Guild Wars 2

Parthis.2091:

Devon, can you share anything we may see in the short term? No dates, no time scales, just what exactly is the focus of the WvW development team at the moment? Is a new WvW map planned this year? Or is it on the development plan for next year?

they are currently hard at work to add “PvE Mastery” to the wxp line,

1% more dmg verse pve mobs
2% more dmg verse pve mobs
etc.

not sure about you but im pretty excited

Parthis.2091:

“New PvP Map – Skyhammer”

… and another new s/tPvP map comes with another patch. Grats to the few people who play sPvP. Anet’s obsession with this game being an eSport is getting baaaaaaad.

I’m thoroughly sick of this kitten.

WvW has a playerbase 100x larger than sPvP, yet sPvP has 7 maps, with 3 new maps since release. WvW has had the same 2 maps since release with zero updates.

And for people that want to use the excuse that WvW maps are larger and take more time, look at the amount of detail work in the latest sPvP map, and compare that to EB.

The map is the least of my concerns. The game itself is stale and the entire WvW ruleset doesn’t lend itself to strategic play, variety, or ‘fun’. While a great deal of the issues we’re seeing with zerging and stale gameplay is a result of the maps themselves, any new map will be boring within a few months too if something isn’t done to make WvW exciting again.

Atherakhia.4086:

The map is the least of my concerns. The game itself is stale and the entire WvW ruleset doesn’t lend itself to strategic play, variety, or ‘fun’. While a great deal of the issues we’re seeing with zerging and stale gameplay is a result of the maps themselves, any new map will be boring within a few months too if something isn’t done to make WvW exciting again.

2 things i think would help with this:

1) the maps need to be waaaaay bigger. this would make it so zergs couldn’t dominate the map. the maps need to be at least big enough so that you couldn’t treb a keep/tower from the safety of another keep/tower. something like 10 minutes to run from edge to edge rather than 2 would be good imo.

2) WXP rewards need to be a set amount divided among the number of people capturing the objective (or killing the player). this would encourage smaller group action because smaller groups would get more wxp per player than larger ones for the same objective.

mcarswell.3768:

Atherakhia.4086:

The map is the least of my concerns. The game itself is stale and the entire WvW ruleset doesn’t lend itself to strategic play, variety, or ‘fun’. While a great deal of the issues we’re seeing with zerging and stale gameplay is a result of the maps themselves, any new map will be boring within a few months too if something isn’t done to make WvW exciting again.

2 things i think would help with this:

1) the maps need to be waaaaay bigger. this would make it so zergs couldn’t dominate the map. the maps need to be at least big enough so that you couldn’t treb a keep/tower from the safety of another keep/tower. something like 10 minutes to run from edge to edge rather than 2 would be good imo.

2) WXP rewards need to be a set amount divided among the number of people capturing the objective (or killing the player). this would encourage smaller group action because smaller groups would get more wxp per player than larger ones for the same objective.

With bigger maps comes the need to transport players from one location to another. Now I personally would love to see siege tanks and humvees and such, I’m not sure it’s within ANet’s ability to introduce fun things like this.

Now as for WXP, I find the whole mechanic worthless regardless. Same with grouping as all you need to do is keep the blue dorrito within site and you’re fine.

Some reason to group and something for groups to do would be my first objective when trying to add things to WvW. But general issues like population and coverage imbalance, nothing but zerg combat being rewarded and encouraged, and a complete lack of things to do during a siege but auto-attack a door would be high on my list.

Like Forty Seven Ninjas.6982:

Frankly, I think the coolest thing ever would be that each boardelands was a bit different according to lore. For example, Northern Shiverpeaks would be mountainy, snowy, and overall frozen where as Crystal desert would be deserty…..and well crystally…. I understand that would require a ton of polish, but It would REALLY make these matches completely different and would give each borderland a different feel.

This! If this were the case and have 3-4 different designs of EB that would be cool.

hint: remember, SMALL lord room = Insane lag ( we are fighting with 3 servers = 200×3.

First of all I agree with what your saying here. I know a lot of places on the 2 different maps that would make the chance of my zerg winning against an other zerg 2 times as big. It is because of the amount of playing on these maps that you will get to know places and spots to be almost undefeatable during WvW. Introducing new maps will force people to spend new time and effort to find these certain spots.

Second of all , I think that adding WvW maps is a great idea but noting from my previous experience with games is that a lot of people like to continue play original maps as well.

I suggest that it would be a great idea to add only 2 new different maps to WvW. These two maps will be replacing 2 of the 3 homeborders(blue/red/green borderland), but you will still keep the old borderland map as the 3rd. You can make these maps roll random each match-up or bound them to a color(whatever u think is best). In this way, people will be able to play new maps and also enjoy the fun of the original WvW map.

I am still brainstorming about a nice idea to suggest something different to EB, but seeing as it is now, I think it is a nice designed map.

For the rest, I think WvW as it is, is epic. A lot of people seem to complain about zerg fights when the initial idea of WvW is large scale PvP. This obviously results in huge groups fighting huge groups. Even numbers do not say a lot lately, since strategies are being developed to make 30 people kill 50 people. So I have nothing to complain on the gameplay part.

The best thing would definitely be each server having unique BL…realistically and ideally though have 1 remain and add 2 new BL maps and make a second EBAY map and have them rotate every week…that’s keep things a bit fresher at least I think

What I want to see Anet do is merge the bottom 3 EU servers into other same language servers (not the same one, don’t make one super server).

Then change the maps and matchups to be 1v1v1v1. That way you can slightly tap down the pop limit on each map (because there will be 5 maps to fight over) which should help with lag. And because 4 servers are participating a dead server in your matchup shouldn’t result in a 1 on 1 where a slightly stronger server just dominates the PPT because momentum is preserved.

dunnberry.2964:

The best thing would definitely be each server having unique BL…realistically and ideally though have 1 remain and add 2 new BL maps and make a second EBAY map and have them rotate every week…that’s keep things a bit fresher at least I think

I agree that the idea of a personal BL would be amazing, because Underworld’s BL would be AMAZING! However it will take I think a year to realize and design those maps on a way that they are also proper playable. Also note that Anet probably makes sure that all borderlands are equal in difficulty to cap, because it would be really unfair if u have a whole map that has keeps on bay difficulty and the other server had all keeps on hills difficulty.

Anet said it would take 3-4 months to develop and polish a WvW map. So much shorter than a year.

Draygo.9473:

Anet said it would take 3-4 months to develop and polish a WvW map. So much shorter than a year.

It’s only shorter than a year if they actually do it. Check the archives and you’ll see that they were saying the same thing about six months ago.