Guild Wars 2

Now I know I am apparently in the minority here and that this is a super late argument. I was late in submitting to the poll because I was traveling and was shocked to see how people voted. I believe that the borderlands should remain separate for some pretty legitimate reasons.
—-
Reasons:

1. The borderlands are inherently different from one another.

One will always be easier to defend than the other. It doesn’t matter which one is easier, but it is generally agreed that these maps were NOT created equal. Whichever side gets the odd borderland out will have either a comparatively easier or harder time holding their own borderland. If you’re set up for failure, your server will have reduced turn out that week. You can play the hero and say that won’t affect you, but you aren’t your server or your militia. Remember how lower scoring does affect herd mentality to not show up.

2. When a previous poll was released, Anet admitted that a 2/1 split would inherently be imbalanced, and people still voted for it. Why are we wanting to introduce unbalanced content when Anet can barely balance population?

World Versus World is a tricky game-mode to balance, especially when it comes to population, terrain changes, and basic point changes. Introducing even more issues into this pool of mess seems self-destructive at best, suicidal at worst.

3. Mathematically Speaking: The “I hate the DBL and want to play it less” argument.

Voting for shared BL:

“DBL is harder to keep”: You get to play Alpine as much as you want and you suffer 33% (1/3 of BLS available) of the time when you get DBL as home BL. Your server suffers 33% of the time.

“DBL is easier to keep”: You suffer 33% of the time when you get DBL as home BL. Your server suffers 66% of the time.

Voting against shared BL:

Whether DBL/ABL is easier to keep is a non-issue.

You suffer 50% of the time. Your server does not suffer.

So if you hate DBL with such a burning passion that you would set the house on fire to keep yourself warm, I ask you to take a step back and think about what you actually want. An unbalanced game mode that routinely puts sides at an absurd disadvantage damaging the odd-server out and making the game-mode less fun to play for a week, or a balanced one that might slightly inconvenience you.

Frankly, I don’t believe this question should have ever been asked of the general population. Especially once Anet acknowledged themselves that it would be unbalanced.

I’m not here to disagree with you but I want to point out that the DBL could potentially be used as a balancing factor. Note the high ppt that the green servers have generally now which means they are pretty far ahead of their peers. DBL could be used as a balancing weak point and be given to the Green server in all tiers.

Regarding your point about the two BL’s not being equal: WvW isn’t nor ever was designed with “equal” or even fair in mind. I think having a unique bl’s for each color could really change things up, and that’s why I voted the way I did.

DBL as balancing factor is utter nonsense since they cant even pair the servers correctly.
Hes right, I voted for an overall rotation instead of simultan maps since we only got 2 different + theyre totally different to play.
If you have 3 times the same map, there wont be the decision that one map is best for karma train and the other is best for GvGs. If it goes THIS far, yes WvW is going down the spiral.

Roxanne.6140:

I’m not here to disagree with you but I want to point out that the DBL could potentially be used as a balancing factor. Note the high ppt that the green servers have generally now which means they are pretty far ahead of their peers. DBL could be used as a balancing weak point and be given to the Green server in all tiers.

While I can see how that could possibly make the larger servers weaker, it would make winning far less fun. You would be punished for doing well. I am open to alternate ways of handling the population imbalance issues, but I believe that introducing such a drastic “fix” willy nilly is counter-productive and more ignoring the problem than mitigating it.

Point 1, EB and ABL are already different. Therefore this point is moot. Players are already used to differing point maps that also require different tactics. Having differing home maps wouldn’t be any different. Players are smart enough to understand that different maps might be worth more if fully controlled and decide where to go from there.

Point 2, ANet indicated it wouldn’t be three of the same map. Different maps and class balancing are not anywhere near the same types of balance issues. And since populations have never been in balance having a different map is nothing compared to time zone differences in populations. This is not an issue.

Point 3. People from both sides have said that 3 months of one map would have a negative impact on population. Currently 74% of people seem to prefer not to have that occur or favor having more variety in map selections. Which means if blocked by the minority it will create ill will in the 74% of voting player base which might further decline numbers or encourage people that support the game via in game purchases to spend that money elsewhere which hurts new development funding and weakens game mode populations further.

