So I was away for a long time but before I left I endured WvW to get enough badges to get a Gift of Battle, but I didn’t buy one because I didn’t have the bank space to hold it.
You didn’t have 1 slot? I kind of doubt that.
6- My framerate got way worse (lost about 15fps) for no apparent reasons
Yeah what the kitten is up with this? I haven’t been able to run high graphics since the 64 bit client patch came out. Fix your kitten game anet.
Same. I went back to the 32bit client and it cleared that right up.
Interesting my fps isn’t low but its lower than it should be maybe I will try the 32 bit client.
S3 > S2 > S1
No idea why people are saying S1. S1 had people cheesing the matchmaking to get to high ranks and bunker rezzmers.
Which was fixable without changing the matchmaking. The people who liked S1 are the ones who are mid range players which is probably the majority.
9- Stability buff isn’t noticeable
That’s pretty much it, all these polls, 2 season patch, but basically nothing changed in WvW from a gameplay perspective.
What server are you on? The meta has changed from pirate ship back to melee ball and it is due to the stab change.
As far as FA goes I blame the stale match up and JQ’s massive blob (please move up already)
Blame T1 for trying to put up the glicko wall again.
Season 1 was the best
Glicko preventing CD moving up to tier 3 seems like less of an issue than the metrics that were used to formulae the CD lead quad-server.
Both are issues but I agree that the linkage calculations are being hidden to a certain extent by the glicko issue which is why for one I keep raising the question of how the linkage was arrived at.
I really don’t see the big deal here, sure resources could be put towards fixing other things in WvW, but I cannot see how this would break anything.
If for some reason this ended up being a big problem (I can’t see how), it could be solved quite easily via “cannot repair while in combat” tied in with “cannot repair if the siege is currently being used”. This would completely destroy any complaint people have of rams just being stacked upon and repaired through siege fire.
Because for some reason this is being viewed as different from just building another ram immediately
Well 1 reason is siege can be repaired while still being manned.
A few hours ago I was watching BG and TC scrimming and not caring at all about DB being in first. T1 is not balanced, it’s simply that they are letting DB win. This way DB gains Glicko and it will put the T1 wall back up for now.
Anecdotal evidence at its finest.
I can’t speak for BG but there are a significant number of people on TC that would prefer JQ over DB.
But clearly not the kittenter alliance leaders ie. see Malevolant’s posts on the topic.
- Why not just change the links again?
World links change on a schedule to maintain some stability. Among other reasons, those who maintain voice chat servers don’t have to redo permissions every week. We also wouldn’t want to start shifting world links around on a subjective whim. The frequency of the schedule was previously determined by a public poll.
How is this different to now? In all but 1 tier.
If the linkages are done correctly, then this issue assumes less importance. If Eredon Terrace had large numbers after its link with BG then it shouldn’t have been in the 4 server link?
I am a little confused on how the server statuses were determined, why would TC be open and other servers that are full not be open? Some of this doesn’t make any sense. I think artificial lock downs need to end. At least lift them for a week before or after a new linking to let people move around as they want, so servers don’t need to have blackout weeks to open up, essentially wasting a week or more of play. This becomes an even bigger issue with guilds that now have members on different servers.
linked worlds have a cap 1/2 the amount of un-linked worlds seems to be the answer others found elsewhere. Not sure it makes sense to do it that way, but explains tc/yb open and jq/db/fa full.
Shouldn’t it work differently for servers that don’t have a linked partner? Meaning it should basically go back to normal where status is determined by activity, the calculations need tweaking. But I don’t understand the use of artificial lock downs now that one tier is completely unlinked. If its full through normal means that’s fine and all, but intentionally blocking people from transferring for an undetermined amount of time through the use of artificial lock downs seems more like they are playing wvw politics.
As I said in another thread halving the cap for linked servers actually makes no sense. The population of JQ/AR is not half and half just for example. Why not add the calculated population of both servers together and use the same cap as for unlinked servers?
I just find it hilarious Anet opened the T1 servers… its like they want to encourage people to stack those servers…
Last time I faced TC they already blobed everything to death, but hey.. I guess T2/3 servers actually have more ppl huh. Who knew…..They actually might, because of server linking.
