1 Additional map. Smaller player caps.

1 Additional WvW map, like EB. All maps have a smaller player cap (whatever the reduction per map should be made up in the new map). Possibly reduce overall size of maps to make up for reduced player cap (Discuss)

Potential Pro's1) Smaller scale fights2) Less visual noise, better fps3) Less pirate ship4) Passives can be nerfed5) Roaming may even be a thing without 50 people chasing you.6) AOE will be toned down7) Stability potentially slightly more useful8) Reduction in player cap will spread the population over more maps (potentially smaller maps) meaning less dead maps.

Just throwing ideas out there.

Prepares for onslaught

Dunno what exactly you want,.... sound more like you need another spvp 5v5 but for more players. Once you put limit... like 25 ppl per map , ppl will just look for another ppl, also all must be active, no pip farmers or afkers. Yesterday we had 20 EB queue, but on tag run only max 30 ppl. Other pip farm in SM , afking in keep. So this can happen in smaller map.. that one side have active 20 ppl, another one have 10 active and what now ?

I would love to see something like gvg instance arena ... wipe all enemy then get for your guild win.... also can be some ranked in that.

Instead of changing the number on maps maybe change one of the alpine borderlands into island map with underwater. Now that would be interesting. What I've found in WvW is by middle of the week most maps are dead because lot of the players have their pips and stop playing till reset. Even with more maps but less people on them the wait to get into the map during peak WvW time would be crazy. Maybe turn EOTM into another WvW map.

Sooooo spvp then?

You don't suggest how low the cap should go? 25? 20? 15? at what point does that no longer become wvw.Doesn't change the current state of roaming, 50 people chasing you down isn't the problem with roaming.Players will still stack up under one tag.

The last thing WvW needs is another map. A lot of maps are struggling to fill as-is or everyone's in queue for one map.

This would only make the queues worse. What they need to do is promote more small scale play ... what they will do is nothing.

@Hexinx.1872 said:This would only make the queues worse.

But then it would give eotm a reason to be used again! well wait no not really lol XD

What they need to do is promote more small scale play ... what they will do is nothing.

The only thing I could see them being able to promote small group game play is to actually break up capture points and tie them to structures, like they sorta wanted to do with the ruins having to capture at least 3 at the same time. You have to force players to capture and hold something while hitting something else. Basically you can do it like this, if you wanted to hit up bay first you need to capture and hold swt and swc, but if you lose control of either of those then bay becomes immune to damage again. This is like the system warhammer online had in place for it's rvr system, and eso to an extent.

I'd like to see that murderball setup from the original DBL come back as it's own map. No keeps, maybe a tower to hang out in between acitves.

@XenesisII.1540 said:

But then it would give eotm a reason to be used again! well wait no not really lol XD

To be honest, I can't remember but I thought the original intent of the eotm map was to make it harder to zerg with narrow lanes and pathways across the islands, with places people could easily fall off. But the end result just made the zerg adapt to the map and ktrain it. I think at that point anet threw in the towel and said well f@#$ ! Game mode is owned by the zerg.

I like the warhammer idea, but I know alot wouldn't because they just want gates removed altogether.

@LetoII.3782 said:I'd like to see that murderball setup from the original DBL come back as it's own map. No keeps, maybe a tower to hang out in between acitves.There was a time where obsidian sanctum was used for this. You would literally jump off the entrance point ledge into 100 solo gladiators and bodies piling up. It was a way people use to farm kill counts. Not sure if anyone else remembers that.

I would really like to see a third map. Make a swamp/plains/forest/city, whatever to make that third map. Alpine, Desert, new map, plus EBG.

Another option would be to open the three + EBG during the weekend, and then during the week suspend the normal setup, and open one enormous map.

Player numbers now would support one enormous map over the 4 we have now. Make it so that simple blobbing would result in defeat, and encourage smaller, squad level(or even smaller) play. Cap and hold, split and take, etc.

I'd like to see them making use of their technology to open and close maps at need.

Reset night prime time, ok open up more maps so we got 5-6 maps, however much we need until the queue's are gone (for the 1-2 lowest servers at least, gotta cap the highest population one so they can't create own map instances).

Middle of the night in middle of the week ? Sure just shut down anything but EBG, so the few players left are consentrated in a single map.

Note: This generally requires that the BL (border lands) maps gets changed into BG's (Battle Grounds, like EBG), so you can add/remove them without creating map that are considered "beneficial" for one team, etc.

That's just the eotm system which everyone was rejecting for many years, dunno how most feel about it these days.

And yes they would need to convert alpine and desert into ebg type maps, essentially an extra tower to bay and hills, and rearrange the supply camps, and they may not want to do that work. Perhaps when they finally balance and deal with the population issue they will move on to maps after. The issue probably has them stuck on deciding whether or not to make a new home map to balance out the 2abl1dbl, or make another ebg type map to future proof any changes to map rotations. In any case we really only deal with heavy queues on reset for like 2-3hours, prime time during the week just one map usually ebg which is not a big deal.

I see where you coming from, however lower population sizes does not fix the problem. More-over many people, myself included, like the large scale combat when executed correctly.

I still believe what needs to happen is the mechanics of wvw need to change so that Large scale fights are needed for things like keeps and smc, while smaller scale groups are more beneficial for camps and towers. How to do this is currently beyond me.

@XenesisII.1540 said:That's just the eotm system which everyone was rejecting for many years, dunno how most feel about it these days.

Yes, it is part of the EOTM system. But the main complaints people have with the EOTM is the 3 color mash together, and the map.

One of the largest benefits to this (besides funneling population much more efficiently, like the op seemingly wants), is that it allows for ANet to make more varied maps in the long run. For example something similar to what op talks about in the first post.

(If they will ever make maps again that is)

But I believe that more varied maps aimed at different playstyles probably is the best way to make changes to playstyles in wvw, like trying to encourage small scale over blobbing. Because the current maps we got (all 4) are unfortunately very zerg focused.