On top of that mixed maps allows new changes to be tested live and opens up more options for new maps to be introduced and played in live where they can be tested by all versus a few that may or may not test which results in poor feedback.

Voting for non-mixed maps votes for stagnation, which is where we lost player base before HoT. People left because of lack of changes and things grew stale.

@op

Ok, dbl is being worked on so it’s a better map that more players will like.

We were told that if we go the “simultaneous” route, changes are we will get a 3rd new map so each side is unique.

It’s going to be ok.

Xdreviuse Reborn.3276:

Regarding your point about the two BL’s not being equal: WvW isn’t nor ever was designed with “equal” or even fair in mind. I think having a unique bl’s for each color could really change things up, and that’s why I voted the way I did.

There will not be unique borderlands for each server. There will be 2 Alpine and 1 Desert. I agree, World vs World does have room for unequal defenses. Each home borderland is meant to be much easier to defend for that server. In Eternal Battlegrounds (which is out of the scope of this conversation), certain sides have easier and harder keeps to assault and defend. My issue is that having 2 Alpine and 1 Desert will make one (or two) side(s) worse off for their Home Borderlands. I repeat, they are not making 1 borderland per side.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

There will not be unique borderlands for each server.

Actually they said that voting for 2/1 would encourage them to create a unique one for each side. Check the older Dev threads under the Dev Tracker.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

Roxanne.6140:

I’m not here to disagree with you but I want to point out that the DBL could potentially be used as a balancing factor. Note the high ppt that the green servers have generally now which means they are pretty far ahead of their peers. DBL could be used as a balancing weak point and be given to the Green server in all tiers.

While I can see how that could possibly make the larger servers weaker, it would make winning far less fun. You would be punished for doing well. I am open to alternate ways of handling the population imbalance issues, but I believe that introducing such a drastic “fix” willy nilly is counter-productive and more ignoring the problem than mitigating it.

The only in truly balancing population disparity is if Anet invokes Godmode and manually plucks and puts players into servers. Because it is human nature to stack the winning team, as in alot of other team based games such as Team Fortress. I’ve also spent a good amount of time waiting to get into Jade Quarry. so yea hurhur.

Alternatively, Anet can also go the dictatorship way and close off the transfer server option (why would they) and only assign new players the server they should go to. Of course that doesn’t bode well for guilds. so yea huhur

Not gonna argue this again, been done numerous times in the past 2 months, half dozen other things are not balanced in wvw.

If you want to vote to ruin wvw by my guest.

Lastly, you’re right, this question should have never been asked from the very first poll it was brought up more than a month ago, they should have just done it, end of story.

IMO you’re not seeing the forest for the trees. If rotation gets up say goodbye to WvW for 3 months and in all likelihood it will be the definite death of the mode because every 3 months less and less will come back. Its that simple.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

Xdreviuse Reborn.3276:

Regarding your point about the two BL’s not being equal: WvW isn’t nor ever was designed with “equal” or even fair in mind. I think having a unique bl’s for each color could really change things up, and that’s why I voted the way I did.

There will not be unique borderlands for each server. There will be 2 Alpine and 1 Desert. I agree, World vs World does have room for unequal defenses. Each home borderland is meant to be much easier to defend for that server. In Eternal Battlegrounds (which is out of the scope of this conversation), certain sides have easier and harder keeps to assault and defend. My issue is that having 2 Alpine and 1 Desert will make one (or two) side(s) worse off for their Home Borderlands. I repeat, they are not making 1 borderland per side.

Actually, they did mention something about that… My guess is it will be put up to a new vote if this current one wins. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4lx2gx/may_31_new_wvw_poll/d3qwc2f

I repeat, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

TheGrimm.5624:

Point 1, EB and ABL are already different. Therefore this point is moot. Players are already used to differing point maps that also require different tactics. Having differing home maps wouldn’t be any different. Players are smart enough to understand that different maps might be worth more if fully controlled and decide where to go from there.

Point 2, ANet indicated it wouldn’t be three of the same map. Different maps and class balancing are not anywhere near the same types of balance issues. And since populations have never been in balance having a different map is nothing compared to time zone differences in populations. This is not an issue.

