Guild Wars 2

Bandini.6185:

Tyler, in order to help us decide, can you tell us a bit more about :

Benefits to updating links less often:

• The WvW team spends less time rebalancing world links, and spends more time building or improving other WvW features.

If the relinking would be every month, what proportion of the time of the team would it take ? 1% ? 10 % I know it’s not easy to tell, but we need to know if it’s significantly high enough to have a adverse effect on WvW evolution.

I’d estimate that each relinking consumes ~5% of the WvW team’s development time for that month. So it’s a low (but not insignificant) perpetual cost, at least until we can build a system for automating it.

This poll does not require a 75% supermajority vote. If a poll requires 75% approval, the poll question will explicitly state that.

The results turned out more mixed than we think will be good for the future health of the game. For that reason we are going to run a “Remove Desert Borderlands?” poll first and then run a variation of this poll again. The updated poll will be reworded for clarification due to large amounts of feedback that many of the ‘No’ votes were cast with a misunderstanding of what they meant.

Personally, I voted ‘Yes’ to this, as did the rest of my team. So we are also disappointed with the result. But that was an accepted risk when we decided to poll the community about WvW development rather than just following our own vision.

We chose to target active players for polls, because they are actually playing WvW and thus have the largest stake in the result. Many inactive players may never come back, or come back only briefly. We don’t think it would be fair to let the votes of those who have quit playing shape the result for those that are still playing.

We are looking at ways to improve transfer experience. It’s a complicated problem.

Our current preferred solution, which we’ll likely poll players on, is as follows:

• If you think of the periods between world links being changed as seasons, then we’d lock all transfers for the first half of the season, and allow normal transferring in the second half.
• So assuming we continue to update world links once every 3 months, the first 6 weeks would be locked for all worlds and the second set of 6 weeks would allow normal transfering (costs scaling based on population size.) Then we’d relink worlds and lock transfers for another 6 weeks.

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” and combining the two “Yes” votes, the final results are:

69.7% – Yes (55% Double Alpine + 14.7% Double Desert)
30.3% – No

Since “Yes” to Mixed Borderlands did not received the required 75% of the vote, we’ll continue with the quarterly borderlands map rotation instead. Thank you to everyone who voted!

We agree that a fully in-game polling system would be better than the current setup. However, it’s a question of priorities. Is it better to spend months building out an in-game polling system, which would indirectly benefit players? Or spend that same time building features that directly benefit WvW players, like additional scoring or quality of life improvements? Perhaps that will be one of the options on the next prioritization poll.

Our current polling method still has high participation. Large numbers of players from every world vote in every poll. Also, we’ve noticed that once the total number of votes has reached a certain threshold , votes tend to stabilize, and doubling or tripling the number of votes tends to make very little impact on the final result.

I just made a post, addressing these concerns, on page 5 of the official stickied thread, but I’m posting here too for additional visibility. I know a lot of players get into the habit of ignoring stickied posts or only looking at posts the first time they get a red reply.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-31-May-Mixed-Borderlands/page/5#post6185533

Hi guys, I just wanted to respond to a few concerns:

Why does this poll need a 75% majority?

• Honestly, we had a difficult time deciding if this poll should be decided by a simple majority, rather than a super majority. When we first decided to start polling, the team decided that whenever we are making a major change to the existing game, that change should require 75% of the community to agree to it. We wanted to avoid anything close to a 51/49 split. Mixed Borderlands definitely falls under the category of a major change to the existing game. However, what made the decision harder, was that polling only started relatively recently. Had this poll existed 6 months ago, before we ever started rotating borderlands, it likely would have been decided by a simple majority instead.

Why does this poll not have an option to remove the Desert Borderlands?

• As per the above, we require 75% to make a major change (like permanently removing DBL.) If we try to ask two, or more, 75% questions in a single poll neither is likely to achieve that requirement.
• Prior to this poll, the community reaction to the Desert Borderlands had seemed much more positive. Forum posts approved of the changes we had made to the map in the April 19th release, and were largely in agreement that the map had noticeably improved.
• We believed that those that were hostile to Desert would be less so if the Mixed Borderlands feature allowed Alpine to live in harmony with Desert, rather than replacing it for 3 months. So we wanted to provide this option before creating a poll about removing DBL altogether.

