Guild Wars 2

Summary: By removing the idea of having a “home” borderland, we can avoid having 3 identical or near identical maps, from both an aesthetic and game style perspective. Obviously some drawbacks, but might still be worth it.

The Idea:

We have 4 main WvW maps, EBG and the 3 identical Borderlands. The reason the Borderlands are identical are equally to not have to make 3 different maps, but also to keep the maps balanced. Now this locks 3 maps into the same play style limiting the ways we can play and enjoy this game mode. If the 3 Borderlands was significantly different from each others players could possibly have multiple new strategies, tactics, options etc. This obviously is dependent upon the maps themselves. But as long as the 3 maps remains identical, or even carter to an identical play-style, they can be seen as an actual limitation.

So, what if we abandon the idea of having a “home” map ?

Well first off a lot of players will now be warming up their shotguns and sharpen their knives and prepare to publicly flay me for daring to take away their home map, that I single handedly am trying to wreck every sacred defender of the holy home-border-land’s dreams, and I probably also kick puppies.

We would lose something, they major loss I see here is the feel of a “home turf”, our own personal backyard. I do not think this loss is insurmountable however. Many could replicate a lot of the same feeling by picking a map and try to defend their corner of that map, be it EBG or a single BL for example. And the actual craft stations, TP, portals, and other services in the citadel being the main material loss can be solved by placing out a few more service npc’s at the other spawns etc.

What could we gain from this ?

Right now, not much, because all the maps we have are very focused on the same thing, 3 way large scale battles. EBG, BL, EotM, and probably even the new Ziggurat (my nick-name for the new HoT WvW BL map) are all based around the same principle of having 3 large armies walk around, take things, defend things, and fight against each others. But it opens up possibilities for ANet to make different maps, with other objectives or goals, and later add them into the rotation.

If ANet actually made maps aimed for other play styles, then WvW could become a much richer environment. For example a map dedicated to roaming with many small objectives, thin squirrelling paths perfect for ambushes and traps, where to many people clustered together would be prime AC/fear wall targets etc. Or a huge city-scape map where you can literally fight wall-to-wall siege warfare. Huge Roman gladiatorial arenas that would fit perfectly for guilds groups fighting each others.

End words:

So before I’m keelhauled a couple of times for having the impudence of wasting your time with fairy-dust induced dreams and Rose-tinted glasses of hope etc: I post this because I am interested in the underlying design of the game and game-mode, and like to discuss with others about how things could possibly be made better, or why it might not work as I had imagined. I don’t really expect that ANet will jump up and down in excitement and trumpet the forums that “This is the solution we’ve been waiting for!!!” and go fix it in a work week etc. But hopefully they will read this, and pick up one or two ideas that they will bring along. Even more hopefully, I’ll enjoy a nice discussion and get some new perspectives. Thank you for letting me waste your precious minutes.

-Elrik

I never liked the running simulator bl maps are, so I’d love to see different maps.

I’d be worried about the balance. If all maps are completely different, some may be easier to defend/attack. Best example is the Red in EotM – always gets farmed and its easiest to cap.

Also, they’ve already removed too much content in this game. I’m not a fan of that strategy.

Lets wait and see how they will roate the current map in BLs with the new HoT map that will be placed as a BL map.

Yeah hopefully the new map is not a “home” BL that’s just copy/pasted 3 times. Hopefully its a single map that all servers play on like EB.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually like the BL better than EB. Its just that there’s not enough people anymore to have 3 home BLs. They’re mainly empty wastelands nowadays.

hedix.1986:

I’d be worried about the balance. If all maps are completely different, some may be easier to defend/attack. Best example is the Red in EotM – always gets farmed and its easiest to cap.

Also, they’ve already removed too much content in this game. I’m not a fan of that strategy.

If 3 of the 4 maps are: EBG, BL, and Ziggurat, I don’t think balance would be a problem, the question then would be any future maps ? I do have that much faith in ANet that they won’t intentionally release an un-balanced WvW map.

And if we took the current BL, and just made a couple of tiny changes so it is playable like an EBG map instead, 1 copy, all services at each spawn etc. I’d say that red gets Citadel for a slight advantage to the red team (usually the weakest one in the match-up). Then we wouldn’t really lose any content, the same map would still be there (and probably a bit more active with all 3 trying to claim it as their turf).

The idea was not to remove anything, but remove duplicate content, to make space for more content in the future that could help give more variation to the play-styles. The only thing I can see that would be removed is the “Home” definition of a singular map, that and all the fancy alternative names for the camps and towers.

Fuzzion.2504:

Lets wait and see how they will roate the current map in BLs with the new HoT map that will be placed as a BL map.

This was my opinion as well until I read the reddit after party thread where it was indicated ANET doesn’t even know how they are going to rotate the new map in yet or what their definition of “rotate” is going to be. It is likely one of the things they want to test in beta and get player feedback on so as toxic as this community can be, I am sure we can still come with a few good ideas on how we would like to see new map rotation work.