Which is the whole point of server linking.
it is. linked servers have a cap 1/2 of un-linked servers….
Halving the cap actually makes no sense. The population of JQ/AR is not half and half just for example. Why not simply take the calculated population of both servers and use the same cap as for unlinked servers?
You assume we haven’t been in that position ourselves. You haven’t even fought against the truly gigantic servers of the past. For 1.5~2 years, BG’s OCX – SEA – EU would simply bunker down against JQ’s OCX and SEA and SoR/TC’s EU and early NA. Did we use siege in our keeps, towers and camps? Of course we did. The difference is also that we would leave siege range to fight open field when the opportunities presented themselves.
Then again, I’m not a hater on YB’s use of siege. You’ll never beat the old JQ at that. When they siege bunkered, holy mackerel the bunker was real.
Oh please I’ve fought both with and against JQ and against BG, in general JQ is no different from BG in its use of siege. There are outlying cases like Cloudfly using open field siege often but he is not representative. And for the past 2 years BG’s OCX has run big blobs with Dawn and KNM in OCX time, JQ when Merc/Defy were running may have been larger but it wasn’t by a large number. Problem with BG mostly in that time period was they refused to split up the zergs.
1. Anet you need to verify population during time zones not just population. Then pair up servers that have off hour coverage with servers that do not have off hour coverage.
They actually said they were going to do this but quite clearly haven’t at all.
Here are the worlds for NA:
Please explain why you did these linkages so that TC and YB would not get linked worlds but are now open. I can guess that they are not having their caps halved due to not being linked but explain how this is fair to servers like JQ and DB and FA? Players will not transfer to their linked worlds when they could go to TC or YB. Did you take the fact that this would happen into account when you did the new linkages? Because this looks like an oversight.
Mag doesn’t have ANY PPT guilds.
KILL is a PPT guild.
They don’t have to care about WvW to vote. Voting for the sake of voting is an actual thing when devs tell people to " COME VOTE!! POLL!!" people just do because Anet told them to.
I think you severely overestimate the number of players who would do this if they don’t care much about the mode.
Urge to feed troll rising…
Really bringing up that dev incident now… as for GvG the whole guild hall arena is basically a love letter to “GvG” blobs of people can kill each other in there fine, not to mention about OS arena.
Guild Hall arena came too late and was put in at a time when many many players were turned off WvW by the HOT issues. Plus it is manifestly unsuitable for GvG in terms of size.
1. WvW should’ve been main endgame and most lucrative way to spend time in game.
2. WvW and PVE should be tightly connected. For example if situation on BLs and EB is bad for your server, you get major debuff in PvE like penalties to gold gain, magic find, higher WP costs, higher TP fees etc.
3. Claiming an objective for a guild should be a HUGE deal for all of its members.
4. Staying inside and defending a claimed objective should give rewards with very high gold/hour rate.
5. Commanders should have ability to initiate “Call of the Mists” (on a huge cooldown and maybe some token requirements) – A message that pops up for all players on the server, that invites them to be teleported to BL or EB, and if player agrees, gives a buff similar to Volunteer’s Blessing.
Love your 5th suggestion especially but all your points are good.
On point 1 I think this was how the original designers envisioned the game but things changed after launch when PvE proved so popular and also when WvW was allowed to stagnate. Also the poor design choices for WvW hampered the mode severely (server based system rather than faction; no squad UI; free transfers etc etc)
The current league, pip, and rewards system is also very flawed. I won’t go into too many details because of the slew of threads, but yeah it’s troubling. It seems like the system is trying to give a sense of progression to every player, but it is in fact just inflating egos and not giving a really measurable progression that matters (skill-based). But that in itself requires a higher population, and thus maybe what we have is the best we got.
Good post. Its worth noting that Overwatch has just provided some details of its competitive mode and they have taken player feedback into account and it will be a skill based system rather than a tier based system. It will be mmr based (no tiers) and therefore reflect a players skill rather than be progression based. The games producer outright stated that players did not want a system heavily weighted around tiers and progression which only makes the ranked system a grind.
Anet should take note, not only of the system but the way Blizzard are taking player feedback into account and the transparency of communication.
