Guild Wars 2

Hey all, kind of new to the game. Ive played WvW many times and it seems like there are just too many maps. This spreads out all the players that actually want to do WvW to where every maps feels empty.

Why is there a borderlands map for every server? Eternal battlegrounds is pretty much all four of those maps in one so why have the other three just to have all four feel empty? And they are coming out with another WvW map as well ? 6 WvW maps are way too many for the amount of people that actually participate in WvW.

IMO ANET should get rid of the 3 individual borderlands maps because they feel very redundant with eternal battlegrounds being there. There is also edge of the mists and a new WvW map coming out too I think.

One of the main objectives in WvW is controlling your home map completely and fending off the enemy. It also gives you options when one server is being a jerk and spawn camping.

I love having options.

If you prefer EB, then use it exclusively.

Not sure what tier you are on or what time of day you play, but t1 NA prime would be unplayable with 1 map. The servers can’t handle the total number of players. I wish they could, but they can’t…… Not sure servers could handle t2 or t3 either with 1 map.

The new map and current borderlands will not be active at the same time. It will be the new map + EBG with the old alpine bls coming back as some sort of rotation (with the new map?) in the future….

H.O.T will bring a new map the will replace the current borderlands map, I think Anet said they may put them into rotation after some time.

The real answer is that their engine cannot support more players on a map at least in its current state. If the fights got any bigger the lag would be extraordinary. Players already feel it in T1 during three way SM fights and often it persists when two large zergs clash.

If the maps got bigger, the chance for larger fights to ensue thus lagging out their engine would be a routine occurrence.

Straegen.2938:

The real answer is that their engine cannot support more players on a map at least in its current state. If the fights got any bigger the lag would be extraordinary. Players already feel it in T1 during three way SM fights and often it persists when two large zergs clash.

If the maps got bigger, the chance for larger fights to ensue thus lagging out their engine would be a routine occurrence.

From what has been said about the new map we are getting its much bigger than the current borderland map we have now.

JediYoda.1275:

Straegen.2938:

The real answer is that their engine cannot support more players on a map at least in its current state. If the fights got any bigger the lag would be extraordinary. Players already feel it in T1 during three way SM fights and often it persists when two large zergs clash.

If the maps got bigger, the chance for larger fights to ensue thus lagging out their engine would be a routine occurrence.

From what has been said about the new map we are getting its much bigger than the current borderland map we have now.

Not all players are forced into 1 map though (as far as I know). It’s the number of players that could end up in the same place that is the problem……

JediYoda.1275:

From what has been said about the new map we are getting its much bigger than the current borderland map we have now.

I saw that but I am not sure they are going to scale up the population per map. If the maps end up being EotM sized or larger, it won’t be good even with the new mechanics. Too much running makes players want to risk less since nobody likes running for five plus minutes to fight for 30s.

Liston.9708:

JediYoda.1275:

Straegen.2938:

The real answer is that their engine cannot support more players on a map at least in its current state. If the fights got any bigger the lag would be extraordinary. Players already feel it in T1 during three way SM fights and often it persists when two large zergs clash.

If the maps got bigger, the chance for larger fights to ensue thus lagging out their engine would be a routine occurrence.

From what has been said about the new map we are getting its much bigger than the current borderland map we have now.

Not all players are forced into 1 map though (as far as I know). It’s the number of players that could end up in the same place that is the problem……

Not all players are forced into 1 map you are correct, there will be 3 borderlands maps still unless Anet stated other wise. Yes I’m aware and its always been the problem when too many players end up being at the same place at the same time when things start to lag etc. From what few have had a chance to play the new map say its designed to break up the zergs. We will see how that goes once it released as Anet should know by now that players will not always play the game as they designed/intented to be. (Look at EOTM and Queens Dale farm before the nerf as an example)

Edge of the mists is not WvW.

Well having one map for wvw would make ppt more interesting actually matter. Since the player base would need to destack and spread out across all serves. All serves would be closer competitive wise. we could see more server variations instead of same servers week after week.

WvW is dead!

Just sayin.

Having 3 copies of the same map has never been a good system. EotM was supposed to be part of the map rotation but then was instead made as a Karma Train out of context map.

I don’t know maybe what they will announce tomorrow will fix the server system.

In higher tiers, several of those four maps get queued at once. It would be a good idea to have low tier, low pop servers in a one map WvW, but it should not be applied universally.

Most commanders use the other map to draw the blob off eb. For instance, blob is steam rolling everything, you pop over to there bl and go after there hills or bay or even gari, Normally it will draw some of the blob, and make the fights in eb more manageable.

Or if you a few friends wanna just go take camps and such, stir up some trouble with out the blob fights, you have other maps to play on.

I personally would like them to get rid of Home Server BL’s, and just increase the size of EBG to hold more obstacles (Towers/Keeps/Sentries/Camps/Mercs) and cut the map three ways (Like it already is.)

The map would be large enough to encompass large scale zergs, and be open enough that people doing small group and roaming stuff would have fun as well.

Odokuro.5049:

I personally would like them to get rid of Home Server BL’s, and just increase the size of EBG to hold more obstacles (Towers/Keeps/Sentries/Camps/Mercs) and cut the map three ways (Like it already is.)

The map would be large enough to encompass large scale zergs, and be open enough that people doing small group and roaming stuff would have fun as well.

There’s a reason why ESO didn’t work, and GW2 has though ….

Liston.9708:

Not sure what tier you are on or what time of day you play, but t1 NA prime would be unplayable with 1 map. The servers can’t handle the total number of players. I wish they could, but they can’t…… Not sure servers could handle t2 or t3 either with 1 map.

The new map and current borderlands will not be active at the same time. It will be the new map + EBG with the old alpine bls coming back as some sort of rotation (with the new map?) in the future….

Agree with this completely. T1 and into T2 would be horrid with just one map. From what I hear T3 wouldn’t be too fun with one map. But in a way I could agree with the OP. What if # of maps were based on tiers. The lower the tiers the fewer the battlegrounds.

Or as suggested before (by myself and others), balance the number of maps to the active population, have a dynamic map adjuster. Set EBG+1BL as base, and add more maps as needed, and subtract them when the number of players shrink.

joneirikb.7506:

Or as suggested before (by myself and others), balance the number of maps to the active population, have a dynamic map adjuster. Set EBG+1BL as base, and add more maps as needed, and subtract them when the number of players shrink.

This wouldn’t work as the Borderlands are designed so that the home team has an advantage. It wouldn’t be fair that one team has advantage over the other two if there was only EB + 1BL.

Let’s just wait till HoT launches and see if it brings new flesh and how much into the battlefield. Upper tiers might get huge queue’s and lower tiers might see queues on multiple maps, who knows.

Paavotar.3971:

joneirikb.7506:

Or as suggested before (by myself and others), balance the number of maps to the active population, have a dynamic map adjuster. Set EBG+1BL as base, and add more maps as needed, and subtract them when the number of players shrink.

This wouldn’t work as the Borderlands are designed so that the home team has an advantage. It wouldn’t be fair that one team has advantage over the other two if there was only EB + 1BL.

Let’s just wait till HoT launches and see if it brings new flesh and how much into the battlefield. Upper tiers might get huge queue’s and lower tiers might see queues on multiple maps, who knows.

And that is why I’ve advocated removing the "home map" system, so we don’t need to have 3 identical BL maps, but rather make them work like EBG/EotM, 3 side open battle. Which also opens it up nicely for adding/removing maps as needed.

Last time I saw a queue on my server, was a reset in summer 2014, I think it was July. Iirc it was 5 people for an entire few minutes.