Guild Wars 2

I’m sorry to say this but guys you failed with the new border map. You’ve made it too much PvE like, too big, too entangled, unattractive from the WvW player perspective. It lost its purpose. What I am looking in a WvW border? I can’t say exactly. I just wanna see more people playing it. Why don’t you ask us, the players what we want. Make a statistic. Between your 20 developers and our 20000 players which do you think that know better what WvW needs? Evidently that we, the daily WvW player. The border is like this because you completely ignored us. What you did instead was to put the PvE developer to make a WvW map.

Ok so I have been getting into it a bit more and it’s actually smaller once you are used to it. Run a few mesmers with Portal Entre, scout around the cliffs work out the math to run supply through areas that technically have no path. I feel this map is actually smaller than the old BLs and you can certainly get around it more quickly.

Its about the same size as the other map but the verticality and blocks make you take a longer path to go from north to south. Overall it takes 6m instead of the 4min to go from camp to camp as a roamer. The towers barricades blocking the easy paths going north to south can be destroyed with siege. Still you have to plan to be on that map for awhile for that option to be worthwhile. Also of places to hide in which is ok. The air side of the map is the worst side no easy paths, only jump pads that aid you if you have the keep and knockback winds that hurt everyone else trying to navigate up to the keep.

Before people wanted much bigger map so players can’t run back in fight after death.

Junkpile.7439:

Before people wanted much bigger map so players can’t run back in fight after death.

Who wanted that? Not me nor anyone i know wanted that.
It was the purpose of the map to break the zergs. THIS purpose is fullfilled. I havn’t seen ANY zerg in the DBL since HoT…

A few defenders I know on a server I use to be on, complained about the alpine maps having the spawn points and keep waypoints too close to the camps and that it was hard to defend against because of it. Like SW camp could flip and bay keep becomes contested within 30 to 40 seconds of each other.

On my server, we have a few small (5 to 15 people) groups that roam the DBL at times since HoT release. However, most rather go to EBG instead of caring about their home BL.

I quit doing WvW since HOT come.This new borderlands are horrible….I don’t mind events on those maps,npc’s or anything of that but…map design is terrible.What Anet failed to notice (thanks also to few individuals on this forums as well) is that they didn’t understand importance of 1vs1 as well as roaming in this game.
People asked for duels for ages but due to few haters we still didn’t get them….this was not that much of problems with old borderlands cause they been allowing us (roamers) to ress fast and head to camps or wherever we want to solo encounter enemies.This new maps are (beside dead maps and no players) terrible for roaming cause of map design that force you to take paths that solo players just wont use.It makes you run for ages…..and that is not what players wanted.
I never zerg,but i was active WvW player till it was able to roam or duel people,test our skills in battles there (instead of mindless 1button zerg spamming)….

I wish they just visually improved old borderlands and give it those guild mechanics that new map have (guild mechanics for air bombarding ) and such.

People been asking for duels and proper 1vs1 (outside of kitten sPvP) that is build limited but instead of that we got only map where we could duel REMOVED.
Now players left and no1 is playing,WvW is dead and boring.

Junkpile.7439:

Before people wanted much bigger map so players can’t run back in fight after death.

This is seriously one the few things I HAVEN’T seen people ask for.

saalle.4623:

this was not that much of problems with old borderlands cause they been allowing us (roamers) to ress fast and head to camps or wherever we want to solo encounter enemies.This new maps are (beside dead maps and no players) terrible for roaming cause of map design that force you to take paths that solo players just wont use.It makes you run for ages…..and that is not what players wanted.

The new maps are actually friendly for roaming… I mean in the past it was easy to cut roamers off cause SE camp, S camp and NE camp for instance on the Alpine map were really close to each other compared to this new map. However, I can take say SE camp and unless the person is near by they won’t get to me before I get S camp or NE camp or act like I’m not in the BL and go straight to N or NW camp from SE camp. You just have to learn all the different paths to get to the objectives. Its amazing how convoluted it can be to hunt down a solo havoc player or a small group of havoc flippers.