What’s next?

• We’ll poll the community to see if at least 75% of them would like to see the Desert Borderlands permanent removed. This won’t be next weeks poll, but likely the week after that.
• If players vote to remove DBL, then the results of this poll will be void (as we’ll only have one borderlands map.) Otherwise, we’ll move forwards with the results of this poll.

BTW, is there somewhere to find the poll link regularly, or do we just have to hope we see it? Is there even one up right now?

Any currently active poll is available at: https://feedback.guildwars2.com/

The last poll just ended, a new poll will start early next week.

Hey guys, below is a list of upcoming polls you are likely to see, in roughly the order you are likely to see them.

• World Linking Schedule – How often should we relink worlds?
• Desert Borderlands – Should the map be removed indefinitely?
• Repair Hammer – Do you want to be able to spend supply to repair siege?
• Deployable Mortars – Do you want to be able to buy and deploy Mortars?
• Deployable Cannons – Do you want to be able to buy and deploy Cannons?

Special Mention

• WvW Priorities – What do you want the WvW team to prioritize next?
  • We’ll run this poll after completing major milestones with whatever feature last won the Prioritization vote. So in this case: Scoring Improvements.

Thanks everyone. The response was mixed, but there was a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it.

So again, one of the major advantages of world linking is that worlds will be periodically relinked as populations drift over time. To keep relative world populations roughly in balance. So if hypothetically the triple linked T4 worlds all filled and became supermassive T1 worlds, then that advantage would be normalized at the next relinking.

Yes, your ping will be the same. All NA worlds are located in the same datacenter.

Ah, just to clarify. These hypothetical new worlds would be linked upon creation, and they’d be linked to the lowest/lower tiers (depending on how many we created.)

Using existing T4 NA as an example:

• HoD + Ebay + New1
• DH + FC + New2
• NSP + SF + New3

Fairly regularly, I see posts that say something to the effect of:

“The world that most of our guild is on is Full, so we’ve been having our new/returning guild members transfer to the Guest world, but what will happen if the Guest world gets relinked? Will we have to pay to transfer all those members again?”

This solution would give guilds like that an opportunity to freely reform on a world with plenty of space for their entire guild.

Now of course it’s still entirely possible that guilds won’t actually be willing to transfer off their current worlds, even for the opportunity to get all of their members onto the same world. However, that’s exactly why I made this post, just to confirm either case.

Yes, we do have a handful of small worlds, but the more smaller worlds we have, the more balanced linked populations can be. As a quick smaller scale example of current linking dilemma, lets say we have to link worlds with the following populations:

• World 1: 95%
• World 2: 82%
• World 3: 81%
• World 4: 60%
• World 5: 30%
• World 6: 10%

Since our final world total needs to be divisible by 3, we either need to avoid linking any of the worlds, or link some worlds even if they give a large population advantage.

• Worlds 1+6: 105%
• Worlds 2+5: 112%
• Worlds 3+4: 141%

After linking, the difference in population between the highest and lowers teams is much narrower, but we’ve made the 3rd rank server now have significantly more population than the previously 1st ranked server. Also all worlds are now over our goal population cap, and probably have moderate to heavy queues.

However, imagine that instead we had twice as many, half as populated, worlds. It becomes much easier to link them in a way that gives every linked team a similar population.

Since it’s seeming increasingly likely that World Linking is going to win the community vote and become a permanent Gw2 feature, the team has been discussing ways to improve the system, especially around further improving population balance, while still allowing players to reliably play with their friends and guildmates.

Hypothetically speaking, if we were to open some additional worlds (and at this point I still don’t know how much work, or how safe a change like that would be), but if we did, would there be player interest in transferring to these new worlds? The new worlds would have lowered population caps, be free to transfer to for a period of time and be immediately linked with existing lower tier worlds..

The ultimate goal of this hypothetical plan would be two-fold:
1) Give players/guilds that are too big for their ‘Full’ status world an opportunity to move to new worlds, enabling them to grow more easily again.
2) Achieve a larger number of smaller worlds that we can link together to achieve more balanced numbers for each team.