Point 3. People from both sides have said that 3 months of one map would have a negative impact on population. Currently 74% of people seem to prefer not to have that occur or favor having more variety in map selections. Which means if blocked by the minority it will create ill will in the 74% of voting player base which might further decline numbers or encourage people that support the game via in game purchases to spend that money elsewhere which hurts new development funding and weakens game mode populations further.

On top of that mixed maps allows new changes to be tested live and opens up more options for new maps to be introduced and played in live where they can be tested by all versus a few that may or may not test which results in poor feedback.

Voting for non-mixed maps votes for stagnation, which is where we lost player base before HoT. People left because of lack of changes and things grew stale.

Having different home types would definitely make a difference. Your home BL is meant to be your “gimme”. It’s easier to gain points and defend key objectives. Forcing a side into having a harder time for a week would just plain suck for that server.

Source on that second point? Because that sounds awful. If they did implement it, I would still vote to have every server the same BL and have it rotate every 1-3 weeks or so instead of 3 months. No staleness that way, and no imbalance between servers.

I will argue that map type does affect population. As you said yourself, people left because things grew stale. People also left because they hated the Desert BLs. People also stayed because they liked the Desert BLs. I am not claiming that keeping the borderlands static will fix population issues. I’m saying that making them simultaneous will make your issues worse.

I already said I know I am in the minority here. If I can convince people in the majority that it could be better to vote the other way, then I have achieved my goal. I am not asking to invalidate the poll. I am simply stating my point of view and engaging in discussion. If the poll goes through and the borderlands don’t suck when they’re simultaneous, then I’ll be pleasantly surprised. But I don’t think I’ll be surprised if they suck.

Xdreviuse Reborn.3276:

Crescendo Forte.4821:

Xdreviuse Reborn.3276:

Regarding your point about the two BL’s not being equal: WvW isn’t nor ever was designed with “equal” or even fair in mind. I think having a unique bl’s for each color could really change things up, and that’s why I voted the way I did.

There will not be unique borderlands for each server. There will be 2 Alpine and 1 Desert. I agree, World vs World does have room for unequal defenses. Each home borderland is meant to be much easier to defend for that server. In Eternal Battlegrounds (which is out of the scope of this conversation), certain sides have easier and harder keeps to assault and defend. My issue is that having 2 Alpine and 1 Desert will make one (or two) side(s) worse off for their Home Borderlands. I repeat, they are not making 1 borderland per side.

Actually, they did mention something about that… My guess is it will be put up to a new vote if this current one wins. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4lx2gx/may_31_new_wvw_poll/d3qwc2f

I repeat, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Would actually be an interesting poll to see how scoring would fair against a vote for an additional map.

Swagger.1459:

@op

Ok, dbl is being worked on so it’s a better map that more players will like.

We were told that if we go the “simultaneous” route, changes are we will get a 3rd new map so each side is unique.

It’s going to be ok.

That sounds even worse. I would still vote for all servers having the same map every week and simply changing the map type every 1-3 weeks. We’d get both variety and balance. Simultaneous 3 way sounds disturbingly unbalance-able.

I think op makes valid points. For me, I could care less about scoring, winning or losing. I would rather have fun and fight on a different variety of maps, with a different strategy any time I want. The only fairness I care about is class balance.

Xdreviuse Reborn.3276:

Crescendo Forte.4821:

Xdreviuse Reborn.3276:

Regarding your point about the two BL’s not being equal: WvW isn’t nor ever was designed with “equal” or even fair in mind. I think having a unique bl’s for each color could really change things up, and that’s why I voted the way I did.

There will not be unique borderlands for each server. There will be 2 Alpine and 1 Desert. I agree, World vs World does have room for unequal defenses. Each home borderland is meant to be much easier to defend for that server. In Eternal Battlegrounds (which is out of the scope of this conversation), certain sides have easier and harder keeps to assault and defend. My issue is that having 2 Alpine and 1 Desert will make one (or two) side(s) worse off for their Home Borderlands. I repeat, they are not making 1 borderland per side.

