would you like wvw to have a small 20v20v20 map specifically for roamers/ small teams? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

would you like wvw to have a small 20v20v20 map specifically for roamers/ small teams?

Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited May 12, 2019 in WvW

so I've seen that a lot of people claim that the mount has hurt roaming a lot. why not have a map dedicated to smaller battles? would this destroy the spirit of roaming or make it better, since fights would be found faster and the quality of those fights would (hopefully) be better? mount disabled ofc, lol.

BIG FAT EDIT
multiple instances, disable squads, only 5 person parties allowed in, teams sorted randomly, best of 5 rounds (or however many), teams locked at beginning of match, maybe winning gives normal wvw server a buff (open to ideas here, could even have normal warscore activities - 3 towers etc)

The horror...…….the horror...…….the horror...…….

would you like wvw to have a small 20v20v20 map specifically for roamers/ small teams? 65 votes

yes
38%
Solori.6025Sciva.4865HazyDaisy.4107jul.7602LetoII.3782sephiroth.4217Henrik.7560Kossuth.2168Tiawal.2351ProverbsofHell.2307steki.1478Gop.8713Les.4872gavyne.6847Gaberen.4325BrunoT.2936spectrito.8513Whiteout.1975DRfear.5234Slanderman.9532 25 votes
no
61%
TheGrimm.5624Loosmaster.8263derd.6413kash.9213Samug.6512Limodriver.4106Nimrod.9240Dawdler.8521primatos.5413Pterikdactyl.7630Opal.9324EremiteAngel.9765Aeolus.3615Elementalist Owner.7802Silinsar.6298Gorani.7205GDchiaScrub.3241Trajan.4953CrimsonNeonite.1048volpenvieh.3201 40 votes

Comments

  • spectrito.8513spectrito.8513 Member ✭✭✭
    yes

    This is your chance to get rid of those filthy gankers ! Vote yes !

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

    I want a whole new borderland, but this would probably suffice. If it coincides with a slight reduction to population caps on each maps I couldn't be happier.

    Make it so, Anet!

    Smugly chuckling forever.
    My sentence doesn't make sense? Well, I probably forgot to write half of it before posting.

  • Obsidian sanctum already exists

  • bluberblasen.9684bluberblasen.9684 Member ✭✭✭
    no

    as a Roamer / small scale player -> no
    :)

  • Ben K.6238Ben K.6238 Member ✭✭✭

    Mount hasn't made any difference to roaming for me, so it's hard to make a choice here.

    If the map was no respawn and reset when only one team remained standing, I'd go for it because it's something different. Otherwise, you can get fights smaller than that on the existing borderlands.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 10, 2019

    Is this the new way to ask for a gvg map? :)

    P.S I'm not against "wow battleground type" maps, but at this stage of the game with wvw population dwindling it would further destroy wvw, much like making eotm relevant now would divide the population again. If they go for smaller maps, they would have to go all in for that game mode and get rid of wvw.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Celsith.2753 said:
    I voted 'No' even though this is my favourite fights in wvw. Because to me the entire point of an open world player combat map is the different encounters that are possible and half the fun is trying to manipulate situations into your own advantage. Same reason I'm so vehemently opposed to the mount as anything other than a one hit dismount speed buff even though I generally love mounts. WvW isn't, to me, just roaming, or ppt'ng empty things, or huge fights or siege defense or small fights, its everything.

    right on.

    The horror...…….the horror...…….the horror...…….

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭
    yes

    I'd love to see DBLs old center event come back as a stand-alone

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • Ryudnard.2587Ryudnard.2587 Member ✭✭
    no

    Give pip EoTM and this will natutally happen

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    yes

    Would I like it? Yes. I only do roaming and I love small pop so it would be good for me . . .

    Would I want mounts to be banned there as the question seems to imply? No, the mount has not negatively affected my roaming and I would expect it to have the same function in the 20x20x20 map as it does everywhere else in wvw . . .

    Do I think this is at all practical? No. The queue would take forever. The guild groups would harass me for playing solo bc they can't have their 20x20x20 guild fight until I leave the map. How would scoring work relative to the existing borderlands . . ?

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    yes

    @Celsith.2753 said:
    I voted 'No' even though this is my favourite fights in wvw. Because to me the entire point of an open world player combat map is the different encounters that are possible and half the fun is trying to manipulate situations into your own advantage. Same reason I'm so vehemently opposed to the mount as anything other than a one hit dismount speed buff even though I generally love mounts. WvW isn't, to me, just roaming, or ppt'ng empty things, or huge fights or siege defense or small fights, its everything.

