Guild Wars 2

Ok, there is no way to make everyone happy. The vocal forum, which is a minority of actual players were able to bring the alpine back. I am happy that they are having fun, its a game and we are all paying for entertainment so good on them. A good number of actual in game players were surprised that this was even going on, be them happy or sad about the change which should be an indicator of its own.

That said there were also a lot of players that were not happy since they were enjoying the new maps. Neither set of maps are perfect and both had issues. So some people are now back to WvW and some people are now leaving WvW. ANet has said they will rotate which many have said if they do they will step back out and others back in. That still leaves us with less people in the game mode.

There are some that favor a home BL but a lot people are looking for maps they enjoy fighting on. Some people prefer more flat maps and others more varied maps. So instead of working on a rotation system, why not let people have a choice and give us 4 maps. This has been brought up in a number of threads but not one of its own.

1 EBG – Flat style
1 ABL – Flat style
1 DBL – Vertical
1 EoTM – Mix

For the people that like both, variety to choose from, for those that favor one or the other, 2 maps each. EBG/EoTM are already 3 sided maps. It wouldn’t be hard to adjust ABL and DBL to be the same. This also brings EoTM in line with regular WvW and may impact populations or more clearly define the number of people for and against the current server logic versus the Red/Blue/Green logic.

Now what this doesn’t fix is the people that need a home BL, which I don’t have a solution for. A lot people already see their map’s third as home and defend it as such. Having read the various form posts I am not sure how many this is out of the forum goers though.

In the least ANet, include this is your new polls before you spend a lot of resource dollars on a rotation. We have a lot of extremists on the forums, this is a middle ground that gives a number of options to people even as all maps evolve over time.

Now the argument was made, no I don’t want maps I will never play on, but this does not restrict maps where as a rotation will. So for the people that don’t want DBL back, this gives you options versus when DBL rotates back in and vice versa. The more times people leave, the more likely that might be the last time they leave and don’t come back. Some people have said I want 4 maps to choose from, you only have 2 right now so when a rotation occurs you will be impacted. Why can’t we have variety?

If against, why and how does this impact you more adversely then when they rotate?

Where-ever you WvW, good hunting!

Would it create more issues ? EotM was popular but not with the 24/7 WvW players, was DBL really populated, or was it just a few scraps of people here and there? Would everyone be trying to cram into EB and the 1 Alpine?

From what I have heard and read it seems with the old maps being brought back the game mode had been rejuvenated, there are Queues on all maps which leads me to believe the Majority like this change. I haven’t played in months but it seems that if you were to take away 2 alpines and add a DBL and EotM they would sit there rotting away. Maybe not EotM but that would be a separate group of people playing on that map, the (for lack of better term) normal WvW players would all be trying to squeeze into 2 maps.

The patch and linkage brought back the queues to the DBls too. To place all the blame on dbls, when so many other HOT changes were bad, and give all the credit to ABL for pop return, when other concurrent changes were also made, seems oversimplified. Only time will tell if any of the recent changes are lasting….

TheGrimm.5624:

Ok, there is no way to make everyone happy. The vocal forum, which is a minority of actual players were able to bring the alpine back. I am happy that they are having fun, its a game and we are all paying for entertainment so good on them. A good number of actual in game players were surprised that this was even going on, be them happy or sad about the change which should be an indicator of its own.

That said there were also a lot of players that were not happy since they were enjoying the new maps. Neither set of maps are perfect and both had issues. So some people are now back to WvW and some people are now leaving WvW. ANet has said they will rotate which many have said if they do they will step back out and others back in. That still leaves us with less people in the game mode.

There are some that favor a home BL but a lot people are looking for maps they enjoy fighting on. Some people prefer more flat maps and others more varied maps. So instead of working on a rotation system, why not let people have a choice and give us 4 maps. This has been brought up in a number of threads but not one of its own.

