Guild Wars 2

Lets assume we get a new map with the next expansion, what would you like to see different or kept the same on a new map? Would you prefer the layout be similar to EB where structures are close to each other and with a large objective in the center to fight over, or would you prefer it to be another borderland themed map, with more open space and a wider layout of structures?

Please keep it constructive, and add any thoughts, ideas, suggestions you have.

a New Borderlands map should fit nicely inbetween the alpine and the desert map. However, before they give us a new map they need to fix the ones we have first, because they all have serious flaws.

k.i.s.s.
keep. it. simple. stupid.

or else they will over do it like the desert maps.

they should definitively do a poll of like 20 questions beforehand. thats the only way their going to find out what the majority of players want. i, myself, dont even know what i want.

5 way map with central objective as well as 2 towers and a keep each and 2 camps each. Mobile siege (moves slowly, can’t be ported or speeded up, very low hp whilst moving compared to fixed in position).

More objectives held gives you a penalty to all stats, so it’s almost impossible to cap the whole map. Capping whole map grants TEQ like boxes and gold, etc to all that participated in wvw that week.

Map is reset upon domination. Next match the winner from the previous week starts the match with a penalty to all stats. Maximum 10 ‘teams’ per region. max players per team on map 100. All players near an enemy structure will be revealed to the whole map. Transfers only allowed to losing teams, one transfer per account per 13 weeks.

Obviously a whole new wvw experience and something that will never happen.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

a New Borderlands map should fit nicely inbetween the alpine and the desert map. However, before they give us a new map they need to fix the ones we have first, because they all have serious flaws.

Well fixing issues should always be a priority. I agree though that 3 different borderland maps would be nice to try out. I prefer alpine over dbl which I absolutely cannot stand, so personally I hope any future map is more focused on keeping navigation simpler and allowing structures to actually have a strategic value which dbl does not do.

darkaheart.4265:

k.i.s.s.
keep. it. simple. stupid.

or else they will over do it like the desert maps.

they should definitively do a poll of like 20 questions beforehand. thats the only way their going to find out what the majority of players want. i, myself, dont even know what i want.

I agree with K.I.S.S. I don’t agree with doing a poll. Desert BL was an attempt to design a map that did things players had posted about on this forum many times. I think it tried too much to cater to the differing voices.

- Guilds wanted open spaces for GvGs that were free of interference from siege fire at objectives. Desert BL unfortunately put those areas in spaces that basically are not fighting lanes.
- Players wanted k-trains to be hindered so supply and upgrade changes were made, walls/barricades were put in direct paths between objectives, defense buffed, waypoint rules were changed. It became a maze. A lot of that thankfully got torn out from the original DBL release.
- Players wanted towers that could not be trebbed from another objective (when a map was delivered that did exactly that, they all discovered how wrong that was).

I’d prefer an oceanic map with ships instead of seige gear and island fortresses/tombs for controllable territory.

KISS is the way.

I want a small map. 3 towers on the side and 1 single camp in the middle.

People… The third map need to follow the same ruleset as a borderland just like Desert kinda follow the same ruleset as Alpine.

Jeknar.6184:

People… The third map need to follow the same ruleset as a borderland just like Desert kinda follow the same ruleset as Alpine.

Ie not at all, which means they might as well just put EoTM into WvW as is.

Personally, I still want to see one of 2 options:

- 3 variants of alpine, adding desert and jungle. They wouldnt be exactly identical (bay on alpine = an oasis on desert = a swamp on jungle) but share the same basic layout. Current desert would be tossed out and remade for EoTM or something.

- True EB 3-way style. Both alpine and desert are remade to follow the “3 corners with primary fortress in the center” design for a balanced fight on any given map. This is to facilitate possible future instance scaling by removing the static borders (ie why have 1+3 maps when you could have 2, 3, 5 or any number?).

I mean, we already have the structure of three borderland maps and one free for all map. If we are to expect another map, it is likely to come to replace one of the two remeaining alpines so I expect it is meant to be a borderland map, just like the desert is.

While I would rather just dump the “home borderland” concept and take several different EBG-style maps instead, I know it’s asking for a big change that won’t come.