Again, this isn’t something we necessarily can or will do. The purpose of this post is just to quickly feel out community interest, to see if it was worth spending the time it would take to seriously investigate this option.

Update: Thanks everyone. The response was mixed, but there was a general lack of interest in the idea, so we’ll pass on it.

On Why World Linking?

We had/have another, much more elaborate, solution to world population imbalance. However, we decided to table it (perhaps indefinitely) in favor of World Linking for three primary reasons:

1. Time – We felt we needed to improve the world population situation as soon as possible. Any solution that was likely to take 6+ months was off the table.

2. Acceptance – Our two ‘quick’ solutions were World Linking and World Merging. We went with World Linking because we felt players would be more likely to approve it, due to it better preserving the identity of all original worlds, and being more flexible than a more traditional World Merging solution.

3. Complexity – World Linking and World Merging are both fairly easy to understand solutions. This ties back to points 1 and two, but a complex solution would have taken longer to implement, and have been harder to get players to understand and accept.

On The Elaborate Solution

Well as an elaborate solution, it would take quite a few words to effectively detail it, but the short version would be: We blow up, and then completely reform worlds quarterly, with a lot of additional rules governing the formation of worlds (dynamic number of worlds, keeping guild members together, not mixing languages, attempting to balance coverage, etc.)

On Why Not Unlink Tier 1 NA?

Maybe, though it’s not quite that simple, for a few reasons.
First let’s look at Tier 1. At the time we defined links, the top 4 NA worlds were:

1. Yak’s Bend
2. Blackgate
3. Jade Quarry
4. Tarnished Coast

Notice that Blackgate was not the highest ranking world, and due to transfer bandwagoning Tarnished Coast was rising fast out of T2. Would it have been fair to leave YB, BG and JQ unlinked, but then link TC? Had we done so, we’d just be seeing a different world (or set of worlds) dominating T1 right now.

Next let’s consider the fact that there are 24 worlds in NA. Linking T1 allowed us to match the top 12 with the bottom 12, giving every world a partner. Had we decided not to link T1, then we would have been left with the top 9 and the bottom 12. This no longer links evenly, unless we give one tier a third partner, or leave yet another tier partnerless (most likely T2.)

Then there’s the question of how much we should link worlds based just on their tier or leaderboard rank, versus weighting it more based on actual population, coverage, or compatability. Leaderboard rank is the most understandable, and, at least on the surface, the most fair. However, as many of you have pointed out, occasionally a world’s current leaderboard rank is not representative of the world’s current population situation (usually as a result of mass transfers.)

Finally, whatever solution we decided for NA, we still needed to devise a unique solution for EU.

Anyway, probably the next most reasonable option, other than what we actually did, would be to leave NA T1&2 unlinked and then link T3+T8, T4+T7 and T5+T6. At the time we believed players (especially on T1 & T2) would view this as less fair, but now that players have actually experienced it, perhaps this is the way to go the next time we re-link worlds (assuming World Linking wins the vote.)

On Linking More Than 2 Worlds Together

This is also something we might do. Especially in EU due to the difficulty of balancing linked worlds with language restrictions. World linking is pretty flexible, such that there could be any number of worlds linked together, all mixed with unlinked worlds as opponents.

Chris and I just made several informative posts about World Linking on Reddit. I’m reposting them here.

On Population Caps

Some information behind the current server population cap behavior:
Many may already know this bit, but for anyone else who doesn’t: world population is determined by activity level in WvW (Edge of the Mists and Obsidian Sanctum don’t count). If World A has many-times the number of players on it as World B, but World A does’t play WvW at all and World B plays tons of WvW, A will have the lowest population, and B will have a very high one.
/u/piInverse, to your point on increasing world population levels, and especially some becoming full
This is not caused by the additional players bought about by the server link, but from returning players and a lower population cap on the host servers.
This is only partly true. We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes. Intent being to prevent worlds from artificially lowering their cap with just a couple weeks of intentional inactivity. One flipside of that being that even if global WvW population levels dropped next week, if they were still higher than pre-<aforementioned factors>, population levels would still go up as a new, higher week replaces an older, lower one in the window of time being used.
World linking problem: linking, say, a T8 NA world with a T1 NA world and doing nothing with population caps will make it very easy to pile onto an already-healthy world. So something needs to be done with population caps.
There are two opposing goals we can aim for.