1 EBG – Flat style
1 ABL – Flat style
1 DBL – Vertical
1 EoTM – Mix

For the people that like both, variety to choose from, for those that favor one or the other, 2 maps each. EBG/EoTM are already 3 sided maps. It wouldn’t be hard to adjust ABL and DBL to be the same. This also brings EoTM in line with regular WvW and may impact populations or more clearly define the number of people for and against the current server logic versus the Red/Blue/Green logic.

Now what this doesn’t fix is the people that need a home BL, which I don’t have a solution for. A lot people already see their map’s third as home and defend it as such. Having read the various form posts I am not sure how many this is out of the forum goers though.

In the least ANet, include this is your new polls before you spend a lot of resource dollars on a rotation. We have a lot of extremists on the forums, this is a middle ground that gives a number of options to people even as all maps evolve over time.

Now the argument was made, no I don’t want maps I will never play on, but this does not restrict maps where as a rotation will. So for the people that don’t want DBL back, this gives you options versus when DBL rotates back in and vice versa. The more times people leave, the more likely that might be the last time they leave and don’t come back. Some people have said I want 4 maps to choose from, you only have 2 right now so when a rotation occurs you will be impacted. Why can’t we have variety?

If against, why and how does this impact you more adversely then when they rotate?

Where-ever you WvW, good hunting!

EB

ABL

Revised DBL

New Arctic BL map, not eotm map.

Helzy.4036:

From what I have heard and read it seems with the old maps being brought back the game mode had been rejuvenated, there are Queues on all maps which leads me to believe the Majority like this change. I haven’t played in months but

To be fair differnt match weeks but, T3 last night, EB queued and home BL, others not queued.

Previous weeks EBs queues were higher but there were 2-3 DBLs queued before as well. We will have to see how the next few weeks play out.

Sich.7103:

And eotm is a 3 way map, DBL and ABL are not !

What prevents them from becoming 3 sided maps and why is that bad? EB draws more people over time. A big part of that is the 3 sided structure that doesn’t greatly favor one side.

Sich.7103:

And you can’t balance those 4 maps…. ABL is far smaller than DBL… EOTM is… bah, it’s eotm….

Again, why? PPT can be set to balance out if need be but the EB and ABL are already not equal in points. More risk/more reward.

Sich.7103:

Stop asking for different map, we have EBG and all server have his home BL. Then no balance issue, everyone have the same map.

Yes we have 2 maps, why don’t you want more? And what happens when DBL comes back around, wouldn’t you want more options to fight in then?

Sich.7103:

Having 4 different map mean the need to make MU 3 weeks long to rotate each team on each map…. Fighting the same opponent for 3 weeks will be boring like hell…

3 sides maps mean no one is favored on a given map so this is moot. And a lot of people already encountered having to fight the same people for 8-12+ weeks in a row besides.

Swagger.1459:

EB

ABL

Revised DBL

New Arctic BL map, not eotm map.

I went with EoTM because its a currently created and a functioning map that draws a good number of people, the why of its draw is the debatable part. Again a lot of this would be easier with ANets statistics but we won’t be able to see those. It also offers some vertical scale to that’s a blend of the maps.

TheGrimm.5624:

Swagger.1459:

EB

ABL

Revised DBL

New Arctic BL map, not eotm map.

I went with EoTM because its a currently created and a functioning map that draws a good number of people, the why of its draw is the debatable part. Again a lot of this would be easier with ANets statistics but we won’t be able to see those. It also offers some vertical scale to that’s a blend of the maps.

I understand, but realistically they won’t do that.

More maps, less servers over time would be nice to watch this happening.

a rotation every 3 months is fine. people will cry and scream at the top of their lungs when they dont get what they want. this is the only way to please everyone.

imo a solution to fix queues is much more needed. no player should have to wait because a mode is too popular. it utterly stunts growth of both more players and more money.

+1 to OP, love it.

I would much prefer this system but I don’t think EotM is a suitable replacement for a Borderlands map.

this has been much discussed and brought up since before HoT’s launch when news of the Desert borderland first hit the scene as there use to be a lot of players who felt choice and variety should be the preferred path. In most threads on the issue the main concern ends up being the difficulty of fairly scoring asymmetrical maps and how to address the loss of the home borderland mechanic. Lots of alternative methods were proposed by various community members but with no input from ANET during those times (likely swamped by HoT ship deadlines & then HoT fixes) we were never given any hints which solutions were remotely within the realm of possibility for that I guess non-existent WvW team.