Actually, they did mention something about that… My guess is it will be put up to a new vote if this current one wins. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4lx2gx/may_31_new_wvw_poll/d3qwc2f

I repeat, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Thanks for the source. I didn’t know what I was talking about. I would still argue against having 3 different BLs at once because of the imbalance. 3 of the same BL rotating every 1-3 weeks sounds a lot fresher.

You do realize its more balanced to have 1 BL which is harder/easier to defend than the others and give that to the Red/Green server or whatever the colors are right? What isn’t balanced is giving the server that is predicted to win the exact same BL to defend as they will automatically have an easier time defending it. If a server is predicted to win then they should by all means have a home BL that is harder to defend as it will help balance the playing field.

And even beyond that. If something is hard to defend it goes both ways. As soon as someone takes it from you, it becomes that much easier for you to get it back……

Crescendo Forte.4821:

Having different home types would definitely make a difference. Your home BL is meant to be your “gimme”. It’s easier to gain points and defend key objectives. Forcing a side into having a harder time for a week would just plain suck for that server.

The “gimmie” on any home map is based on having a way point that is always open that is deep in the map that gives the home side a quicker route to key targets. Both ABL and DBL had this feature. This is balanced.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

Source on that second point? Because that sounds awful. If they did implement it, I would still vote to have every server the same BL and have it rotate every 1-3 weeks or so instead of 3 months. No staleness that way, and no imbalance between servers.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/How-long-will-Alpines-last/first

Tyler Bearce.3427:

The current plan is to rotate the borderlands maps each quarterly update. That said, now that we are actively polling the community, perhaps we can start exploring other options.

For instance, nothing is really stopping us from having a combination of ABL and DBL maps running simultaneously. 2 of one and 1 of the other. If we polled that, and players approved it, then there’d be no need for the rotation, and players on both sides of the issue could play on their preferred map. The downside of course, would be any perception of imbalance that may arise from one map being considered the stronger “Home” map, but we could always give the more defensible map to Red/Blue and leave the less defensible map to Green.

Preception – ANet was not seeing this as imbalanced, they were concerned players might. Aka they were not seeing one map as being an advantage or disadvantage to players.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

I will argue that map type does affect population. As you said yourself, people left because things grew stale. People also left because they hated the Desert BLs. People also stayed because they liked the Desert BLs. I am not claiming that keeping the borderlands static will fix population issues. I’m saying that making them simultaneous will make your issues worse.

We will have to disagree, as I said, at the time of this post 74% of the people were for it therefore we know the percent that would find it unfavorable not to mix. I do not have numbers that ANet has, but I do believe we lost more players before HoT then we did after HoT and a large part of that drop off was due to staleness.

OriOri.8724:

You do realize its more balanced to have 1 BL which is harder/easier to defend than the others and give that to the Red/Green server or whatever the colors are right? What isn’t balanced is giving the server that is predicted to win the exact same BL to defend as they will automatically have an easier time defending it. If a server is predicted to win then they should by all means have a home BL that is harder to defend as it will help balance the playing field.

And even beyond that. If something is hard to defend it goes both ways. As soon as someone takes it from you, it becomes that much easier for you to get it back……

That kind of balance is done with Glicko/Warscore. If your server is consistently winning, you should go up a tier until you find where your server belongs. Once there you should have just as much of a chance to win or lose as everyone else. Balance between winning/losing servers is done map side via Home BLS and EB Keeps. You do NOT need seperate map types to accomplish this. Also, you should not be punished for winning. You should not be on the brink of going up a tier and then be forced back down because you’re doing well. Putting one server at a disadvantage because they are predicted to win is literally imbalance. If the scores are super close one week, why should the server that won by a couple hundred points be reduced to third place automatically? That just seems unmotivating.

OriOri.8724:

You do realize its more balanced to have 1 BL which is harder/easier to defend than the others and give that to the Red/Green server or whatever the colors are right? What isn’t balanced is giving the server that is predicted to win the exact same BL to defend as they will automatically have an easier time defending it. If a server is predicted to win then they should by all means have a home BL that is harder to defend as it will help balance the playing field.

And even beyond that. If something is hard to defend it goes both ways. As soon as someone takes it from you, it becomes that much easier for you to get it back……

There are a multitude of variables involved in determining which map is easier or harder and without running them at the same time it would be hard to measure this.