• Short-term prevention of bandwagoning. To do this, we’d need to make it more difficult to join a world that’s already low enough in WvW population to merit being linked in the first place.
• Long-term health of worlds with less WvW activity. To do this, we’d need to make it easier to join a world that’s already low enough in WvW population to merit being linked in the first place.

As for what modifications we’ve put in place for population levels to not allow world linking to break the meaning and purpose of population entirely, we’re currently trying a compromise between going completely toward either the long-term or short-term health goals for world populations.

• Unlinked worlds have the highest population cap.
• Linked worlds have significantly lower population caps.

Some things we’re considering to help discourage bandwagoning:

• Increasing the cost to transfer to lower-population worlds (since they’re now often going to be linked to high-pop worlds). For example, possibly 800 gems instead of 500.
• Having merge hosts always considered Full, and their guest(s) all sharing the population their host would otherwise have.
• Locking out transfers for a period of time after world links become active.

On Relinking More Often

We are also considering adjusting links more than once a quarter. There are some pros and cons to this, but assuming World Linking wins the current poll, we could poll on adjusting the re-link rate.

Pros:

• More variety in allies and opponents.
• Players are less likely to bandwagon.
• World populations become more stable.

Cons:

• Matchmaking becomes less accurate. There’d be more unfair matches.
• The WvW World Rank leaderboard becomes less meaningful.
• Additional administrative work for worlds coordinating voice-chat/forum access with their changing allies.
• Players may start to avoid socializing and forming bonds with their cross-world allies, since they are likely to change often.
• My team(WvW) spends more of our time analyzing population and match data, to determine new links, leaving less time for other types of WvW work.
• It becomes harder to remember which worlds are currently linked, and know when the next relink is supposed to happen.

Just curious, what world do you play for? I’m looking at the current breakdown of votes by world right now, and nearly every world has voted in favor of World Linking. There are a few that are 50/50, and one that is against it.

The in-game mail notification should be active now.

How it works:
The mail is sent once upon WvW rankup (minimum rank 10), each time a new poll is activated. The mail includes a link to the poll website.

What happens if World Linking is voted out?

• We’d unlink worlds at the next reset, and we’d either do another partial Glicko reset, or restore pre-link values. Consider this an immediate return to the old system, with similiar to original populations on each world, excepting of course the players/guilds who have transfered to new worlds while World Linking was active.

• The next time we poll players asking which feature we should prioritize, we’d include population balance improvements as an option. This prioritization poll likely wouldn’t happen until we complete at least a significant part of the Scoring changes that have already been voted on. (Time-slice scoring/Skirmishes)

• If population improvements won that poll, then we’d poll again to ask what type of population balance feature you want to see worked on, including the amount of time each of those features would take. World Merging might be pretty quick to implement (though less reversible if the community later decided they didn’t want it), but most other solutions are likely to take a very long time, and it may be that when completed, the new population still won’t be able to get 75% of the community to approve it.

There are very few (if any) features in the game that couldn’t be improved with additional resources invested in them. However, that then becomes a question of priorities. Do we improve Feature A, Feature B or Feature C first? Or perhaps we should prioritize building an entirely new feature instead?

So the first thing we need to ask is: “Is World Linking a positive improvement to the game and worth keeping around?”

If it is, then the next time we ask players to determine which feature work we prioritize, additional World Linking improvements can be one of the options. But it’s important to ask that question in a poll where it’s clear what the tradeoffs to that choice are. For instance: Players may want improvements to World Linking, but perhaps not at the expense of delaying improvements to Scoring.

This radius is larger. Fixing.

The Tier 1 Weapons will be made available in an upcoming Reward Track, much like the armor already is.

We haven’t fully decided how to distribute the T2 Weapons and Armor yet. Though, we are currently leaning towards players purchasing them with a currency that they’d earn as a match reward. We may also set rank requirements for the various pieces, so you’d need to be a relatively high rank(1-2k) to purchase a full set.

Personally, I do most of my gaming in the dark.