Gliding would be enabled and leylines would channelize much of the flying traffic.

A three sided map with each server having a main keep on top of a very tall mountain, various towers would be on the sides of the mountain descending down into the valley. In the deep valley between the three mountains would be a variety of minor objectives that have no walls and are often underground, but when held can undermine various towers(literally destroying the walls underneath various towers or opening tunnels into objectives).

The map would be designed to funnel the bulk of players down into this sprawling valley, and reward splitting up into smaller groups. Various ledges on the mountains, or tunnels in the valley would collapse if too many players are in them at the same time. Ballistas would be re-purposed as anti-gliding weapons, when they hit an enemy flier they would immediately place a debuff on said player so he cannot glide for a set period of time(hence causing gliders to fall to their deaths).

Travel time due to gliding and leylines would be extremely quick, but due to air-snipers, avalanches, collapsing tunnels, flash floods, and other player controlled terrain features you would need to pick your travel routes with care.

Additionally scoring on this map would still in part be PPT/PPK, but a major aspect of it would be resources that you gather/loot/mine on the valley floor that you then have to transport back to your keep on foot with a big glowing symbol over your head announcing your position to enemy players on the map.

The borderlands are either a 1v1 or 2v1 scenario, never a 3 way fight, which is what WvW is designed to be.

I’d like only 3-way maps, and without all the useless areas you have to run across on the BL’s. To make the borderlands roamer friendly lower the map cap on them.

Lowering the map cap would not be a good idea. It’s already bad some nights with queues. Anyway, a new map simply isn’t going to happen anytime soon for sure. Way too many things I’m sure they’re working on other than coming up with yet another map that many people (esp the prolific complainers) will complain about. Heck the current ones have enough issues as it is that have been listed time and time and time again.

… and no gliding, no leylines… hey it’s WvW for crying out loud… not the HoT pve zone.. .:P

Balthazzarr.1349:

Lowering the map cap would not be a good idea.

Only using 3-way maps would easily allow this as you could have 2 maps with 100 peep limits, 1 map with 75 peep limits and 1 map with 50 peep limits. Since all maps are “standalone” from a balance perspective it doesnt matter.

underwater WvW map! suicides

Small map with supply camps in the middle, surrounded by defensive towers and interior keeps behind the towers. Roamers would continually battle for supply camps. Zergs would have to cut through towers first to get inside to attack a keep.

Oh and no underwater spots for Rangers to camp around.

Straegen.2938:

Small map with supply camps in the middle, surrounded by defensive towers and interior keeps behind the towers. Roamers would continually battle for supply camps. Zergs would have to cut through towers first to get inside to attack a keep.

Oh and no underwater spots for Rangers to camp around.

that could be the center of the Desert BL, also we need more desert and less cannyon think :P.

I’d like a jungle-themed borderland, that, while providing simple paths between objectives, also has a enough levels and alternate paths to allow surprise attacks and unconventional movement.

Ya, that’s all we need. The entire game mode is a mess but lets make a new map……

Ring of Fire-themed map. Fissure Borderlands.

Chaba.5410:

Ring of Fire-themed map. Fissure Borderlands.

Lots of lava for people die plz.

I definitely hope Arenanet will NOT waste their limited developer resources on creating a new map. Instead they should focus on:
- better rewards and WvWvW specific unique rewards e.g. ascended and legendary back item (this will have positive effect on population)
- fixing population imbalance issues
- better skill and gear balance (currently few professions/builds and gear sets e.g. durability runes dominate the meta)
- reducing the lag

In fact I still hope Arenanet would just remove the Desert BL from rotation. That map is still not fun to play and with the current population (typically just 1-10 per borderland on Desolation, except if there is guild raid in prime time) it is hopelessly large.

^

Rewards, population, and meta balancing I’m not holding my breath on.

Now if they did stuff to make it interesting like trying out PvP maps that would get me to play more.

Like this idea.. sounds like good fun.

