Please remove desert borderlands — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Please remove desert borderlands

This map is so bad that it is the last choice. The defenders advantage and travel distance is to big. No fun

<1

Comments

  • I am all for removing it!

  • Dayra.7405Dayra.7405 Member ✭✭✭

    Player numbers had declined so much, 1 map less (3 instead of 4) can only be good ;)

  • Timelord.8190Timelord.8190 Member ✭✭
    edited November 26, 2018

    No mather how you look at it. It's the worst border land, since it is the least played one. It's not much oriented around fair battles. The death numbers is proof of that.

    Other borders brings way more battles/loot, duo to the shorter travel distance and more fair terrain.

    Red BL has only 6598 total deaths
    EB got 24387 total deaths
    Blue BL has 15634 total deaths
    Green BL has 15517 total deaths

    https://wvwintel.com/#2007

    @Zero.3871 said:

    everyone get something he want.

    Not if there is a que. https://imgur.com/oKbDznU

  • @TyPin.9860 said:
    I also like the dessert bl most to roam. Actually the symmetry of the alpine border lands was always a bit off-putting for me. I simply like the immersion of the dessert bl. And as a roamer I am definitely not measuring the quality of a map based upon loot^^

    I base quality on how many players there are. The number of deaths is also an indication of how many players there are on the borders, but it's not a sure way to estimate the numbers alone ofc. But after playing this game mode alot i tend to see there is ques on every other border exept DBL.

  • I seem to find that most wvers before DBL have an overly formed distaste for DBL during and after its implementation. As I came later, it was not a newer experience. I then seem to find that players who came later really have no issue with desert borderlands. I personally love it, and would be quite angered if it was removed.

    I can see, however, its quantitative difference to the alpine BL in terms of distance, shrines, lord difficulty, terrain impasses, certain defensive advantages. If your goal is absolute quality of battlefield tactics, then the only fair choice is to alternate each week having all BLs be the same type. So if it's desert BL week, they all are DBLs. If it is ____ DBL, then that is what it will be for the week. That way they could even introduce new BLs. I'm actually kind of bored of the alpine. It's textures are from last century and shows its date in terms of the overall game development.

  • Justine.6351Justine.6351 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @LaGranse.8652 said:
    Personally I think it would be cool if they replaced the green alpine boarder with a jungle themed map. Then we would have desert vs alpine vs jungle.

    A jungle map would be horrible with all the camera issues.
    I still think a tropical sandy beaches map would be cool, with island hopping maybe?

    Anet buff me :-(
    Make me good at game!

  • DemonSeed.3528DemonSeed.3528 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Justine.6351 said:

    @LaGranse.8652 said:
    Personally I think it would be cool if they replaced the green alpine boarder with a jungle themed map. Then we would have desert vs alpine vs jungle.

    A jungle map would be horrible with all the camera issues.
    I still think a tropical sandy beaches map would be cool, with island hopping maybe?

    Maybe more underwater fights XD

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 26, 2018

    Let's just remove EB. All it's good for is salty kids yelling at people who actually play to win.

    That said, it's just another "I don't like it so remove it" post /shrug

    Logging out forever.

  • @Timelord.8190 said:

    @TyPin.9860 said:
    I also like the dessert bl most to roam. Actually the symmetry of the alpine border lands was always a bit off-putting for me. I simply like the immersion of the dessert bl. And as a roamer I am definitely not measuring the quality of a map based upon loot^^

    I base quality on how many players there are. The number of deaths is also an indication of how many players there are on the borders, but it's not a sure way to estimate the numbers alone ofc. But after playing this game mode alot i tend to see there is ques on every other border exept DBL.