I want to trust that ANET is aware of the situation and that maybe a potential 3rd borderland style map is currently under development but given how long new maps take to get done (more than a year?! and then almost as long to be reasonably playable) I sort of wish back last July when we started making a fuss about it, someone in charge would have started moving things in a direction where it would be apparent to players what to expect in the future. This piecemeal reactionary approach is just going to make WvW that much worse in the long run. How can we make intelligent comments on ideas without a better understand of which kinds of solutions devs are currently favoring.

A selection of smaller dynamic maps that spin up as existing become full could be one solution but now with server linking that seems unlikely. Getting rid of the Borderland mechanic entirely is another possibility but for some reason players seem highly resistant to that rather harmless concept, and that is coming from a Realm Pride enthusiast. Lots of WvWers think the EotM map makes for a poor representation of WvW playstyles but that is really more about the choice of players on the map than the map itself. It has its fun parts and frustrating parts just like all maps and with the choice to play on one of the other 3 maps instead, well it would not be the end of world for anyone.

Just feels like another one of those things we’ve been taking about here forever and never seeing much consensus on. /shrug

Agree. And honestly this is the time to talk about it again before we get to that next swap time period and people that are enjoying the ABL are once again disenfranchised when DBL comes back. Really would like a solution that doesn’t irritate different segments of the population every couple of months. Its the people that feel they can’t compromise at all that I don’t get since they will be negatively impacted again as well when things rotate.

Side note, spot checking thru prime times US East and Centeral T3, EB only map queue for extended periods. Also spot checked EoTM to see how populations were impacted and found full instances, will have to monitor and see how weekend goes since some people may still not know of changes.

TheGrimm.5624:

Sich.7103:

And eotm is a 3 way map, DBL and ABL are not !

What prevents them from becoming 3 sided maps and why is that bad? EB draws more people over time. A big part of that is the 3 sided structure that doesn’t greatly favor one side.

Because BL with 3 side will fail… They have try this with DBL… Remember that the side keep WP only work for 1 team at the begining.
I want a home border, where my team can control all the map and feel like home… Not a 3 side map… I hate EB for that !

I said this back in the desert border beta – anet are or at least were already planning on having all four maps in play at once. The evidence is from when they tried to move the keep waypoints to the southern towers. The reason for that is because they can’t do this until they transform alpine into a square border.

This is because the server that gets alpine as their home will always win. Alpine is the one map where it is easier to control your entire home border. The other three maps all make it extremely difficult to do anything but only hold your corner.

They will do this as soon as they turn the alpine into a square border so that the intended playstyle is that you hold your corner on all four maps and attempt micro pushes from there.

and people don’t want that…. they never play like this even on DBL with the immediat WP at T0 for your team… Most people want a home map, not 4 EB

So your saying I can warm up in EoTM, switch to EB next, then head to ABL for some exiting fights. AND I never have to play DBL!!!
Ohhh Im liking this concept! Yes vote

As long as advantages are given to the weaker servers in match, maps don’t really need to be balanced. I’d go so far as to say the winning server should have no home BL and the loser 2

Sich.7103:

Because BL with 3 side will fail… They have try this with DBL… Remember that the side keep WP only work for 1 team at the begining.
I want a home border, where my team can control all the map and feel like home… Not a 3 side map… I hate EB for that !

Sich, I was thinking about you when I was trying to get around the home BL bit and find a solution for it. I admit I was watching for others about the Home BL but you are the only (so far) that I saw consistently in threads about wanting an individual home BL. Still don’t have an answer there yet. So to you, whats the difference in defending your third versus a full borderland that you call home?

Daggos Skelito.2910:

So your saying I can warm up in EoTM, switch to EB next, then head to ABL for some exiting fights. AND I never have to play DBL!!!
Ohhh Im liking this concept! Yes vote

I am saying with choices absolutely you can play on multiple maps and still avoid ones that does not interest you. And if one day you want to try it out again to see if its now more interesting you have that choice without them forcing you to do or leaving the game mode.