Which sounds really weird to me, Blizzard used to be king the way they ignored their clients. If they have made a 180-turn on that, I might consider rejoining Blizzards clientlist. Legion calls to me!
Another data point on Blizzards transparency in OW, Jeff Kaplan (the games Director) has just made a post on the Blizzard forums which went into some detail about matchmaking:
http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20745504371#post-3
A tournament for what reason? BG is currently clearly the biggest server there will be no contest.
Because no one likes “running from everyone to hide behind siege” aka YB
Every server that has fewer numbers on a map “hides behind siege”. The difference with YB was (is?) that it kept that siege refreshed, encouraged scouting and is comprised mostly of PUGs.
No YB does it even when they have superior numbers.
Not exactly, even when they were not winning they weren’t spreading out either.
Because they weren’t playing or just playing PvE, BG has always had this PvX population that would only play WvW when it was worth it.
It’s pretty easy to hate on BG and #stackedgate but lets face it if BG does ‘die’ the people will be quitting and not spreading out to balance tiers which we all know is never gonna happen.
BG and to a degree TC are the last T1 servers with actual players around the clock (mostly) and rather than cheering on for BG to destack/die players should be more concerned with how the other servers don’t have enough coverage to match BG.
That won’t change without more drastic action, so BG will remain stacked, although we will see what happens when the link is changed. I would actually hope BG doesn’t get linked and 1 set of servers is 3 servers.
Its not just players leaving BG and the game which is a potential problem its players leaving any server including those from TC and YB who are sick of BG. Its why I find the attitude of those who want servers to die (as is frequently seen on the salt forum) so shortsighted, servers die people will leave the game leaving it in a worse state.
The reason they wont spread out is due to the environments on many of the other servers. Some are outright toxic.
The reason they won’t spread out is that they are winning pure and simple.
(edited by shrek.1046)
That isn’t all of what actually happened. YB moving up made many leave T1 and the game all together because it showcased the worst possible mechanic in WvW:
- DO NOT ENGAGE THE ENEMY.
- If you get caught by the enemy, do not fight. Die as fast as you can.
- Run and only PvD empty structures while enemy is busy elsewhere.
As an addendum to that point target times when enemy doesn’t have many players, wake up and login no matter what the time and PvD.
Its such kittenous play style and to what end? Nothing, it doesn’t gain YB anything.
1 You reap what you sow, BG is overstacked relative to other servers therefore using siege is the only option if other servers are outnumbered by your blobs.
2. Blame your former ONS commander for bringing YB up to kitten to a certain extent as well.
Hopefully never…
You know you could at least make an effort to provide something ontopic that adds something of value to the conversation. Anet needs a pit they can dump all these wasteful postings. I mean you took a min to read the thread, take a minute to respond next time. I know the crybaby meta is strong, but its time to man up.
The empty DBL maps spoke quite well for themselves…
Simply because the “Old Guard” refused to learn it, the same guys that complained endlessly about the old Alpine Map.
I want the DBL back but in a rotation so you “comfort zone” guys still have that safe little place.
I don’t seen why mixed: 1 DBL and 2 ABL doesn’t provide that. And rotation has the severe drawback that players will probably leave the game for the duration that DBL is there.
1) Players do not just all play on one map when they play due to strategic play. They hop maps and use all maps as “one battlefield.” You have to be able to keep all keeps paper on all maps to be able to force your opponents hand as to which targets they choose to save and which ones they have to let go making them have to make hard choices to control the battlefield. You hop from map to map taking out their keeps and controlling the battlefield.
2) In addition, every week whoever’s home BL is the DBL, you are going to have people refusing to play or quit the game due to those that Only play “Home BL Defense”. There are players that is all they actually do every week is defend, scout, recap and upgrade their Home BL. They are the ones that were most vocal about not playing at all if the DBL came back.
So you would rather DBL is the only BL for 3 months?
No I would rather them fix the DBl before putting it back in live game so hopefully no one will leave.
Rotation = Working game part of the time
Mixed BL= Broken game all of the time.With the rotation, they only have to leave the game for 3 months at a time instead of not come back at all.
I highly doubt many people will leave the game because DBL is 1 BL in a mixed situation.