    That is what I see too. And personally I like it, because I know there's always a bl for me to play on. You make still a valid point though from a broader perspective. However, instead of removing those borderlands, I would argue it would be more healthy for the game to add a 3rd borderland, that is more symmetrical and favors more zerg fighting (this is, what I believe, what the majority of players are doing). This would simply serve to give WvW more flavor and, if made well, might also lead to different compositions, builds and tactics based upon the map layout. (this all comes from the optimist inside me, who, after being slaughtered by the same 2 rangers over and over again today became a bit quite and is just now resurfacing^^)

    IMHO ideally, and with regards to the upcoming alliance system, a 3 way BL setup might be very good to accommodate a bl favored for roamers, one favored for objective oriented zerg fighting and one favored for open field GvG fights.

  • apharma.3741apharma.3741 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 26, 2018

    Personally I like the desert border for low numbers and less zerging, more roaming. It's big enough that you can often get a sneaky capture of a tower or a keep with 2 people if the enemy is otherwise occupied.

    Having said that I do think it's too big for most people. The distance between objectives is too high for them to play any real strategic importance. That's what I think it misses because while most don't actively think of the strategic importance of taking towers and keeps or the relationship they have with each other we all know "If I take one of the top towers I can treb the keep if needed".

    I'm not sure what you could do about the desert border though, you'd probably need a very big redesign to make everything a bit closer together and get rid of these cliffs that 90% of the player base can't seem to negotiate with as they much prefer the flatter alpine. It's certainly the last border to get a queue on my server, probably not for those more PPT focused servers but they like to have people sitting in towers 24/7 ready to man the siege and heroically chase away any roamers with 10 of their friends.

    Edit: I'd favour a redesign over removal as I think it adds variety.

  • TheQuickFox.3826TheQuickFox.3826 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The desert map is too big and the layout has too much verticality making navigation a bit cumbersome. I avoid it when I can.

    I think the EB map is great, the Alpine map is good, and the Desert map is reasonably okay at most.

    Ascalon Will Prevail!

    GW Wiki user page | GW2 Wiki user page

  • enkidu.5937enkidu.5937 Member ✭✭✭

    desert borderlands aka why-do-I-have-to-go-west-and-then-east-when-I-want-to-go-north?

  • I always find it a bit amusing when I see players complaining about the desert BL. Personally, it's one of my favorites. As for the size of the map, once you've learned all the ins and outs of the maps and the numerous short-cuts, I've found that I can go from the north of the map to the south of the map (and vice-versa) quicker than I can on the Alpine BLs. I think the real issue here are too many lazy players. It was a new map with a lot of variation (which Alpine BL is SORELY lacking!!) and they simply didn't want to put forth any effort to learning the map. It's honestly not much different than when wholesale changes are made to the classes which necessitate changes to fighting-styles and tactics in this game. 10% of the players will start working on new ways to win, and the other 90% will just complain because they actually have to work on new builds/tactics and are simply too lazy to do so.

    Ronin V/Skhaar/Vicious Blacktongue/etc.
    Questionable Integrity [Sin]
    Stormbluff Isle
    Platinum Colonel

  • enkidu.5937enkidu.5937 Member ✭✭✭

    Remember those barricades? I guess, ppl were not just "too lazy" to build siege and PvBarricade their way across the map ;)

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @enkidu.5937 said:
    desert borderlands aka why-do-I-have-to-go-west-and-then-east-when-I-want-to-go-north?

    True if you don't know your way around. Besides, going diagonally is usually the fastest way anyway.

    Logging out forever.

  • enkidu.5937enkidu.5937 Member ✭✭✭

    ok, I guess I have to check that map again, how I boyscout my way diagonally through massive 20 meter tall rocks ;)

  • MithranArkanere.8957MithranArkanere.8957 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 26, 2018

    The problem here isn't having a Desert Borderlands, it's not having a Jungle borderlands, and alpine not having those sweet monuments that give speed bonuses and allow allies to jump quickly to the other side of keeps.

    Ideally, after alliances are done, each player would have a way to vote for the map they want for their world, like how people can get a different guild hall.
    The next WvW, when worlds are compiled, alliances, guilds and individual players would be more likely to be sent to a world that has their desired borderlands.