There are couple of things we are still in dark about however that will make this conversation difficult. We don’t know yet if all accounts will have access to the new HoT WvW map (Ziggurat works for me but HoT is shorter) or only those that purchase the expansion pack. Given ANET’s use of the word rotation I am going to assume everyone will be able to play there but the possibility has to be considered. We also don’t know what if anything ANET has up their sleeves to address the population imbalance issue. I am optimistically hopeful HoT or the spring balance patch will do something to help with that but I’ve been burned so many times in the past already that I be wont be holding my breath.

Given how things work now and what we do know for sure I tend to agree with the OP’s sentiment that 3 identical borderland maps might limiting the WvW experience. Ideas on how to integrate the new HoT map into our current system with minimal impact should be interesting and a way to keep the number of maps the same or less might be the best way to go.

One possible solution would be to have only 3 maps to chose from, EB, new HoT and a borderland conglomeration which would be bigger size wise (like EotM size, I swear that map feels huge compared to EB but maybe it is my imagination due the empty space of cliffs making everything feel far away) where each side gets a Citadel & Garrison on the same map and center area commonly shared between them to fight over. Hopefully that would be relatively easy to implement for the map guys since it would not be a whole new map though I would suggest trimming down on the under used PvE areas NE and NW of the Garrison. It gets rather old playing the map hopping game across the three borderlands chasing after the enemy zerg and hoping for a fight instead of PvD so having all the borderland action on one map seems like it could be fun but might not make a lot of sense lore wise or in map congruency on the UI. Some might feel that is just too much like EB all over again but I think the Citadel to Garrison experience is unique and worth preserving.

Another way ANET could go would be to keep the three identical borderlands as is and have 3 maps that rotate in the center position of EB. The current EB map, EotM map (with a slight change) and the new HoT map. Then you would only see one of those 3 possible maps each match up and either make it a random switch, sequential or something the winning side from the previous match gets to pick (no idea how, maybe at reset as joining but could be a nice little bonus thing to fight for). The EotM map would get its center aetherblade spot turned into an open capture point situation (or maybe 3 cap points inside) with the aetherblades becoming allied NPCs upon cap and get all its structures and points held scored similarly to EB. The EotM map itself can be very fun when not used strictly as a karma train and the EotM as it currently functions could remain as the overflow option for those who enjoy it for leveling and such.

Given the current population levels and interest in WvW I really don’t see how ANET could have a 5th map work unless they’ve got some big merger / alliance plans, half of which a good portion of the WvW community might hate so another more boring option would be for them to replace EB or all three of the borderland maps with the new HoT map in rotation but hopefully they will find a more interesting way to implement it.

What are some other ways that could work?

I actually really like the idea of not having “assigned” maps. Whoever was able to dominate the easier map would have an advantage, especially if the easier map wasn’t known prior to reset.

Many realms already do the whole; red, blue, green, EBG assignations so it’s a push there.

My only worry would be that one or two maps would be more static due to how hard they are to attack leaving more people trying to push into the easy map and EBG. It would, however, make the reset weekend very interesting.

I would be okay getting rid of the current BLs altogether, and making a giant EotM map that actually meant something, the new map, plus EBG.

This accomplishes a few things right off the bat. It will condense players into three maps instead of four. EotM is large enough that you could greatly increase the queue size for it over the normal borderlands. Then you would have the new map plus EB. This would make for some epic clashes, and some seriously intense defenses. EotM is a fun map to fight on, when fighting actually occurs. The concentration of the 3 servers forces on 3 maps instead of 4 will also make it feel more fast-paced over the current meta imo.

Sorry forgot to respond to some of this earlier.

Jayden Ennok.3687:

I never liked the running simulator bl maps are, so I’d love to see different maps.

Johje Holan.4607:

Yeah hopefully the new map is not a "home" BL that’s just copy/pasted 3 times. Hopefully its a single map that all servers play on like EB.

Don’t get me wrong, I actually like the BL better than EB. Its just that there’s not enough people anymore to have 3 home BLs. They’re mainly empty wastelands nowadays.

If we got the existing borderland condensed from 3 maps into just 1, I think we would actually avoid some of that, it would play out a bit more like "mini-EBG" where each server would want to try to defend their side’s "home keep". My guess/prediction is that it would have turned into a much more hectic skirmish map.

The new HoT map (Ziggurat!) is designed to be a "home BL" map, but if they decided to change away from the Home-map system, they would still have time to change that. But from the sound of things, it sounds more specialized into the role of Home-map than the borderland is.

We will see

PS: PariahX, I snipped your text for brevity:

"PariahX-6970"

Rotation

As you said, this is unknown as of yet. I can see all 3 BL’s changed to Ziggurat for the first week at least, to let everyone get to test the new map. After that who knows, depending on how the map plays, if it is more defensive than the existing BL it might be given to red each week. Or just randomly assigned to 1-2 servers each week.