EOTM is not viable in ppt. If we where going to have a 3ed BL map it needs to be a new one altogether. Maybe a Sea map?

LetoII.3782:

As long as advantages are given to the weaker servers in match, maps don’t really need to be balanced. I’d go so far as to say the winning server should have no home BL and the loser 2

I see where you are coming from, but the concept is to try and allow for close to even footing.

Zetsumei.4975:

This is because the server that gets alpine as their home will always win. Alpine is the one map where it is easier to control your entire home border. The other three maps all make it extremely difficult to do anything but only hold your corner.

They will do this as soon as they turn the alpine into a square border so that the intended playstyle is that you hold your corner on all four maps and attempt micro pushes from there.

Alpine would need to be adjusted to be more square. The point that people are making that the towers have roles in capping the keeps is valid and the concept should remain so it might also require an addition of a few more towers to keep its balance.

The same thought of adding some additional smaller towers to DBL might be something to consider as well, but the difference is the keep size differences. DBLs being so much bigger meant you didn’t need a fortified tower to assault it from since you have so many areas you can attack at the same time already. But DBL changes are separate thread and bigger conversation.

Jski.6180:

EOTM is not viable in ppt. If we where going to have a 3ed BL map it needs to be a new one altogether. Maybe a Sea map?

Not sure I follow what you mean. Not valid in that it doesn’t have a similar amount of available points per tick compared to the other maps? If that is what you meant, that is something that could be adjusted by various means and/or plan on them having different values. Once again these aren’t any one sides home any longer, they are different battlefields that people can choose from where everyone has close to equal options on taking and holding.

Jski.6180:

EOTM is not viable in ppt. If we where going to have a 3ed BL map it needs to be a new one altogether. Maybe a Sea map?

Why? How would you make it viable then?

This is what I’ve been asking for years. If Anet just did what some of us proposed WvW would be in such a better state.

Edge of the mist is fine for PPT, the design is nice, it’s actually a great EBG alternative and more clever than the Desert BL. If you don’t like it then you would still have the opportunity to play on the other maps. Bringing it into the PPT rotation would bridge together 2 communities. Rewards should stay the same.

Desert Bl need some adjustments but it is still a nice map, it needs more way more waypoints and some flattening in some areas.

Alpine BL needs a graphical update and the return of the orb (but improved with different mechanics). The Orb should be captured and held in a structure in the middle of the Ruins.

EBG is a classic, needs a graphical update as well. StoneMist’s textures are still not aligned properly.

I like your idea Funnily enough I actually thought of the same thing (almost)

sparc.3649:

Here’s an idea:

FIX the actual problem at hand with server stacking THEN:

Give us ALL maps for “WvW”, one EB, one ABL, one DBL, and one be the map from EoTM (we wouldn’t need EoTM as it’s currently implemented because server stacking and queues wouldn’t be a thing)!

Still 4 maps, EB, BL, BL, EoTM (map)… Now THAT would be cool!

This does not work in a game mode where the score is kept due to it giving teams “bad map handicaps”. Not sure who all you think this makes happy due to the fact that many players will not play on EotM map or DBL, it certainly will not make them happy, because as long as there is a score kept they need to be able to play on the entire court.

This is like saying lets divide up the basketball court where only certain players will play on this part but because most the players hate that part of the court because they see it as damaged, they will not even go there.

Do you remember the situation with the Russian 2014 Olympics halfpipe, players complained it was unsuitable and should not use it? Many players see the DBL as unsuitable and will not use it, thus this gives an advantage to teams that have players that will play those maps over the teams who have players who will not, adding a dynamic to the game that did not exist previously. It changes the game dynamic to punish players over a map that changes the way the game is played that they did not want/ ask for being forced upon them in the game, rather than them being able to enjoy WvW as they wanted to and had previously done by enjoying all of the playing field.