No ruins are fine IMO, in fact they should be transplanted to the centre of the DBL.
Hopefully never…
You know you could at least make an effort to provide something ontopic that adds something of value to the conversation. Anet needs a pit they can dump all these wasteful postings. I mean you took a min to read the thread, take a minute to respond next time. I know the crybaby meta is strong, but its time to man up.
The empty DBL maps spoke quite well for themselves…
Simply because the “Old Guard” refused to learn it, the same guys that complained endlessly about the old Alpine Map.
I want the DBL back but in a rotation so you “comfort zone” guys still have that safe little place.
I don’t seen why mixed: 1 DBL and 2 ABL doesn’t provide that. And rotation has the severe drawback that players will probably leave the game for the duration that DBL is there.
1) Players do not just all play on one map when they play due to strategic play. They hop maps and use all maps as “one battlefield.” You have to be able to keep all keeps paper on all maps to be able to force your opponents hand as to which targets they choose to save and which ones they have to let go making them have to make hard choices to control the battlefield. You hop from map to map taking out their keeps and controlling the battlefield.
2) In addition, every week whoever’s home BL is the DBL, you are going to have people refusing to play or quit the game due to those that Only play “Home BL Defense”. There are players that is all they actually do every week is defend, scout, recap and upgrade their Home BL. They are the ones that were most vocal about not playing at all if the DBL came back.
So you would rather DBL is the only BL for 3 months?
I’d like to start off with a statement. I love that Anet is communicating with the players, and that they’re using our feedback to make adjustments to the game. It doesn’t get much better than that.
Now that’s out of the way, I’d like to ask a question. My deepest apologies if someone asked it already in a thread somewhere. Since the surveys are open to all players, how valid are the poll results if it includes players who don’t play WvW? This came up because I have WvW friends being upset with the end result of the voting.
Sounds like you have friends that don’t like the DBL and are simply upset that the current poll revealed them to be a minority. The fact is there were reasons for WvW players to vote in favour of retaining the DBL even if they believe the map to be deficient (like myself) and there are WvW players who do like the DBL.
The poll is open to all players but is only actively marketed to WvW players because only they receive an ingame mail about it when they rank up in WvW.
We’re talking about the map structure itself.
There isn’t going to be any intrusive work done… if I recall correctly their methodology for DBL was to make low cost changes with big impact. This was justified by “because it is a live game”.
I’d wager that if we want a larger overhaul, which takes more than a trivial amount of dev time, it will not happen before bulk of the priority changes we voted are well underway, released or close to being released. Even then if they stick to their mantra it would not happen unless there was a poll and it was voted for. Structural overhaul of the map certainly qualifies as a major change.
So, until such a time the kind of changes we will likely see are the sort of stuff we have already seen or already know about.
THAT was why players wanted it to go back to Beta. The topography had to be made playable for all classes in all zones and that isn’t going to happen if it stays in the live game. Now it isn’t going to go back to beta because that was never an option to actually make the map playable for a PvP zone for all classes…
what classes arent playable cuz of topography?
I know Rev CoR doesn’t work on kitten near any unlevel ground. Unless that’s been fixed within the last couple of months.
sounds like something that the wvw team doesnt need to be held responsible for. specifically, that is the realm of the balance team. and they seem more interested in pvp, where this is easily also an issue.
time to make the hitbox fully 3d.
So, you’re saying everyone involved in making the DBL and all 4 HoT maps and creating a new class was oblivious to this?
yeah prolly. balance isnt their department.
maybe the proper people with the knowledge or connections dont even play rev in a zerg. maybe it works on the dev client. maybe its been addressed for the next quarterly update but theyre tightlipped as usual, especially if its a thing on the known issue tracker. maybe not.
I would have thought it was the fault of both, class designers for making aoe abilities that don;t work when the topography changes and map designers for not designing maps in accordance with the was the combat engine works. The PvE maps must have similar issues due to their complex topography.
Hopefully never…
You know you could at least make an effort to provide something ontopic that adds something of value to the conversation. Anet needs a pit they can dump all these wasteful postings. I mean you took a min to read the thread, take a minute to respond next time. I know the crybaby meta is strong, but its time to man up.