Our primary motivation for avoiding running another tournament, is that at the end of every tournament we saw a permanent dip in the number of players playing WvW. Presumably this was due to players burning themselves out during the tournament.

However, we can still run a poll to see if the majority of the community wants another 4 week tournament, even if it might be bad for the long term WvW population numbers. Though even if ‘running another tournament’ won the poll, we’d probably hold off until we get the scoring updates in.

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.

Hey guys, the poll on Scoring has closed. I’ll repost my response on that thread here, for continued discussion:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-13-May-Scoring/page/2#post6161438

The poll has ended! The finals votes were:

• 38.4% – Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)
• 19.0% – Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities (Medium)
• 13.7% – Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level (Medium)
• 10.0% – Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes (Small)
• 8.3% – No preference
• 6.2% – Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)
• 4.3% – Implement scoring for objective capture (Small)

So what are our next steps? The team is going to prioritize work on the Skrimish (time-slice scoring) system that was outlined in the Let’s Talk Scoring… forum thread. This system will be a big step to resolving the community’s top voted priorities: Adjusting scoring to be relative to current activity, as well as increasing a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities. It’s also a prerequisite to work on the outlined Action Level system, which would multiply score during periods of high activity, further addressing the top voted concern. Also, we’ll likely be able to periodically deliver the small features, like reducing the tick timer, while we continue work on Skirmishes.

This is a living process, and we plan to continue polling players to determine our priorities, doing live beta testing of features, and then polling again to determine if players are happy with those features once they’ve had a chance to actually play with them. Thank you to everyone who voted and left feedback!

The poll has ended! The finals votes were:

• 38.4% – Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)

• 19.0% – Provide features that increase a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities (Medium)

• 13.7% – Modify objective scoring to be relative to upgrade level (Medium)

• 10.0% – Change WvW Tick timer to 5 Minutes (Small)

• 8.3% – No preference

• 6.2% – Rebalance scoring for actions that are not included in Points-Per-Tick (Small)

• 4.3% – Implement scoring for objective capture (Small)

So what are our next steps? The team is going to prioritize work on the Skrimish (time-slice scoring) system that was outlined in the Let’s Talk Scoring… forum thread. This system will be a big step to resolving the community’s top voted priorities: Adjusting scoring to be relative to current activity, as well as increasing a team’s ability to recover from large point disparities. It’s also a prerequisite to work on the outlined Action Level system, which would multiply score during periods of high activity, further addressing the top voted concern. Also, we’ll likely be able to periodically deliver the small features, like reducing the tick timer, while we continue work on Skirmishes.

This is a living process, and we plan to continue polling players to determine our priorities, doing live beta testing of features, and then polling again to determine if players are happy with those features once they’ve had a chance to actually play with them. Thank you to everyone who voted and left feedback!

We do intend to get to all of them, but it’ll be a gradual process, so we wanted to use this poll as an opportunity to gauge the community’s prioritization of each feature, as well as spark additional discussion.

This will be fixed in an upcoming build.

Quality of Life improvements did not win the vote, so we have no immediate plans to work on something like this. Also, while it might not seem like it, this problem is non-trivial to solve cleanly.

This would be the end of Power of the Mists buff. Most players don’t really notice the buff. Nor do they play WvW specifically for the buff, so it hasn’t served as an effective motivator for winning matches. It also tends to reward PvE players more than WvW players. The upside to removing the buff, for WvW players, is that it should help our case for further improving WvW rewards, because it’d be lowering the rewards entering the game from elsewhere.

It’s important that PPT continues to be the primary source of score. PPK just accounts for a very low percentage of score currently, and at the least we should be able to safely double the score from kills.

I specifically avoided going into too many specific numbers or formulas because it’s really easy for people to get hyper-focused on arguing the details of a proposal and lose sight of the bigger picture. For instance I didn’t say how many Victory Points a Skirmish would award. There’s probably 3 reasonable starting points: 3/2/1, 2/1/0 and 5/3/1. I’m leaning towards the first, but I can see pros and cons to any of them. However, regardless on which set we decide on, it’ll be an improvement on the existing match scoring system. Once we’ve built the system, tweaking things like the number of Victory Points awarded for Skirmish placement will be an easy thing to do.