Caliburn.1845:

A three sided map with each server having a main keep on top of a very tall mountain, various towers would be on the sides of the mountain descending down into the valley. In the deep valley between the three mountains would be a variety of minor objectives
snip

Deniara Devious.3948:

- better rewards and WvWvW specific unique rewards e.g. ascended and legendary back item (this will have positive effect on population)

I know I’m not one of the hip kids that runs around with shiny stuff, but I can’t imagine a single thing less constructive for fixing WvW than slap some Legendary ugly backpack skin on it.

Deniara Devious.3948:

- fixing population imbalance issues
- better skill and gear balance (currently few professions/builds and gear sets e.g. durability runes dominate the meta)
- reducing the lag

- How ? I really agree that population is one of the 3 largest problems with the game mode, but just how are you going to fix that, short of deleting all servers, and randomly distribute players to servers, and remove transfers ?

- Do like!

- I’m afraid they probably reached their limits for the engine, and it might need a whole lot more work than it is worth at this stage. Doubt it is something as simple as “throw more cpu at it!” as some people seem to think. But obviously less lag is always better.

On the map idea:

• I would prefer a true 3 way map (ala EBG, another BattleGround map), focused on keeping things active. And preferably also do some changes to EBL/DBL to make them similar. I’ve stated my preference for this several times, you’re all sick of it by now.
• If not that, then I liked some of the ideas above. Including Gudarain’s mini map !
• If it has to be a BL map, well then I don’t really care. :p Just take Tangled Depths and make it a BL map and call it a day (J/K)

takes a breath

• If willing to move away from teh BL system/design, so we could actually get different styles of maps, aimed at different play styles, some that could be interesting:
• TheRing, mentioned this before a few times, a circle map where you have moving fronts, where you have to take a tower/keep to progress to the next one. The idea is to always know where the action is, and always be able to run to where the fight is etc. Not my pers favorite, but I think there are a lot of players that could appreciate it.
• TheJungle, or some other thematic to allow for lots of small points/objectives, that does things like open new paths, change terrain, affect traps etc. But nothing big, basically something aimed at roamers and small havocs. With a good bit of los breaking and places to hide and run. Just whatever terrain used, don’t make the map hate all ranged with “Obscured”.

X T D.6458:

Lets assume.

That’s pretty much the problem right there, is it not? There’s been no mention of another map even being worked on. Though the DBL was voted back in on this assumption. For myself, I don’t take even a moment to assume they’ll be another map or that it will enhance WvW.

Why do you suggest a small spvp map? or another hard to move maps? a labyrinth map sounds as appealing.

Full underwater map DO IT UP ANET !

Towers that can attack/defend keeps (towers elevated so that they cant be hit by keep as easily).
Add a new tower siege treb that is specifically designed to do just that.
Works same as cannons, mortars and oil.

Would suggest some other way for towers be useful but nothing comes to mind.

And yes, simple is better.

DeWolfe.2174:

X T D.6458:

Lets assume.

That’s pretty much the problem right there, is it not? There’s been no mention of another map even being worked on. Though the DBL was voted back in on this assumption. For myself, I don’t take even a moment to assume they’ll be another map or that it will enhance WvW.

I said assume for the sake of discussion. I have no idea what the chances are of a new map being implemented. But if you remember during all the polling and discussions over the Dbl there was talk of a new map in the future, and the likelihood that if Dbl was rejected permanently then a new map might never become reality. I also think that swayed a lot of peoples votes to keep dbl in hopes that we would one day get a new map.

I look at the way people play on EB and the borderlands, and was curious how the layouts and design drive activity and popularity, especially when there is a smaller player base then there used to be.

i would like a simple map too, a castle at each spawn, one at the center, one at the bottom further away and a few towers at the sides

joneirikb.7506:

Deniara Devious.3948:

- better rewards and WvWvW specific unique rewards e.g. ascended and legendary back item (this will have positive effect on population)

I know I’m not one of the hip kids that runs around with shiny stuff, but I can’t imagine a single thing less constructive for fixing WvW than slap some Legendary ugly backpack skin on it.

Deniara Devious.3948:

- fixing population imbalance issues
- better skill and gear balance (currently few professions/builds and gear sets e.g. durability runes dominate the meta)
- reducing the lag

- How ? I really agree that population is one of the 3 largest problems with the game mode, but just how are you going to fix that, short of deleting all servers, and randomly distribute players to servers, and remove transfers ?