Just a few examples of variables that might be preceived one way or another:

• DBL, bigger structures harder for scouts, could mean easier for assualters, but bigger also means takes longer to get thru both walls before defenders show
• ABL, all keeps can be breached by a set of catas on outer walls never requiring siege replacement, but smaller therefore easier for scouts to call out
• Populations, if ABL has more its quicker to move about, quicker to move about means easier to K-Train and sweep clean
• Populations, if DBL has less people and bigger objectives means people have longer to run around and is slower to sweep clean
• Off hours and people pvding doors, NPCs are stronger in DBL and require more people, but if no defenders then its a matter of time
• EB has more time as a queued map then either ABL or DBL, some people will always stay EB regardless of what home map you have since it has more PPT potential then either home BL

And that’s just a couple of factors. So until there is some play time with both in play it will be hard to judge which is what and may require some back and fourth.

TheGrimm.5624:

Crescendo Forte.4821:

There will not be unique borderlands for each server.

Actually they said that voting for 2/1 would encourage them to create a unique one for each side. Check the older Dev threads under the Dev Tracker.

And, what happens while waiting for over a year for it??? Maybe the DBL should be shelved until this new map is ready? Yes, where’s the vote to keep the DBL out until there’s 3 unique maps?

Your not wrong, it will definitely be imbalanced, but having shared bl’s is the lesser of 2 evils.
Anet is unwilling to do a weekly rotation and having 3 months of only the dbl will kill the game. People will quit playing during those times and less will return each time.
People could have voted to get rid of it completely but it was heavily implied that if we voted to destroy it they wouldn’t make any new maps.

This leaves us with the choice of playing a broken game mode and enjoying it while it slowly dies or giving it a quick death by voting for rotation.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

1. The borderlands are inherently different from one another.

One will always be easier to defend than the other. It doesn’t matter which one is easier, but it is generally agreed that these maps were NOT created equal. Whichever side gets the odd borderland out will have either a comparatively easier or harder time holding their own borderland. If you’re set up for failure, your server will have reduced turn out that week. You can play the hero and say that won’t affect you, but you aren’t your server or your militia. Remember how lower scoring does affect herd mentality to not show up.

Broken reasoning. Unbalanced alpine borders are in effect all the time. See that enemy border that is 100% held by a single enemy server? That’s because your server has no presence there. While you have most of your own home border due to heavy presence. Unbalanced. 1 desert map would change nothing. I fail to see this argument as legitimate.

2. When a previous poll was released, Anet admitted that a 2/1 split would inherently be imbalanced, and people still voted for it. Why are we wanting to introduce unbalanced content when Anet can barely balance population?

World Versus World is a tricky game-mode to balance, especially when it comes to population, terrain changes, and basic point changes. Introducing even more issues into this pool of mess seems self-destructive at best, suicidal at worst.

See previous point. WvW is inherently unbalanced. If you argue that 1 desert is unbalanced, then why havent people argued that 1 EB is unbalanced? I fail see this argument as a legitimate.

3. Mathematically Speaking: The “I hate the DBL and want to play it less” argument.

Voting for shared BL:

“DBL is harder to keep”: You get to play Alpine as much as you want and you suffer 33% (1/3 of BLS available) of the time when you get DBL as home BL. Your server suffers 33% of the time.

“DBL is easier to keep”: You suffer 33% of the time when you get DBL as home BL. Your server suffers 66% of the time.

Voting against shared BL:

Whether DBL/ABL is easier to keep is a non-issue.

You suffer 50% of the time. Your server does not suffer.

So if you hate DBL with such a burning passion that you would set the house on fire to keep yourself warm, I ask you to take a step back and think about what you actually want. An unbalanced game mode that routinely puts sides at an absurd disadvantage damaging the odd-server out and making the game-mode less fun to play for a week, or a balanced one that might slightly inconvenience you.

This is just random percentage nonsense! Again, WvW is inherently unbalanced. We got 3 borders and 1 EB – that’s totally unbalanced and we see it every single day with a heavy EB population and empty borders. There are people that hate EB and there are people that totally swear off borders and stay on EB all the time. Having 2+1 borders and 1 EB change nothing. I fail to see this argument as legitimate.