Most guilds hop maps as needed to find fights, defend, chase zergs, and hit enemy keeps. If only part of their guild, or server, will go to certain maps due to their lack of enjoyment from it makes the game have a " bad map handicap" to whichever team has more players that hate the map, rather than how it had been without that present. That isn’t adding enjoyment to the game, it is taking away from it.

If the map was implemented in a game mode where there was no score, or in it’s own game mode, that would be different, but including it in the game mode where the majority of the players playing that mode hate it, is not a solution to make people “Happy”, as it will have the opposite effect.

lil devils x.6071:

This does not work in a game mode where the score is kept due to it giving teams “bad map handicaps”. Not sure who all you think this makes happy due to the fact that many players will not play on EotM map or DBL, it certainly will not make them happy, because as long as there is a score kept they need to be able to play on the entire court.

This is like saying lets divide up the basketball court where only certain players will play on this part but because most the players hate that part of the court because they see it as damaged, they will not even go there.

Do you remember the situation with the Russian 2014 Olympics halfpipe, players complained it was unsuitable and should not use it? Many players see the DBL as unsuitable and will not use it, thus this gives an advantage to teams that have players that will play those maps over the teams who have players who will not, adding a dynamic to the game that did not exist previously. It changes the game dynamic to punish players over a map that changes the way the game is players that they did not want/ ask for being forced upon them in the game , rather than them being able to enjoy WvW as they wanted to.

Most guilds hop maps as needed to find fights, defend, chase zergs, and hit enemy keeps. If only part of their guild, or server, will go to certain maps due to their lack of enjoyment from it makes the game have a " bad map handicap" to whichever team has more players that hate the map, rather than how it had been without that present. That isn’t adding enjoyment to the game, it is taking away from it.

I the map was implemented in a game mode where there was no score, or in it’s own game mode, that would be different, but including it in the game mode where the majority of the players playing that mode hate it, is not a solution to make people “Happy”, as it will have the opposite effect.

+1
I really enjoy your posts even if we don’t agree on everything. Unlike a lot of the posters on here you actually look at problems/solutions from multiple angles instead of just throwing out half kittened ideas.

Hold on, I almost fell out of my chair; you all talking about score like it means anything.

Hold on, let me catch my breath…

lil devils x.6071:

This does not work in a game mode where the score is kept due to it giving teams “bad map handicaps”. Not sure who all you think this makes happy due to the fact that many players will not play on EotM map or DBL, it certainly will not make them happy, because as long as there is a score kept they need to be able to play on the entire court.

This is a compromise to keep most people playing. You are a good example. When DBLs come back into rotation you are back to just EB. Rotations are going to leave some of the player base out each time it cycles. You know people that won’t play on DBL, I know people that aren’t playing on ABL. Why limit our population.

So to continue your analogy, you prefer to sit out half your play time on the bench when the game rotates?

TheGrimm.5624:

lil devils x.6071:

This does not work in a game mode where the score is kept due to it giving teams “bad map handicaps”. Not sure who all you think this makes happy due to the fact that many players will not play on EotM map or DBL, it certainly will not make them happy, because as long as there is a score kept they need to be able to play on the entire court.

This is a compromise to keep most people playing. You are a good example. When DBLs come back into rotation you are back to just EB. Rotations are going to leave some of the player base out each time it cycles. You know people that won’t play on DBL, I know people that aren’t playing on ABL. Why limit our population.

So to continue your analogy, you prefer to sit out half your play time on the bench when the game rotates?

Well said!

sparc.3649:

Hold on, I almost fell out of my chair; you all talking about score like it means anything.

Hold on, let me catch my breath…

That is part of what has to be fixed to save the game mode. They have to make the score matter. The reason it does not matter is due to it currently rewarding players like you who want to PvD a deserted BL with 3 people rather than rewarding players for fighting over objectives as it should have all along. They need to remove reward for PvD and siege humping and it will make winning matter much more. Right now when winning means you PvD and siege hump real good, and that is not something anyone cares to claim title to.

They need to base the score on PPK while fighting over objectives without the use of siege, remove/ reduce the passive scoring, and give rewards to the winners and the score will matter again.