Ulion.5476:

Its about the same size as the other map

“about the same” would be ignoring the fact its quite a fair bit bigger.

In particular I find it hilarious that the distance from the SW tower on desert to the first sentry west of it is about the same as the distance from the SW tower on alpine to bay outer walls.

I would like this map a lot more if anet just squished it down so all the cliffs, canyons, and switchbacks were turned into gently rolling dunes. Either that, or let us use our gliders.

Ulion.5476:

The towers barricades blocking the easy paths going north to south can be destroyed with siege.

You can actually kill them without siege. Especially with any of the following: Hound Buff from Bay, Mesmer running quickness well and switching to Time Warp with a 4 man or 5 man group can Continuum Split and get it down very quickly. A couple of revenants running auto Shiro, or a scrapper or 3. Many ways you put together a common havoc group (at least in my guild) you are going to have the swiftness buffs and group combat buffs to get around the map surprisingly quickly.

DanielHarvey.7320:

Ulion.5476:

The towers barricades blocking the easy paths going north to south can be destroyed with siege.

You can actually kill them without siege. Especially with any of the following: Hound Buff from Bay, Mesmer running quickness well and switching to Time Warp with a 4 man or 5 man group can Continuum Split and get it down very quickly. A couple of revenants running auto Shiro, or a scrapper or 3. Many ways you put together a common havoc group (at least in my guild) you are going to have the swiftness buffs and group combat buffs to get around the map surprisingly quickly.

Your describing guild groups and 5+ man roaming parties. Guilds have been AWOL and the map does not allow for roamers so no one even bothers. Old map you could roam without a group so eventually numbers would start to build up…not anymore.

KayCee.4653:

saalle.4623:

this was not that much of problems with old borderlands cause they been allowing us (roamers) to ress fast and head to camps or wherever we want to solo encounter enemies.This new maps are (beside dead maps and no players) terrible for roaming cause of map design that force you to take paths that solo players just wont use.It makes you run for ages…..and that is not what players wanted.

The new maps are actually friendly for roaming… I mean in the past it was easy to cut roamers off cause SE camp, S camp and NE camp for instance on the Alpine map were really close to each other compared to this new map. However, I can take say SE camp and unless the person is near by they won’t get to me before I get S camp or NE camp or act like I’m not in the BL and go straight to N or NW camp from SE camp. You just have to learn all the different paths to get to the objectives. Its amazing how convoluted it can be to hunt down a solo havoc player or a small group of havoc flippers.

Your definition of roaming friendly is super weird.
For me, roaming always was running (roaming) around looking for fights, not sneaking around trying to flip stuff and avoid fights.
If your definition of roaming is to avoid enemies, then yes, the desert borderland is totally roaming friendly

I wouldn’t even mind the size, its the veriticality and layers that bug me. I don’t want to feel like I’m going through a kitten jumping puzzle and maze that takes me forever to run somewhere just to find its a dead-end or the edge of a cliff.

X T D.6458:

I wouldn’t even mind the size, its the veriticality and layers that bug me. I don’t want to feel like I’m going through a kitten jumping puzzle and maze that takes me forever to run somewhere just to find its a dead-end or the edge of a cliff.

This is the core of the issue. Relatively straight line distances wouldn’t be bad on this border, but half the time the opposing group is close enough to range, but melee would fall to their deaths.

Kaiser.9873:

Junkpile.7439:

Before people wanted much bigger map so players can’t run back in fight after death.

This is seriously one the few things I HAVEN’T seen people ask for.

Haven’t been here long then. Back in the early days there was a bit of consternation regarding never-ending zerg fights where you couldn’t really repulse an attack without a decisive numbers advantage. The problem is, the current maps are made for a population far higher than what we’ve got left.