The empty DBL maps spoke quite well for themselves…
Simply because the “Old Guard” refused to learn it, the same guys that complained endlessly about the old Alpine Map.
I want the DBL back but in a rotation so you “comfort zone” guys still have that safe little place.
I don’t seen why mixed: 1 DBL and 2 ABL doesn’t provide that. And rotation has the severe drawback that players will probably leave the game for the duration that DBL is there.
So uh for the people saying they wanted a new map but don’t want dbl.
What happens if we vote for a new map, they make it, and you don’t like it, gonna ask them to delete that too?
ANY map made for WvW should not be put into the live game until it was properly finished in Beta and tested and corrected until it was made ready for the live game. If they allowed players to provide feedback and used that feedback to correct the issues with the map before they make it live, they would not have had this problem in the first place. The goal was to not have this one or any other go live until the players voted that it was ready. That never happened, and now they can’t do much of what needs to be done due to it being in the live game and not beta.
If they’re going to ask us they need to do it in Alpha. Once it gets to Beta its too late to make significant changes.
If they ran a proper beta this would not be the case. The beta for the DBL was a PR exercise and they ignored all feedback which ended disastrously.
Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.
Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.
What? They didn’t do anything of the sort with HOT maps. And no I’m not talking about a EOTM setup there are more ways to do it than just the EOTM system.
Then you never played dbl after hot because it was the tri-setup. WPs were in south towers, then moved to east/west keeps, and only usable by the enemy.
It was universally disliked.
Yes I did play it but thats not a tri pointed setup like EB at all.
How is it not like EB? There was a keep near enemy spawn that only the enemy could use the WP. The map favoured one team over another based on dissection from spawn, into thirds.
It wasn’t even, it was still a home BL for whatever server it was home to.
Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.
Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.
What? They didn’t do anything of the sort with HOT maps. And no I’m not talking about a EOTM setup there are more ways to do it than just the EOTM system.
Then you never played dbl after hot because it was the tri-setup. WPs were in south towers, then moved to east/west keeps, and only usable by the enemy.
It was universally disliked.
Yes I did play it but thats not a tri pointed setup like EB at all.
@Crise.9401, that is why i would prefer a 3 way faction system, or start first with 2 factions, and add more smaller and larger maps with diferent populatin cap sizes, being desert map the biggest one, no more copy pasta maps, the servers sytem having several servers changing over time, isnt a pleasent solution to observer nor play, looks like a forced solution to try to hide what what WvW system lacks….saddly Anet decisions will always gringe my gears, on the way they dont fix stuff and hide with more unpleasent mechanics, no wonder they had to start stacking servers after 3-4 years…..
but nevertheless…
C’mon lets try dbl after the linking to see if it better, as much i like the map to an extent , i do agree that map could be way much better…. i doubt it since since linking system just statcks active population and dont balance the time those srvers have more players on, will always be be servers karma training each other deppendign their active zone, linking is broken as kitten for many reasons….
Yea, now that the whole dbls thing is going to be put to rest after this poll closes, I am looking forward to Anet concentrating their efforts on improving the linking/pair ups system, as well as continuing to tweak and improve dbls. They had done some tweaks to dbls before they were removed, and they were positive changes…..I hope that continues. And yes, the linking/pairings need to be tweaked…….hopefully they find a positive way to address that, as well.
One thing is for sure, they will have a lot less people to worry about causing imbalance in the not so distant future so most servers should be open at that point.
If you’re not prepared to accept 2 ABLS and 1 DBL then you’re being needlessly unrealistic. I highly doubt there will be mass departures in such a case.
Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.
Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.
What? They didn’t do anything of the sort with HOT maps. And no I’m not talking about a EOTM setup there are more ways to do it than just the EOTM system.
There is a HUGE difference when you only send out emails Only to WvW players Over a certain WvW rank than to allow anyone to vote as many times as they have accounts.
This is just being elitist.
Hopefully never…
This.
OPs post made me sad. Gotta play as much as possible while Alpine is here.
They will never get rid of Alpine. Assuming the vote stays as is it is most probable that there will be mixed BLs with 2 Alpine and 1 Desert.