  • Turkeyspit.3965Turkeyspit.3965 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I must be the only one who finds EBG to be the most boring of maps. Also without the extra large Dolyak pens in DBL, the achievement would be so much harder to get :)

  • No one seems to take an interest in desert bordlands, apparently not even the devs..as its still possible to jump into keeps by merely using skills, people consider this bug abusing, but is it really a bug if its been reported hundreds of times, even through videos and it does still not get fixed?
    Easiest fix..remove the entire bl ;) lets go bois

    Dont get me wrong, its a nice map, can surely be used in a pve concept, maybe even a pvp 1v1 team concept one attacking side and one defending, after a certain time limit or when everything is capped a certain team wins or loses, this means that event in the middle could be brought back, barricades n everything that was previously deleted.
    both spawn waypoints would be owned by attackers allowing them to decide where to go, once keep flips waypoint will be instantly available. blabla just a random thought i came up with while waiting for my friggen dinner to be served, feel free to work this idea into something proper and point it out to the devs.

  • I don't like dessert because of the difference in difficulty, not that i find the terrain easy or i want everything to be easy for me but as a roamer you are really limited in WvW but even with that i'm able to solo keeps and towers which i like to do when i get the chance feels like i a'm doing something not just killing random guys in the map and capping camps, in desert i don't know if you can but i can't even solo a tower, but i have no problem with it staying do like me, just don't play the map at all

  • Caedmon.6798Caedmon.6798 Member ✭✭✭

    @Timelord.8190 said:
    This map is so bad that it is the last choice. The defenders advantage and travel distance is to big. No fun

    Defenders advantage ? I rarely even see a tower at southside being t3 since its so easy to flip for attackers aswell,it goes both ways.

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Timelord.8190 said:
    This map is so bad that it is the last choice. The defenders advantage and travel distance is to big. No fun

    Defenders advantage ? I rarely even see a tower at southside being t3 since its so easy to flip for attackers aswell,it goes both ways.

    Probably means Fire and Air Keep with gliding in. Most people are too bad to understand that flipping their respective south camps completely ruins that strat, or at least delays it by a ton.

    Logging out forever.

  • @NoctisLC.4571 said:
    I don't like dessert because of the difference in difficulty, not that i find the terrain easy or i want everything to be easy for me but as a roamer you are really limited in WvW but even with that i'm able to solo keeps and towers which i like to do when i get the chance feels like i a'm doing something not just killing random guys in the map and capping camps, in desert i don't know if you can but i can't even solo a tower, but i have no problem with it staying do like me, just don't play the map at all

    All of the structures in DBL can be soloed. Back when all three maps were DBL and one server literally owned all 4 maps, I would get whispers from the enemy to come flip a tower or keep so they could get their daily. There's also been times when I was one of two people on our home DBL and I would race the other roamer down one side of the map to see who could solo flip their half of the map first.

  • juno.1840juno.1840 Member ✭✭✭

    I love the desert map. I which all the maps were desert :smile:

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Shining One.1635 said:

    @NoctisLC.4571 said:
    I don't like dessert because of the difference in difficulty, not that i find the terrain easy or i want everything to be easy for me but as a roamer you are really limited in WvW but even with that i'm able to solo keeps and towers which i like to do when i get the chance feels like i a'm doing something not just killing random guys in the map and capping camps, in desert i don't know if you can but i can't even solo a tower, but i have no problem with it staying do like me, just don't play the map at all

    All of the structures in DBL can be soloed. Back when all three maps were DBL and one server literally owned all 4 maps, I would get whispers from the enemy to come flip a tower or keep so they could get their daily. There's also been times when I was one of two people on our home DBL and I would race the other roamer down one side of the map to see who could solo flip their half of the map first.

    This is honestly half of why I play WvW hahaha
    For real though, can the Crankshaft lord get a buff? He's pathetic. Slow, deals like 5k damage and then has to wind up an hour for the next attack you can just walk behind him for.

    Logging out forever.

  • @Timelord.8190 said:
    No mather how you look at it. It's the worst border land, since it is the least played one. It's not much oriented around fair battles. The death numbers is proof of that.

    Other borders brings way more battles/loot, duo to the shorter travel distance and more fair terrain.