Better rewards in generally are really needed. Now pve players earn much more than WvWvW players. Many players are willingly to go through relatively repetitive and tedious pve farm for hours, just for the sake of rewards. I know that core WvWvW players are generally lot like that, but the core is getting smaller and smaller. And having just few players on huge maps is not fun.

Remember that these are very easy things for Arenanet to change:
- give us more things to buy with badges and proofs of heroics e.g. fractal materials e.g. shards/globs and vials of mist essence (needed to upgrade ascended trinkets), ability to buy more consumables and materials, runes, sigils with the WvWvW based currencies

To do that they simply need to give the WvWvW vendors just a few more lists.

Shiny new skins are a thing for some players and I am sure that will increase WvWvW activity, but this already takes up more developer resources (somebody needs to design those skins).

Population balance could be alleviated with the following changes:

- match making based on active population (tally in the active WvWvW population from linked servers as well). The current way of reassigning server links and letting glicko slowly adjust to massive changes is leading to 7 weeks of bad matches.

- combine even more servers to get more equal population and this might in EU mean combining some language based servers. The current “very high” server status on some servers is a bad joke. Our server has “very high” status and yet there are NO queues at any hour, except a very short queue to 1 map at the peak of prime time. Other 3 maps are generally giving us outnumbered “buff”. On the other hand those servers, which have so much players that they are able to create queues on 4 maps, should be quickly reconsidered to unlinked, because nobody likes to spend a lot of time waiting in queue. These are easy things for Arenanet to analyze and they can do linking/relinking e.g. once per month.

Getting a new map really doesn’t solve any of the above critical issues. I feel that Desert BL is not bringing in more players, but reducing their amount (very slightly though).

I want smarter maps.
I thought about my favourite objectives/corners in wvw:
EB:
Blue keep dome with siege, interaction Blue Keep sidetowers.
Green keep (best blobfights), interaction green keep – jerri, interaction jerri klov.
I don’t like the whole red corner.
ABL:
NC – I don’t want all camps to be like that but the most important camp close to a WP is really good and we’ve had quite a lot of good fights there.
Corner around Bay: Vale, even Briar with the ruins, NW camp and NW tower.
Hills is too easy to take but maybe that’s not that bad when coupled with bay which is rather hard to take although a set of catas can reach inner and outer walls as well.

Garri was fine back in the day, now the damage is too high for that structure, so there’s not much time to respond – especially if attackers chose watergate south inner gate.
Also: not having an WP that’s uncontested for a few seconds anymore makes things rather boring.
The problem with all of this: Line of sight is kittened up, defense is kittened up, bigger is better – the strategical differences between objectives appear rather nonexistent.
I want wvw to be fair and so that the smarter group can turn the fight in their favour even if they’re smaller. Was on DBL yesterday, I knew an enemy group of 6 would come to necro, so I was there, saw the “being attacked” but the wall was down when I finally got around and found them – that is something I really hate.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

before they give us a new map they need to fix the ones we have first, because they all have serious flaws.

True, but fixing old maps isn’t as feasible as making new ones due to development cost (time & effort).

itll be awesome if the map look more like a war zone battle field.
3 larger plane field in between keeps so when people actually intercept with some of the following.

• small half destroy buildings (for cover)
• quarter health random siege pop up
• small quantities of random supplies found in the battle field
• small oil spills in the battlefield that can slow people down (also, can catch on fire for 5s, respawn in 1min)
• some dead yaks that you can pick up a rotten piece of meat and be thrown at your target inflicting poison and weakness

other features:

• enable golems repair (someone must be on it to enable it and than, they can start a repair for 30 seconds with a CD of 30mins)
• a new type of siege, such as a hot air balloon that can only be use to track allies and foes players within a certain range. can not be attack by players but can only stay in the air for 10mins. must be rebuild at a waypoint with a 30min cd, limited to 3 per server, per map. for 1 player

perhaps a small battle field one in the center for those players who like to dual. must be a cross route or else it wont be use just like the center ruins in the alphine maps because theres all kind of crap there.

simple, you know or just enhance some things (example: golems, havent seen one in forever)
…sorry, ran out of ideas because i got distracted.