TheGrimm.5624:

lil devils x.6071:

This does not work in a game mode where the score is kept due to it giving teams “bad map handicaps”. Not sure who all you think this makes happy due to the fact that many players will not play on EotM map or DBL, it certainly will not make them happy, because as long as there is a score kept they need to be able to play on the entire court.

This is a compromise to keep most people playing. You are a good example. When DBLs come back into rotation you are back to just EB. Rotations are going to leave some of the player base out each time it cycles. You know people that won’t play on DBL, I know people that aren’t playing on ABL. Why limit our population.

So to continue your analogy, you prefer to sit out half your play time on the bench when the game rotates?

I don’t think you understand, your solution would have the players leave the game mode all together, not just play on EBG. Many LEFT over the DBL’s and are coming back only as long as they are gone. They settled for EBG while waiting for them to come back ( but NOT being able to play the game mode as they see as " properly"so they can play the whole game mode, again you make it so they cannot ( same situation they were in before) They want to be able to play on the entire court, not just part of it. Rotation would be better at least as they would ONLY play when there was no DBL present at all.

From many I spoke to, they quit the game for them even being present because they could not play the whole game as they could before. You are suggesting giving them a part game all of the time rather than a whole game part of the time. The Whole game part of the time is STILL BETTER than a part game all of the time.

Those that didn’t just run around/ roam, but actually defended their Home BL garrison, defended Hills on the enemy BL and tried to play the entire game mode hopping from objective on Red BL to objective on Blue BL countering the enemy and trying to pull their forces to other maps to put them on the defensive instead, need the entire court to do so, not just a corner. You can’t play the whole game on just part of it, you have to use the whole court. That is why they have " Map hoppers" channels in Teamspeak. That is how they play the game.

Your proposal is to take that away entirely, at least with a whole game half the time they can even play it at all half the time. Your proposal makes the game unplayable entirely for them. It is like trying to play Chess on only part of the board but the whole board is in play. It doesn’t work.

lil devils x.6071:

They have to make the score matter.

We agree that scoring needs to be adjusted. How is a long discussion in of itself. Again though we need a solution that is fun and rewarding and encourages as many people as possible to participate.

lil devils x.6071:

I don’t think you understand, your solution would have the players leave the game mode all together, not just play on EBG. Many LEFT over the DBL’s and are coming back only as long as they are gone. They settled for EBG while waiting for them to come back ( but NOT being able to play the game mode as they see as " properly"so they can play the whole game mode, again you make it so they cannot ( same situation they were in before) They want to be able to play on the entire court, not just part of it. Rotation would be better at least as they would ONLY play when there was no DBL present at all.

We will have extremists in any scenario even as normal population decline occurs over time as people grow bored or new things are developed. I will continue to favor options with variety that gives people a choice. I understand that your belief is rotation would better fit peoples needs. If that is the case then I will hope that both our bench times are short. I am happy people are enjoying the game mode enough to come out here and voice their opinions, it shows there is something worth playing else none of us would care. Good hunting!

+1 why cant we have 4 diff maps?

TheGrimm.5624:

Sich.7103:

Because BL with 3 side will fail… They have try this with DBL… Remember that the side keep WP only work for 1 team at the begining.
I want a home border, where my team can control all the map and feel like home… Not a 3 side map… I hate EB for that !

Sich, I was thinking about you when I was trying to get around the home BL bit and find a solution for it. I admit I was watching for others about the Home BL but you are the only (so far) that I saw consistently in threads about wanting an individual home BL. Still don’t have an answer there yet. So to you, whats the difference in defending your third versus a full borderland that you call home?

Because if ennemy control keep on your map then you are invaded… You feel attacked… Stuck in a small part of the map… Not being able to control your world…
I’m not the only one like this… As I say, if the 3 side map where asked by a big part of the community, then the automatic WP to your side keep should be accepted by a big part of the community… But no one finally played like this… Everyone try to control his own BL and don’t try to control his own keep on each BL…

Anet try to force us to play like this but players don’t wanted that…

Sich.7103:

Because if ennemy control keep on your map then you are invaded… You feel attacked… Stuck in a small part of the map… Not being able to control your world…

Sich, thanks for the reply, helps when trying to ponder options.