    Red BL has only 6598 total deaths
    EB got 24387 total deaths
    Blue BL has 15634 total deaths
    Green BL has 15517 total deaths

    https://wvwintel.com/#2007

    @Zero.3871 said:

    everyone get something he want.

    Not if there is a que. https://imgur.com/oKbDznU

    To be honest, my only complaint about desert is that people assume it's bad rather than look at the things that changed since introduction (like removal of barriers and that meta event that lagged the whole map) so nobody plays it except to ppt.

    Critical Kit, Deadeye.

  • I actually hate every map.

    Pls just make a map that's a giant square so I don't get lost.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Timelord.8190 said:
    This map is so bad that it is the last choice. The defenders advantage and travel distance is to big. No fun

    DBL was voted in by the community. It’s not going anywhere.

    It would be more productive to come up with ideas to improve the map instead.

    GL

  • As a dedicated WvW player and a hater of PVE i will say that i would still rather PVE than go to Desert Borderlands. I hate it that much. Every time a commander pings a Desert Borderlands WP, i decide now is the time to do my daily crafting, TP shopping, etc until he comes back to a normal map.

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 26, 2018

    Strongly disagree.

    Desert borderlands is better than Alpine in a lot of ways.

    • it encourages groups to split up. Because the map is so large, it is inefficient for a huge zerg to be rolling together. Thus, you get smaller fights (5v5, 10v10, 20v20) instead of the usual 40+v40+ that is common on Alpine.
    • terrain is more diverse. You get dunes, hills, rocks, trees, cliffs, ruins, and fairly unique obstacles that you just don't find in alpine (except in the re-done center ruins, which is the best part of alpine). It makes for more varied fights with opportunities for strategic play (forcing chokes, LoS, altitude advantages) compared to the more flat and open alpine borderlands.
    • keeps and towers have enough room to fight in. On alpine, there's barely enough room to fit a fight inside a tower. On desert, each tower has plenty of space. Ditto for keeps.
    • You can't treb any keeps from inside towers like on alpine or ebg. This forces attackers to fight in open field rather than hiding in towers.
    • Both east and west keeps on desert have siege-safe open-field treb spots from the southern camps. This forces defenders to come fight rather than hiding in keeps.

    I could go on, but I know most of the WvW population disagrees. Most of the WvW population just wants to zerg around and press 1 to collect bags. Some of us prefer smaller more interesting fights..

  • Turk.5460Turk.5460 Member ✭✭✭✭

    No thank you, I find DBL quite fun, and much prettier to boot!

    Fort Aspenwood
    Jekkies

  • I see so many complaints about desert not being good for fights... but... have people really paid attention to most fights in the other bl's? hmmm let's see... spawn camp that group! or even more fun... stand and stare at each other while deciding who has the best position... run in then.. win or lose... reset and stare each other down some more... or even better, one group runs in and out of a tower or keep.. ya... that's better...

    I run with fight groups a lot and finding decent fights ANYWHERE isn't easy... unless you're running in and out of SM like most people like to do... booooring...

    Just another WvW lifer who'll never say die... while dying again and again!

  • MUDse.7623MUDse.7623 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 26, 2018

    @NoctisLC.4571 said:
    I don't like dessert because of the difference in difficulty, not that i find the terrain easy or i want everything to be easy for me but as a roamer you are really limited in WvW but even with that i'm able to solo keeps and towers which i like to do when i get the chance feels like i a'm doing something not just killing random guys in the map and capping camps, in desert i don't know if you can but i can't even solo a tower, but i have no problem with it staying do like me, just don't play the map at all

    i do find the desertlords easier/faster to kill than alpine ones. what profession are you trying to solo them with?

    read this, become a better player now.

  • @coro.3176 said:
    I could go on, but I know most of the WvW population disagrees. Most of the WvW population just wants to zerg around and press 1 to collect bags. Some of us prefer smaller more interesting fights..