I don’t want a simple “small map” thing like players are posting. I want well designed maps that pay attention to details such as fighting lanes and spacing between objectives. Plopping objectives down on a hexagon in mirror fashion isn’t design. Fights happen in, around, and between objectives. Those spaces need to be made interesting and tactical.

Alpine works because the design of the fighting lanes. They are open and easy to access and have plenty of room for open field fights. It suffers only from poor design for spaces immediately next to the objectives.

Desert objectives have better objective design (sadly too far away from each other though) but suffers from poor fighting lane design. Lanes are difficult to get to and filled with too much terrain that hinders fights.

Chaba.5410:

I don’t want a simple “small map” thing like players are posting. I want well designed maps that pay attention to details such as fighting lanes and spacing between objectives. Plopping objectives down on a hexagon in mirror fashion isn’t design. Fights happen in, around, and between objectives. Those spaces need to be made interesting and tactical.

Alpine works because the design of the fighting lanes. They are open and easy to access and have plenty of room for open field fights. It suffers only from poor design for spaces immediately next to the objectives.

Desert objectives have better objective design (sadly too far away from each other though) but suffers from poor fighting lane design. Lanes are difficult to get to and filled with too much terrain that hinders fights.

I agree that the structures on DBL have better design aside from the verticality and gimmicks. But what bothers me about it, is that the structures are all far apart essentially making them useless in terms of strategy, there is no sense of progression in DBL like there is on Alpine, where every objective can be used strategically. And of course navigation and the gimmicks on the map also just add to the frustration.

They need to find a way to make DBL smaller and less complex.
It is very clear people do not like complicated mechanics and terrain.

Exciton.8942:

They need to find a way to make DBL smaller and less complex.
It is very clear people do not like complicated mechanics and terrain.

The problem is: They already did that, and people still think it’s not enough… Honestly I think people want a plain flat map with nothing but a tower for each team.

New game mode would be much better idea. Match could start 20.00 and end 22.00. Best players would get lot’s of gold, legendary weapons, super cool armors and stuff. Of course guilds couldn’t play this game mode because guilds are lame.

I was excited for stronghold till I found out it was just another 5v5 pvp map, and not much different from the old ones.

I’m all for a small 3-way map to replace the BL’s. Just cuz it’s small dosen’t mean it can’t have “fighting lanes” or whatever.

Chaba.5410:

Plopping objectives down on a hexagon in mirror fashion isn’t design.

You mean like EBG right : most successful map for WvW and by far the best design yet. At the base the map is basically a 3-way symmetrical map like you complain about but this is just the base. Once you decide on the general layout you can start adding all the other stuff around.

I want a map with a core mechanic involving riding moas to traverse certain areas.
We would be called “Moa Lancers,” and we would joust our opponents atop red, blue, and green moas.

Gudradain.3892:

Chaba.5410:

Plopping objectives down on a hexagon in mirror fashion isn’t design.

You mean like EBG right : most successful map for WvW and by far the best design yet. At the base the map is basically a 3-way symmetrical map like you complain about but this is just the base. Once you decide on the general layout you can start adding all the other stuff around.

Firstly, a third map I would assume is intended to be a borderland map with defense advantages given to the home team.

Secondly, I would not consider EBG is as a simple symmetrical plopping down of objectives. Care was given regarding the distances between objectives so they could be trebbed based on team strength; for example providing red team with certain defensive advantages since red team was intended to always be the weaker server. Red is the only team that can treb SMC from their keep. So EBG is not a symmetrical map really. I guess I don’t see a purpose of posting a “rough draft” of a symmetrical map if the intent was for it to be something more like EBG.

Junkpile.7439:

New game mode would be much better idea. Match could start 20.00 and end 22.00. Best players would get lot’s of gold, legendary weapons, super cool armors and stuff.

Who would be best players? Why this much rewards…. Simple reward track for legendary weapon would be nice; play months and have change to select legendary. Multiple simultaneous reward tracks would be another good thing.

