the nearby keep?

I always got the impression that Anet designed each objective in the DBL to be a succinct event for whatever reason. Unfortunately for them, players love map control and objective cohesion, hence why this is one of the many reasons people do not like the map.

I do remember the Southern towers had destructible barricades attached to them that blocked off certain paths, but they just made things more tedious for roamers whilst having no impact on zerg movements at all. Maybe that was the point, but ultimately the game didn’t need more ways to make zerging the only appealing gameplay style for WvW.

Nevaahe.6308:

High DPS classes could take the barriers down quickly. Besides, you didn’t have to destroy them, there was never one at mid sentry in the south, you could just walk past if you didnt want to bother with them.

No, high power classes could take them down, no one else could. This was before condi did anything against structures. It basicly crippled certain solo or small group players against it while a zerg pushed 1 once and they where through. Its was unfair and pointless, encouraging zergs and punishing roamers. And yes, you had to destroy most of them because Anet bugfixed the ability to bypass them (except that one east of garri which you could only go through north to south). Going the long way around also encouraged roamers never to meet and fight, as the ones holding it took the portals through.

Almost everything was wrong with the barricades and it was one of the most horrible features ever introduced to WvW, if not the most.

But granted, at least they didnt lag the entire map.

Multi-hit skills did a disproportionately large amount of damage to barricades, which allowed even low power classes to take them down. However, it was possible to have a skill/build combination that was far less effective than others.

Barricades were still more of an issue for roamers than zergs, in terms of going through them, though I’m not sure why people were so adamant about going through them in the first place. The walls that preceded barricades had a clearer purpose and were more even in their application of it.

For roamers, you could attack the tower without taking down the wall, so there were no supply issues. If your goal was a camp beyond the wall, using supply would again be a non-issue. If you absolutely had to re-sup, for some reason, it was less than 30s to the nearest camp from any barricade.

The sole purpose of the walls was to make it easier to track enemies. One person could watch the Oasis and another could watch the area south of each side keep. Maintaining control of the sentries at these points was key. Maintaining control of the southern towers was also useful. Roamers could still sneak over the western dunes or eastern plateaus without detection, so they still had more cover than any part of ABL. Zergs could do the same, but there would be ample warning before they could hit Rampart and sentries prevented them from hitting northern towers. The side/north ends of the side keeps were also possible to reach.

In short, the walls (before barricades) focused activity into certain parts of the map and created flashpoints of extra strategic importance at the towers. One can argue that it was inconvenient, but the map does miss that component.

Desert BL is just a bad map because logistically in getting anywhere its excessively distance+obstacles, and no point to getting there.

camps and shrines are the only tactical structures and shrines are totally unnecessary feature that makes the game even more detestable when you don’t own them and they are totally unnecessary. to have put in the game.

it’s a beautiful map but is just too wide and too far. wvw maps ought to be designed like alpine as the standard or eb

While you can’t visibly see point B from point A on DBL, there are not actually any obstacles in the path between the two. Run times between objects do vary from ABL, but they are not uniformly longer. Running between camps is about the same. Camps to towers are about the same too. Keep to keep is about 20-30s longer. Citadel to Garrison is slightly shorter. On each of these paths, there is a clearly marked road with no cliff jumps or other shenanigans.

For more info, see: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Offensive-Small-Team-Play-Alpine-vs-Desert/first#post6076340

or: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Defensive-Zerg-Play-Alpine-vs-Desert/first#post6079423

Please stop trotting out these old and thoroughly debunked claims. They’re not helpful.