    Im a solo roamer and i hate desert map. playing warrior it takes forever for me to get where i want to go only to get ganked by a small group and then have to WP and start running all over again. No thanks i much prefer alpine and EBG as a solo roamer.

  • @enkidu.5937 said:
    desert borderlands aka why-do-I-have-to-go-west-and-then-east-when-I-want-to-go-north?

    Run up through the middle of the map :) there are plenty of ways without traveling the sides. With practice you learn all the different paths.

    As for the map being to big as some stated, use the shrines if it’s your home bl. Garri has the earth shrine travel, air has the bird travel that flys you around, and fire has the fire tornados. Very quick travel then :)

  • enkidu.5937enkidu.5937 Member ✭✭✭

    @Calisanna.8732 said:

    @enkidu.5937 said:
    desert borderlands aka why-do-I-have-to-go-west-and-then-east-when-I-want-to-go-north?

    Run up through the middle of the map :) there are plenty of ways without traveling the sides. With practice you learn all the different paths.

    As for the map being to big as some stated, use the shrines if it’s your home bl. Garri has the earth shrine travel, air has the bird travel that flys you around, and fire has the fire tornados. Very quick travel then :)

    If I want to flip those camps, I have to travel the sides, and leave out those shrines, to be sneaky. My main problem is "all the different paths" make it less likely to meet some enemies, which is good for staying undetected, but makes this map feel so empty, in the long run.

    Big fighting grounds in keeps and towers are definitely a big plus imo, and all those serpentines could also give very interesting fighting grounds, IF you would meet some enemies, and IF they could not just glide away over all these canyons as they like.

  • Straegen.2938Straegen.2938 Member ✭✭✭

    Simplify the towers and keeps (checking swords on a structure in that map is a massive pain) and reduce the map size 20%. It could easily be a favorite for a lot of players but navigating it is a pain and defending it is ridiculously more difficult than the other two maps.

  • I lik it. The varied terrain makes for more interesting fights. Instead of the usual toilet bowl dance in the alpine borderlands. The keeps are also more intersting to take and to defend. Alpine are like easy mode. Place the catas on the outer right and you don't have to care about the inner. Yawn.

  • @Dayra.7405 said:
    Player numbers had declined so much, 1 map less (3 instead of 4) can only be good ;)

    that will be what the alliance update does.. but dont expect it before november of 2020

  • Timelord.8190Timelord.8190 Member ✭✭
    edited November 27, 2018

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Timelord.8190 said:
    This map is so bad that it is the last choice. The defenders advantage and travel distance is to big. No fun

    Defenders advantage ? I rarely even see a tower at southside being t3 since its so easy to flip for attackers aswell,it goes both ways.

    That could be because people chose to not defend anything on DBL purely cause they dislike the border.

    @coro.3176 said:
    Strongly disagree.

    Desert borderlands is better than Alpine in a lot of ways.

    • it encourages groups to split up. Because the map is so large, it is inefficient for a huge zerg to be rolling together. Thus, you get smaller fights (5v5, 10v10, 20v20) instead of the usual 40+v40+ that is common on Alpine.
    • terrain is more diverse. You get dunes, hills, rocks, trees, cliffs, ruins, and fairly unique obstacles that you just don't find in alpine (except in the re-done center ruins, which is the best part of alpine). It makes for more varied fights with opportunities for strategic play (forcing chokes, LoS, altitude advantages) compared to the more flat and open alpine borderlands.
    • keeps and towers have enough room to fight in. On alpine, there's barely enough room to fit a fight inside a tower. On desert, each tower has plenty of space. Ditto for keeps.
    • You can't treb any keeps from inside towers like on alpine or ebg. This forces attackers to fight in open field rather than hiding in towers.
    • Both east and west keeps on desert have siege-safe open-field treb spots from the southern camps. This forces defenders to come fight rather than hiding in keeps.

    I could go on, but I know most of the WvW population disagrees. Most of the WvW population just wants to zerg around and press 1 to collect bags. Some of us prefer smaller more interesting fights..