At the end of the day it’s a self-balanced system. If few people are there, few people can cap easily. If many people are there, it attract even more people. Just like alpine. Just like EB.

A vote for rotations and the exponential boredom of playing on 3 deserts where a majority of commanders dont want to play, a majority of guilds dont want to play and pug participation would be at an all time low is a vote to destroy the community because all it will create is a toxic enviroment where the majority is unhappy. If you vote in favor of that then GG. You’re an kitten .

Crescendo Forte.4821:

1. The borderlands are inherently different from one another.

Yes, Desert Borderlands is different to Alpine Borderlands.

Thing is, the map’s layout and unique characteristics can be uniquely used by giving DBL to Red. DBL is broadly more defensible, has more PPT in the north and drastically less PPT in the south, especially the southwest- where green spawns.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

2. When a previous poll was released, Anet admitted that a 2/1 split would inherently be imbalanced, and people still voted for it. Why are we wanting to introduce unbalanced content when Anet can barely balance population?

Because people aren’t stressed about balance. They’re stressed about fun. Being able to play on the borderland they prefer makes the game more fun to them. Having more variety inherently makes the game more fun.

We know ANet can’t balance population. That’s why we don’t want them to target balance. Any effort at making a balanced game is undermined by population mechanics.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

3. Mathematically Speaking: The “I hate the DBL and want to play it less” argument.

Assuming maps are randomly distributed and not given to the server who will either be penalized (green) or given to the server which will benefit from it (red).

Assuming people have a massive priority on home BLs. Maybe they do, but I don’t see any evidence behind this assumption.

Also there’s the converse argument. I prefer DBL and want to play it more. I don’t care if I’m home or away team there; frankly, I’d probably prefer to be away team.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

Frankly, I don’t believe this question should have ever been asked of the general population. Especially once Anet acknowledged themselves that it would be unbalanced.

The imbalance is why they gave it a 75% pricetag. It’s still winning.
Frankly, this simply reeks of sore loser. Your position lost, so you don’t think the question should’ve been asked in the first place.

Crescendo Forte.4821:

That sounds even worse. I would still vote for all servers having the same map every week and simply changing the map type every 1-3 weeks. We’d get both variety and balance. Simultaneous 3 way sounds disturbingly unbalance-able.

They have stated this takes up too many resources.

Its much better to have diffrent maps. But they should rotate.
Best would be three diffrent maps that rotate monthly between realms and the server matching is done quaterly. Diverse and fair.

My opinion first glance is that as most of the people dont like DBL and people who like DBL dont mind alpine bl (because i havent seen them complain here that they only spend time in EB) is that having 3 alpine would be superior option.

But as already before HoT people were complaining that just having alpine is boring and were hyped about new map, I dont think its an option.

So the only viable options I see:
Better option) have 3 different bls, 1 for every server
good sides: Lot of Variety, More activity, Data can be used to Balance EB (as green side is clearly strongest)
bad sides: Unbalanced home bls, server with “best” map will get focused most

Criers Option) Have 3-4 diff kind of bls that swap weekly
good sides: Variety, activity, balanced
bad sides: Dead weeks (which might be good, servers will find more enemies on active weeks), EB will still be unbalanced, reset issues

I do not see 3 months or even 1 month of hated DBL being good, it’s that long of a period that the gamemode will die.

If and when a third map is created, THEN we can have a conversation about it. Please STOP voting and considering them as already existing, they do not. Even Tyler said a third map is not something they have planned to do at all yet.

Threather.9354:

My opinion first glance is that as most of the people dont like DBL and people who like DBL dont mind alpine bl (because i havent seen them complain here that they only spend time in EB) is that having 3 alpine would be superior option.

But as already before HoT people were complaining that just having alpine is boring and were hyped about new map, I dont think its an option.

So the only viable options I see:
Better option) have 3 different bls, 1 for every server
good sides: Lot of Variety, More activity, Data can be used to Balance EB (as green side is clearly strongest)
bad sides: Unbalanced home bls, server with “best” map will get focused most

Criers Option) Have 3-4 diff kind of bls that swap weekly
good sides: Variety, activity, balanced
bad sides: Dead weeks (which might be good, servers will find more enemies on active weeks), EB will still be unbalanced, reset issues

I do not see 3 months or even 1 month of hated DBL being good, it’s that long of a period that the gamemode will die.