Chaba.5410:

I would not consider EBG is as a simple symmetrical plopping down of objectives. Care was given regarding the distances between objectives so they could be trebbed based on team strength; for example providing red team with certain defensive advantages since red team was intended to always be the weaker server. Red is the only team that can treb SMC from their keep. So EBG is not a symmetrical map really. I guess I don’t see a purpose of posting a “rough draft” of a symmetrical map if the intent was for it to be something more like EBG.

You can nitpick little things here and there with EBG but it is basically symmetrical. Red keep is a double edged sword. as it can just as easily be trebbed from SMC, arguably giving red team a big disadvantage.

Those BL’s tho, the way they were quasi-designed to be 3-way, then when that didn’t work they just reverted all keep WP’s back to home team. It still gives attack advantage to the south and opens up easy, natural 2v1’s… not fun.. for me anyways. and just too much runningggg.

Pelto.9364:

Junkpile.7439:

New game mode would be much better idea. Match could start 20.00 and end 22.00. Best players would get lot’s of gold, legendary weapons, super cool armors and stuff.

Who would be best players? Why this much rewards…. Simple reward track for legendary weapon would be nice; play months and have change to select legendary. Multiple simultaneous reward tracks would be another good thing.

Well there would be lot’s of categories. Like most kills, biggest overall dmg, biggest siege dmg, most siege kills, most solo kills, most healing in combat, most resurrected players in combat, some kind of scouting reward system and so on. Of course there would be reward tracks too, monthly top player rewards, good statistics so people can see how they doing compared other players and so on.

They have been promising a new EB map since HoT release.. but with the fiasco of the desert borderlands.. i wouldnt expect any new maps anytime soon… they just cant throw the resources at it now considering they are also in the middle of writing a skill rebalence as well.

Pelto.9364:

Junkpile.7439:

New game mode would be much better idea. Match could start 20.00 and end 22.00. Best players would get lot’s of gold, legendary weapons, super cool armors and stuff.

Who would be best players? Why this much rewards…. Simple reward track for legendary weapon would be nice; play months and have change to select legendary. Multiple simultaneous reward tracks would be another good thing.

That would also bring people into wvw.. and that would be great considering some servers like tarnished coast has been very low pop for wvw for some time now.

You would have to make it based on kills or wins or something to make it so that all the pve’ers dont just pop in, stand in spawn for the reward track to progress like the current one does and then just leave with a legendary.

For the improved rewards… just make the rank up chests yield more than reward tracks. You can’t level your rank up without actually contributing and there is no … ‘well you contributed 100% for 5 minutes, now go afk for 5’

But we don’t need rewards nearly as much as we need some basic fixes. Is Green ABL garri inner watergate still unable to fort? Or has that been fixed. (this would be one example). Another would be to update the existing vendors with modern/current stats… exotic, and ascended vendors.

Balance is a player issue… Anet already pulls ‘active’ WvW population. Why do you think t1 &2 servers take breaks for weeks to unlock there servers to move guilds they’ve been recruiting in. Anet made the choice from the beginning to give this big one (the framework) and let the players handle the balancing. This has been clear since the beginning. They ‘used’ to count servers by total pop… but then you had servers who had high total pops, but little activity fighting a similar size total pop server who had a higher % of players who actively play through out the week. The change to count activity happened months ago, but the sad fact is … things take far too long to ever level out, and the volatility in the population causes uneven match-ups. Anet jumps in to attempt to manually fix things by assigning guest servers to help in rare situations, but it’s usually after a poor re-link was already completed, and doesn’t account for the new player volatility caused from the poor matchup (looking at Darkhaven and Gunner’s who I believe both had to endure a couple terrible months).

Adding a new map, while i love the idea, I think would still be quite a ways out. The resource investment to make minor fixes for the existing content is far less than what it takes to create a new map and add it into the Home BL system. And to the guy who noted Home BL system is meant to give advantage to defense? It’s the opposite, a Home BL system is their to promote 2 servers ganging up on the Home BL server. If a server receives constant pressure from 2 servers, in almost all battles, through attrition… you will lose, with limited resources (outgunned 2v1) and having to divide those limited resources in a two-front war.

Personally, I’d scrap the Home BL system all together, but I don’t believe that will ever happen. So if they get around to making another map, it would have to follow those mechanics.