Guild Wars 2

I do alot of WvW, and I do alot of exploring, one thing I have noticed is that when exploring in PvE, I think “how would this play out if this were a PvP map?”

And certain maps definitely stand out more than others in this respect.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/d/df/Timberline_Falls_map.jpg

This is a good example, while going for 100% completion I noticed how many nooks, crannies, canyons, overlooks, and just the entire general layout of the map was so much more complex and well designed than the current WvW maps.

It almost feels as if the open fields in WvW were designed to actually hold more than what we have now, player build outposts, structures etc. that maybe never ended up in the iteration process. but in the end just because void large open spaces instead.

These PvE maps on the other hand are complex enough to lower the amount of “zerging” that takes place, but still has enough main path ways to have them, and enough smaller areas to promote small squad tactics and roaming.

This probably sounds crazy, and it may just be that, but I kinda wish Anet would open their minds to a Test Server so they can put some of the community suggestions, or their own internal tests to the public to test, even if it fails, I would love to see how a map like this would work in a Server v Server setup (only 1v1, not the current 1v1v1, though that may work for some maps.)

And with the variety of maps and areas available in PvE, this would instantly create a massive amount of variety for the playerbase.

A small part of me actually kinda wished that WvW was actually in fact the PvE world, but with open player vs player combat between servers, competing over events, waypoints, locations, etc.

Zietlogik.6208:

I do alot of WvW, and I do alot of exploring, one thing I have noticed is that when exploring in PvE, I think "how would this play out if this were a PvP map?"

that’s why i don’t play pve

+1

Zietlogik.6208:

I do alot of WvW, and I do alot of exploring, one thing I have noticed is that when exploring in PvE, I think “how would this play out if this were a PvP map?”

And certain maps definitely stand out more than others in this respect.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/d/df/Timberline_Falls_map.jpg

This is a good example, while going for 100% completion I noticed how many nooks, crannies, canyons, overlooks, and just the entire general layout of the map was so much more complex and well designed than the current WvW maps.

It almost feels as if the open fields in WvW were designed to actually hold more than what we have now, player build outposts, structures etc. that maybe never ended up in the iteration process. but in the end just because void large open spaces instead.

These PvE maps on the other hand are complex enough to lower the amount of “zerging” that takes place, but still has enough main path ways to have them, and enough smaller areas to promote small squad tactics and roaming.

This probably sounds crazy, and it may just be that, but I kinda wish Anet would open their minds to a Test Server so they can put some of the community suggestions, or their own internal tests to the public to test, even if it fails, I would love to see how a map like this would work in a Server v Server setup (only 1v1, not the current 1v1v1, though that may work for some maps.)

And with the variety of maps and areas available in PvE, this would instantly create a massive amount of variety for the playerbase.

A small part of me actually kinda wished that WvW was actually in fact the PvE world, but with open player vs player combat between servers, competing over events, waypoints, locations, etc.

All of that is because you understand what WvW could be and ANet does not.

Yyyyep. The WvW maps are fairly flat and bland. Anet is clearly capable of making good, complex maps and a lot of the PvE maps would make for some really fun WvW maps but we’re stuck with a x3 copy of a fairly dull map and then Eternal which is mostly just open and flat.

Clearly they wanted more of a symmetric fight. Eternal isn’t totally symmetric but pretty close. Personally I think that’s not only unnecessary, but makes the maps wear out quicker. Asymmetric maps are usually more fun. People will complain that it’s “not fair” but just give the #1 team the most disadvantaged areas and call it even. :-p

Great idea, and still worth discussing even though it’s been brought up tons of times in the last year. Some of the structures and landscapes in the PvE world would be awesome map-making fodder for more interesting and complex WvW maps.

There are 2 main problems (from my point of view).

1) WvW isn’t (or wasn’t originally) a high development priority. I don’t think they correctly anticipated the popularity of WvW in relation to tPvP and PvE. This is changing, but to shift gears in software development on a live product takes time. A public test server would do a lot to speed and guide development but I doubt we’ll ever see one, given the nature of the company that owns the company, so to speak.

2) They have little or no desire to discourage “zerging” in WvW. This is meant to be a gigantic 3 way war game. Bigger zergs means more players, and for everyone who hates zerging there are lots more who enjoy it (need evidence? look at the size of the zergs compared to the small-groups….). Every change made to WvW has either encouraged zerging or had no effect on it either way.

The maps have obviously been designed very carefully considering siege ranges and troop movement speeds, although the PvE maps look really fun for WvW they have not undergone the same process. Imagine placing every conceivable piece of siege in every possible location to check ranges, timing min-max running speeds from each map point, calculating dolyak travel times over every route, creating dynamic events which are balanced but have impact on the battle, etc., then think of how many people are on the WvW development team, what other projects they already have, their inability to fix some terrain glitches in the maps they already have so far, and the likelihood that the parent corporation can be convinced to fund such a project.

This is true, but if that was the case they could definitely take the page from nearly any RTS game that can have the same principle, the only real difference is that more is in the players hands (building defenses etc.)