"PariahX-6970"

We don’t know yet if all accounts will have access to the new HoT WvW map (Ziggurat works for me but HoT is shorter) or only those that purchase the expansion pack.

True, but I honestly don’t see how they can make this work without giving access to Ziggurat/HoT map to everyone, or are they going to split the WvW population ? What happens if my server gets the new map and I don’t have the ExpPack, am I not allowed to defend my Home-map ? Or am I going to be put alone in a own copy of the old BL ? Just don’t see how that would work, so I’m making the assumption that it will be available for everyone.

"PariahX-6970"

We also don’t know what if anything ANET has up their sleeves to address the population imbalance issue. I am optimistically hopeful HoT or the spring balance patch will do something to help with that but I’ve been burned so many times in the past already that I be wont be holding my breath.

Only ANet can tell, and I won’t derail my own thread to this topic.

"PariahX-6970"

One possible solution would be to have only 3 maps to chose from, EB, new HoT and a borderland conglomeration which would be bigger size wise

I agree to the part of having EBG+Ziggurat+BL+1 as a map selection for a match-up. But re-designing the Borderland to much would be to much to ask for. Designing and working on maps is something ANet have stated is time consuming and takes a lot of workers. I am trying to make this idea be as economically viable as possible for them, and give them options for growth later on. There are lots of things that could be done to the BL map, but not without radically changing the map. Going away from the Home-map system, would however allow future maps to be added to rotation, and to be designed differently than the current ones.

"PariahX-6970"

Another way ANET could go would be to keep the three identical borderlands as is and have 3 maps that rotate in the center position of EB. The current EB map, EotM map (with a slight change) and the new HoT map.

The main problem with this idea, is that the only static thing we get in a match-up is the 3 BL’s. And the most popular map EBG would be randomly in and out.

EBG needs to be in each match-up,it is to important a map in the WvW system, and I don’t think any other map really can replace it. And this comes from someone that largely avoids EBG like the plague, but I understand it’s importance, and the goal of this idea was to give more different play-styles at the same time, not removing them randomly.

And if EBG got replaced by EotM map for a week, I honestly think a huge amount of players would quit. Both for the loss of EBG, and for all the negative pre-judice against EotM. If they add EotM to the normal map rotation (and I really want them to do that), it would have to be instead of one of the 3 BL’s, and it could not be a Home-map. Again just imagine how much people would rage at having to "defend" EotM as a Home-map, with all the prejudice we have against the map.

Continued, because I’m overly verbose...

"PariahX-6970"

Given the current population levels and interest in WvW I really don’t see how ANET could have a 5th map work unless they’ve got some big merger / alliance plans, half of which a good portion of the WvW community might hate

I’m guessing that you’ve seen it elsewhere already, but just for safety: ANet is not adding Ziggurat as a 5th map. It is intended as a new Home-Borderland map, to "somehow" rotate with the other maps. So no worries there.

"Kaiser-9873"

My only worry would be that one or two maps would be more static due to how hard they are to attack leaving more people trying to push into the easy map and EBG. It would, however, make the reset weekend very interesting.

Yes, maps are different (that is part of the charm). But I think (and hope) that different players would gravitate toward different maps. Say that the Ziggurat becomes a very defensible map with lots of siege, People that like that would gravitate towards that map. While players that prefer more skirmishing and roaming would still gravitate towards the BL. And Zergs and other bigger groups would still prefer EBG.

So even if the Ziggurat map might be more defensible, that could very well make it more attractive for one of the zergs to take parts of it, knowing that a few dedicated defenders can hold it against much larger enemies, for more PPT. It just might actually bring a bit more strategy into the game mode.

"Kaiser-9873"

I would be okay getting rid of the current BLs altogether, and making a giant EotM map that actually meant something, the new map, plus EBG.

This accomplishes a few things right off the bat. It will condense players into three maps instead of four. EotM is large enough that you could greatly increase the queue size for it over the normal borderlands. Then you would have the new map plus EB. This would make for some epic clashes, and some seriously intense defenses. EotM is a fun map to fight on, when fighting actually occurs. The concentration of the 3 servers forces on 3 maps instead of 4 will also make it feel more fast-paced over the current meta imo.

Not a bad idea, but I have two reservations against it. (1) Not all servers would enjoy losing a map and have the population to use that map, and (2) There is a whole lot of prejudice about the EotM map, because of the EotM Game-mode. If we where limited to 3 maps, and one of them was EotM, I suspect many servers would not make proper use of that map, with players refusing to go there etc.

If it at least was the 4th map, there would still be 3 maps for everyone else to work with, and those that wanted could go to the EotM map. I still don’t think any servers consistently que 4 maps, outside of perhaps a couple of hours after week-reset.

---

Thank you all for replies!