I actually do prefer the current borderland to the old, since it’s got more potential. But it’s not the only piece of the clockwork that needed fixing before the whole mechanism can work again. We’ve got a place that can be defended, but still no reason to actually do so.

DanielHarvey.7320:

I feel this map is actually smaller than the old BLs and you can certainly get around it more quickly.

Erm no, it is larger, and no you can’t get around it more quickly, go from “garri” on this map to say SE camp, then compare how much longer it takes than doing that same thing on the old map.

Junkpile.7439:

Before people wanted much bigger map so players can’t run back in fight after death.

What was requested was that the empty areas like the lake (initially) and the top corners/former orb area be utilised. Whether a new map would then have to be enlarged relative to the now-better used space could be looked at after that had been done. No one wanted a labyrinth that artificially lengthens paths (i.e. makes it “bigger”) for the new map. Quote just one post from this subforum out of the last three years that asked for a map filled with obstacles and mountain ridges, instead of open terrain. Just one such opinion!

People wanted big map like eso have. I remember.

Junkpile.7439:

Before people wanted much bigger map so players can’t run back in fight after death.

i would actually like the opposite. Perhaps a short amount of time each day or every 3-4 hours in which spawns open up within close proximity to each other on a semi-open terrain so ppk can really factor in. If you don’t wanna fight, go out the other side paths, but if you do….its right there waiting for you.

DanielHarvey.7320:

Ok so I have been getting into it a bit more and it’s actually smaller once you are used to it. Run a few mesmers with Portal Entre, scout around the cliffs work out the math to run supply through areas that technically have no path. I feel this map is actually smaller than the old BLs and you can certainly get around it more quickly.

no matter how hard u try, the borderlands issue is not the size. its the map design flaw. like op said it seems like they had a pve map designer go hardcore on a wvw map and failed. the map is too complex and the whole vertical aspect of it, makes it massive and confusing. a wvw map should have been simple like the old map, but with better defendable keeps. and less wasted pve space.
i really liked being able to run back to a fight, cant do that now as there are little to no wp and all the pve gimmicks just make it unfun.
and actually the fact that u could treb garrison from the top towers gave it an urgency to try to get those towers back. stuff like this should have been considered, but a pve map designer would not understand that as he/she doesnt play that gamemode…

Once you’ve actually played it for a bit, you figure the routes out and it’s quicker to traverse.

As for trebbing one objective from another, stopping that was evidently one of the goals of the redesign. There were just too many places where you could break down a wall without even having to defend your siege.

Ben K.6238:

Once you’ve actually played it for a bit, you figure the routes out and it’s quicker to traverse.

As for trebbing one objective from another, stopping that was evidently one of the goals of the redesign. There were just too many places where you could break down a wall without even having to defend your siege.

Quicker than not knowing any path sure but its still freaking huge with objectives too far away from each other (and yes, I know every single path on desert).

Safe trebbing – which took a huge amount of time and resources compared to dumping 5 catas on a wall btw – was the only true siege warfare GW2 had. It allowed a very small party to put pressure on a keep over an extended period of time. It was far from effective for a quick cap, but that wasnt the point. It was like condi compared to power. You need both for a well rounded attack. If stopping it was one of the goals of the redesign… Then kitten if Anet ever plays WvW. But I suppose we already knew that.

As far as comparing the size of the Desert BL and the Alpine BL consider the following treb ranges. NW and NE tower could hit garri outer and vice versa. NW tower could hit NW camp. NE tower could hit NE camp. Treb on the hill by NE camp could hit Hills and vice versa. Bay outer could hit SW tower and SW camp and vice versa. Hills outer could hit SE tower (maybe the SE camp too, I never tried that one). Before they added some rocks, a treb on the SW cliff of garri could hit bay. If anyone knows if any structure on DBL can hit another structure you can post it. Note that I am not discussing the merits of this, it is only a way to compare the size of the BLs.