So for you it creates a sense of purpose to have a single map to try and keep them completely out of. A last stand type location I assume?

Used to be a big time homeland defender as well but realized it was creating an unneeded sense of stress when people wouldn’t return to defend home. I get why they weren’t but still was annoying to see hours of build up work and coin wiped out by one mass ktrain rolling through the BL.

They can’t have 4 of the current maps for a matchup, they have 2 maps suited for home borderland and 2 which are neutral, but there’s 3 teams playing, so one team will not have a “home field advantage”.

Unless you say screw it to green and maybe you can work it out like this.

Red bl = desert bl, some people like it here.
Blue bl = alpine bl, some more people like it here.
Green bl = eotm, ktrain central.
EBG.

But it isn’t exactly fair, the reason why they have the home bl the same is so that all teams have equal access and advantages to the map. Not that it’s fair anyways since green usually has better population or coverage anyways.

@OP: You have no clue what you are talking about. A vocal minority? In case you can’t figure it out, the reason alpine was brought back is that people didn’t enjoy playing on desert. Why did we see queues on EB with relatively few on a dbl? Think about it.

style.6173:

@OP: You have no clue what you are talking about. A vocal minority?

Forum posters are a minority of the players that actually play the game. Do you really think that there are more people that post on the forums then play the game? Really?

A lot of people didn’t even know about all this until it went live. Most people don’t use the forums.

Xenesis.6389:

They can’t have 4 of the current maps for a matchup, they have 2 maps suited for home borderland and 2 which are neutral, but there’s 3 teams playing, so one team will not have a “home field advantage”.

Unless you say screw it to green and maybe you can work it out like this.

Red bl = desert bl, some people like it here.
Blue bl = alpine bl, some more people like it here.
Green bl = eotm, ktrain central.
EBG.

But it isn’t exactly fair, the reason why they have the home bl the same is so that all teams have equal access and advantages to the map. Not that it’s fair anyways since green usually has better population or coverage anyways.

In this concept there is no more home borderland, there are just 4 battlefields. Your home becomes your third on each map where you move forward from.

TheGrimm.5624:

Sich.7103:

Because BL with 3 side will fail… They have try this with DBL… Remember that the side keep WP only work for 1 team at the begining.
I want a home border, where my team can control all the map and feel like home… Not a 3 side map… I hate EB for that !

Sich, I was thinking about you when I was trying to get around the home BL bit and find a solution for it. I admit I was watching for others about the Home BL but you are the only (so far) that I saw consistently in threads about wanting an individual home BL. Still don’t have an answer there yet. So to you, whats the difference in defending your third versus a full borderland that you call home?

He isn’t the only one. Since HoT most action was on EB and we are finaly, with the reintroduction of alpine, at a point were the borders getting more active played (and the vet commander bother to tag up there instead of Eb).

TheGrimm.5624:

style.6173:

@OP: You have no clue what you are talking about. A vocal minority?

Forum posters are a minority of the players that actually play the game. Do you really think that there are more people that post on the forums then play the game? Really?

A lot of people didn’t even know about all this until it went live. Most people don’t use the forums.

He actualy stated the situation from the live servers.

TheGrimm.5624:

style.6173:

@OP: You have no clue what you are talking about. A vocal minority?

Forum posters are a minority of the players that actually play the game.

The phrase ‘vocal minority’ is simply a piece of empty rhetoric used with dishonest intentions by individuals (politicians are prime example) who wish to discredit a view they disagree with by implying ‘the silent majority’ have a different view, without any actual evidence or data.

Every view expressed on this forum is by a ‘vocal minority’, which is a total irrelevance, as some views are a minority view, whilst others represent the overwhelming majority of opinion.

What it certain is the population decreased since the introduction of the DBL maps and queueing patterns changed, you would have much larger queues on EB than previously, and far, far fewer queues on the borders, where as to take last night for example on Piken Square during primetime EB had the smallest queue, and even no queue at some points, all of which rather supports the “vocal minority”, rather than your empty claims about what “a lot” of people think.