Well unfortunetly there are no fantasy options and I would hope no one pick rotating borders based on wishfull thinking. Because thats why we are in this ridiculous mess to begin with. People chose to save desert because maybe it would be implemented just like they imagined instead of just saying no.

Threather.9354:

My opinion first glance is that as most of the people dont like DBL and people who like DBL dont mind alpine bl (because i havent seen them complain here that they only spend time in EB) is that having 3 alpine would be superior option.

Once again that vote has occurred and failed.

Well i think lots of people dream of three rotationg maps and you won´t bring that out of their heads … and they will vote for roating maps
and they will vote to keep DBL even when they play 90% on alpine afterwards….

becoz ppl are not interested in balancing, thats why they vote for unbalance option

ppl who are interested in balancing are always the minority, in every single game.

Voted for shared cuz I want to see the wvw burn just how unbalanced this will be.

Swagger.1459:

We were told that if we go the “simultaneous” route, changes are we will get a 3rd new map so each side is unique.

That’s not really what Tyler said :
If simultaneous borderlands wins, we’d be more likely to work on another borderlands map. So that each team could have a unique borderland, but it’s not something we are currently working on.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4lx2gx/may_31_new_wvw_poll/d3qwc2f

SkyShroud.2865:

becoz ppl are not interested in balancing, thats why they vote for unbalance option

ppl who are interested in balancing are always the minority, in every single game.

Luckily this vote has absolutely nothing to do with balance as the way a border look is irrelevant. We know this because 3 alpines and 1 EB are not in any way balanced. We see that every single day.

So yeah, maybe people interested in balancing are in minority.

And a minority of players also dont give a kitten what happens to the community after desert is rotated in for 3 months.

Seems pretty balanced to me.

SkyShroud.2865:

becoz ppl are not interested in balancing, thats why they vote for unbalance option

ppl who are interested in balancing are always the minority, in every single game.

Asynchronous doesn’t mean unbalanced thats not to say that the DBL isn’t unbalanced, it is, but 3 different BLs won;t necessarily be unbalanced.

SkyShroud.2865:

becoz ppl are not interested in balancing, thats why they vote for unbalance option

Not really, I’m think balance is a good thing, but really when the game mode is massively imbalanced due to coverage/population and the game so poorly designed that the gameplay that is encouraged to “win” at PPT is entirely the opposite to what you want in a mass scale PvP mode why would I care less about the very minor effect having one different borderland will have when balance is already such a joke that most players who are not new or PvE players do not give a flying kitten about the score beyond which servers they may end up against for fights.

Also having the same 3 borderlands does not equate to balance, for example if the DB is considered harder to defend then you could improve balance by making that border the home border for the highest ranked world.

But really in regard to this vote, all that is secondary, the reality is this, simultaneous borders is the best option for most people, whether someone dislikes Alpine or DB, under simultaneous borders they can play whatever border they like, if the borders are rotated that means 3 months playing a border some hate or 3 months not playing or simply off to play a new game, in case you’ve missed it WvW (or in fact this game in general) is not in a healthy state and can’t really afford to lose yet more players.

There are no balanced matches, never will be.

So long as the right side gets them, small favors are a good thing.

Bandini.6185:

Swagger.1459:

We were told that if we go the “simultaneous” route, changes are we will get a 3rd new map so each side is unique.

That’s not really what Tyler said :
If simultaneous borderlands wins, we’d be more likely to work on another borderlands map. So that each team could have a unique borderland, but it’s not something we are currently working on.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4lx2gx/may_31_new_wvw_poll/d3qwc2f

I guess this is what most people would prefer. If we will ever get it or better when stands in the stars … Of couse he said it vague. He can´t promise something that is not decided or lacks resources.