Prime Time would be universal per datacenter. For example, all worlds in NA would have the same 6 hour period (of highest activity) as their Prime Time hours. All EU woulds would have a different 6 hour range for their Prime Time.

In the coming weeks we plan to hold more polls. Just like we are currently polling about the Reward Tracks and Participation beta, we’ll poll about the World Linking beta as well.

There are many reasons this wasn’t addressed when Alpine was brought back:

• Players were genuinely nostalgic for Alpine. Virtually all demands were just for Alpine to return, with no changes. There was no outcry that it was important to change Alpine to prevent spawn trebs before bringing the map back. Had we made a change to the layout of citadel to prevent this, perhaps we’d just be seeing a different set of angry threads, those mad that "we made a change that nobody asked for, dumbing down the map and removing a perfectly valid tactic. "

• We were attempting to bring the map back as fast as possible. Players wanted to play the map immediately. Our timing for releasing on 5/3 was already extremely tight. Fixing this issue would likely have caused us to miss our release window and postponed the update for another 2 weeks.

• This goes along with the previous points, but it wasn’t on our mind. We were just focused on bring the map back as fast as possible, in a state as close as people remembered it in.

• For the last 6 months, I’ve been told daily by players how great and well designed ABL is/was. This was our opportunity to see if they’d still feel that way, or think ABL needs additional work just like DBL.

• It isn’t/wasn’t something that needed immediate fixing, like a crash or an unconquerable objective. Players played with this exploit for years, and still had really fond memories of the map. If it turned out to be a big issue when the map was reintroduced, we could always fix it in a later release.

Since it’s clear that this is a big concern for players, we’ll fix it.

This won’t happen for technical reasons (our NA and EU datacenters are entirely separate.) Though even if it was technically possible, there’d still be design reasons to avoid doing so, like that EU national worlds wouldn’t have NA partners that spoke the same language.

Skill lag is a perpetual battle. By far the biggest contributors is large scale combat involving high target player skills. Of course high target skills are exactly the preferred skills to use in WvW. This starts to become especially true as skills start activating faster and doing more things on each activation: traits/runes/sigils/food/quickness/alacrity etc. So we continue to make optimizations skills and combat, but there’s no single big offender, it’s a combination of thousands of smaller parts.

Those shrubs are dynamically generated in the map editor, which is why they aren’t always logically placed. I’ll talk with the map artist about potentially removing them or replacing them with something less obstructing though.

The unusually steep steps in the fire keep lord room are there to prevent players from pulling the keep lord off the platform and thus circumventing some of the fight mechanics. Maybe this could be a single step though, like in the air keep.

Nerfs are coming for a number of the problematic guild upgrades like cloaking waters, chilling fog and airship defense.

For cloaking waters, the stealth duration is getting reduced dramatically. We recognize that it’s possible that any amount of stealth is too strong, but changing a number is something we can do quickly and safely. Whereas changing the upgrade to do something entirely different requires significantly more time, both in terms of general development (design/implementation/testing) and also in large part because it would require updated text, which in turn needs to go through our long editing and localization process. As for removing the upgrade entirely, that also isn’t really an option, due to how it’s intertwined with the Scribing and Guild Halls systems.

Alpine Borderlands will be rotated back in with the next release (not hotfix.)

Linked worlds will share the same queue. A map can contain any number of players from either linked world, until the team map cap is reached.

Linked worlds will have lower population caps for the purposes of server transfers. We will not be changing map caps.

I reduced the number of guards to be consistent with EB and ABL.

EB & ABL camps start with 1 Supervisor, 2 Scouts and 1 Guard
DBL camps started with 1 Supervisor and 4 Guards

In all seriousness though, thanks for bringing this up. I’d been meaning to fix this for a while, but it fell off my radar in light of higher priority issues.

Good news: This is now fixed.
Bad news?: This is fixed in the build where we disable Desert BL and bring back Alpine BL

• DBL Camps: Reduced the number of base guards from 4 to 3.
• DBL Camps: Base guards are now a combination of both Scout and Guard NPCs.
• DBL Camps: Guards have been moved inside the capture circle.