So if you have 20 accounts you can vote 20 times. MANY wvw players have multiple accounts.. Not having it be email invite only to WvW players over a certain rank, therer
Yes the poll is not exactly scientific however this is a good reason for having the 75% that way at least they mitigate against vote stacking somewhat. And thye have done what they can to ensure WvW players vote for it by sending emails when you rank up.
How did that do anything to prevent vote stacking? I voted twice, I could go vote more if I wanted to but why bother? How many times did you vote? In game message=\= email. The surveys they used to create this game and the ones they sent out after HoT were via your actual Email, this should be done the same considering many people are traveling due to it being summer vacation and not even playing the game atm. I have’t received anything in game or outside of it about the poll FYI.
What is going to wind up happening is most people don’t vote, they are just going to show up one day and the changes will be implemented and they will leave.
I didn’t say it prevented vote stacking it mitigates against the effect of it somewhat.
As for mails I got an in game mail on previous polls can;t remember about this one.
So if you have 20 accounts you can vote 20 times. MANY wvw players have multiple accounts.. Not having it be email invite only to WvW players over a certain rank, therer
Yes the poll is not exactly scientific however this is a good reason for having the 75% that way at least they mitigate against vote stacking somewhat. And thye have done what they can to ensure WvW players vote for it by sending emails when you rank up.
Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.
I see many people trolling here..
To those trolls who say “i don’t care about your shiny uselles badge” & “stop crying cause a pvp badge should never have a place outside hotm” or “its good that they gone” or even “pvp badges shows nothing about skill and everyone can get the black one if you farm it” etc etc etc. i’ll tell you what :
The irony is heavy in this post.
It is the end of the road for WvW and it’s players. It is absurd to get stuck fighting the same servers month after month. This in itself creates cancerous forums and attitudes toward each other.
Their glicko system is just kittened. They increase volatility and whatnot after server links and we end up in the same place, same severs fighting each other week after week. When will they realise they need to fundamentally change the system?
Getting rid of a map completely would inevitably lead to never getting another map again. At least having it on 1 BL … would give some hope for the future of WvW …
As a business, they have to innovate or lose. A better way of thinking about is to imagine the Dev’s saying, “Wow, they really did dislike that map. Better make another one fast before they jump ship.”
Except they have made it clear that a new map is off the table if they get rid of the DBL.
Link Please? I’d be surprised someone from Anet marketing would say that as it would have to be one of the poorest responses to a Customer Satisfaction complaint I’ve ever heard of.
It was in the poll on mixed BL maps. Its not certain but there was a clear implication.
So basically your saying the WvW team twisted everyone’s arm with an idle threat that they better vote to keep the DBl or they’ll never make another map again? Seriously? Why isn’t there an uproar over that then? Ya’ll just stood there and took that?
It was actually on reddit about the mixed BL poll:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4lx2gx/may_31_new_wvw_poll/d3qwc2f
[–]Anet-TylerB 32 points an hour ago
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.
Personally, I think the poll fails because the answer isn’t a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
It is a simple yes or not though.
- anet asking us, if they should delete something? the fact they are even asking shows that they have no idea what direction to take their game in…
We’ve been through this the players forced them into this poll.
(edited by shrek.1046)
Getting rid of a map completely would inevitably lead to never getting another map again. At least having it on 1 BL … would give some hope for the future of WvW …
As a business, they have to innovate or lose. A better way of thinking about is to imagine the Dev’s saying, “Wow, they really did dislike that map. Better make another one fast before they jump ship.”
Except they have made it clear that a new map is off the table if they get rid of the DBL.
Link Please? I’d be surprised someone from Anet marketing would say that as it would have to be one of the poorest responses to a Customer Satisfaction complaint I’ve ever heard of.
It was in the poll on mixed BL maps. Its not certain but there was a clear implication.
Getting rid of a map completely would inevitably lead to never getting another map again. At least having it on 1 BL … would give some hope for the future of WvW …
As a business, they have to innovate or lose. A better way of thinking about is to imagine the Dev’s saying, “Wow, they really did dislike that map. Better make another one fast before they jump ship.”
Except they have made it clear that a new map is off the table if they get rid of the DBL.
Why create a thread when the video maker himself has created a thread on it?