You’re obviously clueless to the state of wvw right now, all the bigger fight based guilds in T1 (which make up the majority of NA prime atm) are getting seriously bored of the game and a lot are quitting. The vote has extremely little to do with caring about PPT and ease of defense, it’s about changing up game flow and adding something interesting. Plus a lot of people in these guilds hate the desert borderlands (as the vote reflects) and the sentiment “You suffer 50% of the time. Your server does not suffer.” is EXTREMELY wrong because many players these big guilds will not hesitate to just not play at all when DBLs are up and your server will suffer immensely as wvw during this time will be a ghost town, more than likely one server more than another and that will artificially change glicko ratings. Also, do you even know what “quarterly” means?? “making the game-mode less fun to play for a week”…… more like 3 months buddy, so for 6 months out of the year wvw will be unplayable for a LOT of people, that is a huge mistake and will most likely kill wvw even more. If this happens it will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Paint it black?
Well i am from EU servers. And i prefer diversity. An acurate scoring system is less important than a good playground.
I did find DBL was a bad WvW desined map in many aspects. But the rework made it better and as an option to bring diversity it´s useful. We will see how it goes if its implemented. Best would be three rotating maps. Server matching per quater, roatation per month.
Maybe combat will focus onto one map if it´s less defendable. We will see. It will open oportunities for player types and strategies.

I find it interesting that people are proposing the green team get DBL, since it’s the easier one to defend.

Roxanne.6140:

I’m not here to disagree with you but I want to point out that the DBL could potentially be used as a balancing factor. Note the high ppt that the green servers have generally now which means they are pretty far ahead of their peers. DBL could be used as a balancing weak point and be given to the Green server in all tiers.

I think the other way around. The DBL will be easier to defend, because no one will want to go in it. It should be given to the lowest team, glicko-wise, in a matchup.

Wrong.

I will go to DBL for the following reasons.

1.) Just to have diffrent landscape. I prefer alpine but its a nice diffrence.
2.) To make points for my side
3.) To avoide zergs

I a quite shure that making the map an addition and not forcing players onto it will even swing the perception on it.

I will go to dbl for following reasons
1) enemy wont have siege or scouts there
2) my server needs points and enemy wont cap it back in next hours
3) If I am feeling depressed and I want to see depressing landscape
4) Because its not as bad as people think since the changes and it will be there to stay, so i have to get used to it.

Wolfric.9380:

And i prefer diversity. An acurate scoring system is less important than a good playground.
I did find DBL was a bad WvW desined map in many aspects. But the rework made it better and as an option to bring diversity it´s useful. We will see how it goes if its implemented. Best would be three rotating maps. Server matching per quater, roatation per month.
Maybe combat will focus onto one map if it´s less defendable. We will see. It will open oportunities for player types and strategies.

There was a time early in this game that I would have agreed with the OP, and OP is not wrong on the #1 point (despite EB being an “unequal” map), but after the aging of this game mode I find the opinion held in the quoted text to be more important to the health of the game mode than having equal maps. Options to bring diversity are useful in a sandbox environment.

Additionally, changing the borderland maps means Anet has to reset the whole thing, matches included (remember last time?), whereas simultaneous BLs means no confusing mid-week match resets.

morrolan.9608:

Threather.9354:

My opinion first glance is that as most of the people dont like DBL and people who like DBL dont mind alpine bl (because i havent seen them complain here that they only spend time in EB) is that having 3 alpine would be superior option.

Once again that vote has occurred and failed.

The 2-1 that voted for DBL already stated their opinion to keep, don’t build yours upon the vocal group that post. A lot of people don’t like confrontation on the forums and avoid it. That’s why we have more vocal people on both sides that do post and over post. People that were bored with ABL went to EB/EoTM/PvP/PvE. Know some people just now going back to ABL since the DBL vote failed. Getting a lot of questions on why did I pay for HoT when HoT features keep getting dropped. And before anyone says DBL wasn’t, go look at the HoT sales page.

EDIT: Threather.9354’s additional part of their post indicates that they thought that single borderland was not viable due to pre-HoT complaints wasn’t feasible either.

“But as already before HoT people were complaining that just having alpine is boring and were hyped about new map, I dont think its an option.”

TheGrimm.5624:

And before anyone says DBL wasn’t, go look at the HoT sales page.

That’s a marketing throw in, the desert borderland access was given to every account type.

The wvw guild upgrades from the base game dumped into the guildhalls is what you paid for though, be angry about that.