    I strongly disagree.
    It does the opposite of encourge groups to split up if you ask me. The larger number have higher success rate. They can take advantage of the AoE cap, carry more supplies, which often isn't enough with smaller groups because of supply traps and cows that drains their supply.

    Offensive trebs is from far away got the worst DPS of all the siege cause damage doesen't scale with the shooting distance and they don't even need to come to you.
    A small group can spend hours just by trebbing a T3 wall down. The defenders can just build shield generators, and run supply to repair. They can stay at inner wall and defend with keep aura together with all their siege. They don't need to come.

  • @Kaiser.9873 said:
    Desert BL is a roamers dream.
    I agree that perhaps they should get rid of one more Alpine, and replace it with something else. A ruined city, a swamp, grasslands, whatever.

    Yeah I bet that map is heaven for roamers since you can farm all of the npc players trying to get their daily

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @coro.3176 said:

    • You can't treb any keeps from inside towers like on alpine or ebg. This forces attackers to fight in open field rather than hiding in towers.
    • Both east and west keeps on desert have siege-safe open-field treb spots from the southern camps. This forces defenders to come fight rather than hiding in keeps.

    Regardless of whether one agree or disagree on the viability of DBL, those two are fluff statements.

    Sure you can siege from within a tower/keep - thats what makes people want to secure the objective, ie the reason for even playing WvW. It forces defenders to come out and attack rather than hiding in keeps. And the attacker and defender will still have to fight open field at some point, you cant magically take a keep by safely downing outer. Unless the defender choose to bunker and never engage. You said something about attackers? Hm.

    The second point is moot. You can do that literally anywhere on EBG, ABL and DBL. Only reason people dont is because trebs are hella expensive and ineffective against fortified structures.

  • Caedmon.6798Caedmon.6798 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 27, 2018

    @Timelord.8190 said:

    @Caedmon.6798 said:

    @Timelord.8190 said:
    This map is so bad that it is the last choice. The defenders advantage and travel distance is to big. No fun

    Defenders advantage ? I rarely even see a tower at southside being t3 since its so easy to flip for attackers aswell,it goes both ways.

    That could be because people chose to not defend anything on DBL purely cause they dislike the border.

    @coro.3176 said:
    Strongly disagree.

    Desert borderlands is better than Alpine in a lot of ways.

    • it encourages groups to split up. Because the map is so large, it is inefficient for a huge zerg to be rolling together. Thus, you get smaller fights (5v5, 10v10, 20v20) instead of the usual 40+v40+ that is common on Alpine.
    • terrain is more diverse. You get dunes, hills, rocks, trees, cliffs, ruins, and fairly unique obstacles that you just don't find in alpine (except in the re-done center ruins, which is the best part of alpine). It makes for more varied fights with opportunities for strategic play (forcing chokes, LoS, altitude advantages) compared to the more flat and open alpine borderlands.
    • keeps and towers have enough room to fight in. On alpine, there's barely enough room to fit a fight inside a tower. On desert, each tower has plenty of space. Ditto for keeps.
    • You can't treb any keeps from inside towers like on alpine or ebg. This forces attackers to fight in open field rather than hiding in towers.
    • Both east and west keeps on desert have siege-safe open-field treb spots from the southern camps. This forces defenders to come fight rather than hiding in keeps.

    I could go on, but I know most of the WvW population disagrees. Most of the WvW population just wants to zerg around and press 1 to collect bags. Some of us prefer smaller more interesting fights..

    I strongly disagree.
    It does the opposite of encourge groups to split up if you ask me. The larger number have higher success rate. They can take advantage of the AoE cap, carry more supplies, which often isn't enough with smaller groups because of supply traps and cows that drains their supply.

    Offensive trebs is from far away got the worst DPS of all the siege cause damage doesen't scale with the shooting distance and they don't even need to come to you.
    A small group can spend hours just by trebbing a T3 wall down. The defenders can just build shield generators, and run supply to repair. They can stay at inner wall and defend with keep aura together with all their siege. They don't need to come.

    No,Im talking about South Side.Not the entire map as a whole that does get to T3.

<1
©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.