TheGrimm.5624:

Xenesis.6389:

They can’t have 4 of the current maps for a matchup, they have 2 maps suited for home borderland and 2 which are neutral, but there’s 3 teams playing, so one team will not have a “home field advantage”.

Unless you say screw it to green and maybe you can work it out like this.

Red bl = desert bl, some people like it here.
Blue bl = alpine bl, some more people like it here.
Green bl = eotm, ktrain central.
EBG.

But it isn’t exactly fair, the reason why they have the home bl the same is so that all teams have equal access and advantages to the map. Not that it’s fair anyways since green usually has better population or coverage anyways.

In this concept there is no more home borderland, there are just 4 battlefields. Your home becomes your third on each map where you move forward from.

That’s nice, but doesn’t change the fact that two of the maps are designed as home borderland maps, where the home team has the advantage with the north half of the map.

If they were all designed with ebg concept in mind where everyone had equal amount of structures to hold, and equal travel times through the map then yeah we can go with the 4 maps idea, I’d like nothing better and I have already mentioned it in the past.

In the meantime if you want to shoehorn the idea, then my thoughts on who owns what bl are up above. Red will take desert because less people will go there, easier to hold north towers cause they’re only useful for ppt. Roamers won’t spend time there either. Blue will get alpine since that’s a little more popular, roamers enjoy it so more action, more things will flip. Green will get eotm easiest to flip stuff with no upgrades, make green with the higher population and better coverage work for their points.

zinkz.7045:

TheGrimm.5624:

style.6173:

@OP: You have no clue what you are talking about. A vocal minority?

Forum posters are a minority of the players that actually play the game.

The phrase ‘vocal minority’ is simply a piece of empty rhetoric used with dishonest intentions by individuals (politicians are prime example) who wish to discredit a view they disagree with by implying ‘the silent majority’ have a different view, without any actual evidence or data.

I used the term vocal forum. I also stated that are more players than forum posters, which is where the minority statement came in, which is true. The mixing of words is yours.

That said I do side on the side of variety which is why I wanted to see what people think about multiple maps versus rotation. Rotation is what they have said, but if players never suggest other things then we have no right to grumble to ANet when they go another direction. ANet also just started doing the polling thing. Not sure how many have used or possibly seen it but they did add it to the front page so its matter of whether or not people looked at their splash page. ANet used the term majority, but to your point without them polling the people in game that step was questionable. Might be completely true had they done so, but don’t know. Hence my wording.

The concept about multiple maps is not new, nor is the fact that people were asking for more maps from years ago, or do you disagree?

So if we are at a stage where they are developing but not planning on giving us more maps, then give us options. Rotating is one, so would be having multiple maps available at the same time. This isn’t even about ABL vs DBL its about the question on how rotation might impact populations versus an option that leaves maps open. If they had an array of more maps then might favor rotating more, but we are effectively rotating 1 map but 3 copies of it.

So, if you favor rotation, then say that.

Xenesis.6389:

That’s nice, but doesn’t change the fact that two of the maps are designed as home borderland maps, where the home team has the advantage with the north half of the map.

If they were all designed with ebg concept in mind where everyone had equal amount of structures to hold, and equal travel times through the map then yeah we can go with the 4 maps idea, I’d like nothing better and I have already mentioned it in the past.

In the meantime if you want to shoehorn the idea, then my thoughts on who owns what bl are up above. Red will take desert because less people will go there, easier to hold north towers cause they’re only useful for ppt. Roamers won’t spend time there either. Blue will get alpine since that’s a little more popular, roamers enjoy it so more action, more things will flip. Green will get eotm easiest to flip stuff with no upgrades, make green with the higher population and better coverage work for their points.

I agree, the maps that are designed as home lands would need to be adjusted. And if they were then they would need to be adjusted but also keep the concepts that people like. Example for ABL it would need to allow for towers that were in range of keeps and such.

I understand your point now about the other concepts, wanted to make sure we were talking apples to apples.