Guild Wars 2

I am probably the worst person in the world to start this topic since I don’t really pay all that much attention to PPT but I know there are those who do and would have some good arguments for and against the general concept so here are the questions assuming Desert map became Red team & Alpine map was Blue teams home borderland.

How would having the EB map as the new Green team borderland map affect scoring (see specifics below)?

Would it be too difficult to take a map with 8 more towers and re balance the scoring to be even with Alpine and Desert or would you even have to?

Would having one borderland map of a larger size be too problematic? Would you want the population cap of all three borderland maps to be the same? How does EB play with lower #’s per side?

How hard would it be to adjust the scoring of the center mechanics of Lazer on Red and Bloodlust on Blue team map to equal SM and would you even want to?

How much fuss would removing the crafting stations from Alpine Citadel cause? (can’t be the only map to have them and adding them everywhere else might take too much time for ANET to consider this option & yes I am one of those who jumps into WvW for vault and crafting access all the time but I would not be opposed to removing them, makes keeping your upgraded keeps more valuable as they should be & I honestly don’t know why I like to craft in WvW other than the map chat is more entertaining and sometimes something exciting is going on to go be part of instead)

Would having the EotM map in the center map position (replacing current EB) without changing its scoring structure be too problematic for PPT? I’d love to see how EotM played when the score actually mattered but I am not one to think too far down the PPT strategy to notice how it might affect things. I assume the map population cap for EotM is similar to EB as its size feels comparable but I am not sure.

How would these changes affect lower population worlds? Would they rather have access to all maps or smaller maps to keep PPT from snowballing out of control when outnumbered?

I think I’ve seen this mentioned in earlier threads discussing how map rotation might work in the future given the introduction of the new Desert (HoT) map but that was before we knew 3 identical copies of Desert would be replacing the current Alpine borderland for a time. So maybe instead of doing that and taking away the choice of which map to play on we accept that it might be better if the borderlands were not identical. Or would that cause too much PPT fairness rage?

I think the adjustment rage might be worth the fun of having 4 unique maps that play very differently to chose from and knowing that you’ll normally be facing opposing teams who prefer the kind of play style that the map you are on promotes, defense, offense, havoc, PPT or gimmicks & taking advantage of terrain or whatever.

I don’t think it would work to make EB the Green BL because I think that would give an advantage to Green.

EB is usually the map that is most played, it queues up first. This means that… hold on, as I’m writing this I might have changed my mind.

If EB has the most people, then Green can’t as easily go stomping through the entire map. Blue and Red would be able to defend better.

But then if Green is not the strongest server, then whoever is the strongest, Red or Blue, will have an even bigger advantage against the other.

Hmm, this is an interesting question. Who would benefit?

As far as putting EotM in the rotation and replacing EB I think that is a great idea. They would have to tweak the rewards and fix the Red Keep but other than that I think it would work without adjustment.

Heck have a week where its just EB and EotM and no BL’s.

I remember a while ago a dev said that they couldn’t switch out maps in WvW. But if they have figured out how to do that then I think they should rotate different maps every week – or every two weeks. Variety is good.