    Everything like mounts . . ?

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    no

    @Gop.8713 said:
    The guild groups would harass me for playing solo bc they can't have their 20x20x20 guild fight until I leave the map.

    Of course. With only 20 slots, everyone is important. Whats the point of having random solo/smallscalers on this map when a 20 man guild will completely dominate the enemy. Imagine seeing 19 of the same guild in spawn, while you run through it eager to get some solo fights on this solo map... and they are only waiting for their commander. Just imagine the hate if you say "well I want to play too". If its one of the core guilds on the server you may as well transfer to another right then and there. Even assuming "equal" fights, whats the loosing side supposed to do against this? "If we had 25 vs 20 we could have won, call in reinforcements!". Nope. "They are double teaming us with 20 vs 20+20, we will win this with another guild backing us up!". Nope.

    In normal WvW the pop cap far exceeds the capabilities of 99.5% of guilds. They simply do not run with 85-90 man "fight guilds", although there are a few community guilds that could perhaps gather this in theory (in practice, even 50 can be hard). 20 man guilds however? Oh thats pretty much every tagged raiding guild.

    Or what we're gonna disallow guilds to join this border, disallow squads and ban everyone coordinating on voice coms so that solo/smallscalers can have their map?

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    yes

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    The guild groups would harass me for playing solo bc they can't have their 20x20x20 guild fight until I leave the map.

    Of course. With only 20 slots, everyone is important. Whats the point of having random solo/smallscalers on this map when a 20 man guild will completely dominate the enemy. Imagine seeing 19 of the same guild in spawn, while you run through it eager to get some solo fights on this solo map... and they are only waiting for their commander. Just imagine the hate if you say "well I want to play too". If its one of the core guilds on the server you may as well transfer to another right then and there. Even assuming "equal" fights, whats the loosing side supposed to do against this? "If we had 25 vs 20 we could have won, call in reinforcements!". Nope. "They are double teaming us with 20 vs 20+20, we will win this with another guild backing us up!". Nope.

    In normal WvW the pop cap far exceeds the capabilities of 99.5% of guilds. They simply do not run with 85-90 man "fight guilds", although there are a few community guilds that could perhaps gather this in theory (in practice, even 50 can be hard). 20 man guilds however? Oh thats pretty much every tagged raiding guild.

    Or what we're gonna disallow guilds to join this border, disallow squads and ban everyone coordinating on voice coms so that solo/smallscalers can have their map?

    Yep, like I said, not practical. But why would it make anyone transfer . . ?

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 11, 2019

    edit

    this post has been merged below.

    The horror...…….the horror...…….the horror...…….

  • Celsith.2753Celsith.2753 Member ✭✭✭
    no

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Celsith.2753 said:
    I voted 'No' even though this is my favourite fights in wvw. Because to me the entire point of an open world player combat map is the different encounters that are possible and half the fun is trying to manipulate situations into your own advantage. Same reason I'm so vehemently opposed to the mount as anything other than a one hit dismount speed buff even though I generally love mounts. WvW isn't, to me, just roaming, or ppt'ng empty things, or huge fights or siege defense or small fights, its everything.

    Everything like mounts . . ?

    Mounts reduce player interaction, much like segregating people by map would.

    885k+ WvW kills
    Diamond No Life
    [HUNT] Predatory Instinct

  • no

    I voted no because i would rather see a new type of pvp match with larger maps and teams (e.g. 10v10v10). These would have discrete beginnings, endings, winners, and losers. A perpetual 20v20v20 wvw map would be almost impossible to get into because of queues.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:
    Do I think this is at all practical? No. The queue would take forever. The guild groups would harass me for playing solo bc they can't have their 20x20x20 guild fight until I leave the map. How would scoring work relative to the existing borderlands . . ?

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Of course. With only 20 slots, everyone is important. Whats the point of having random solo/smallscalers on this map when a 20 man guild will completely dominate the enemy.

    @Ben K.6238 said:
    If the map was no respawn and reset when only one team remained standing, I'd go for it because it's something different. Otherwise, you can get fights smaller than that on the existing borderlands.

    @fluidmonolith.3584 said:
    I voted no because i would rather see a new type of pvp match with larger maps and teams (e.g. 10v10v10). These would have discrete beginnings, endings, winners, and losers. A perpetual 20v20v20 wvw map would be almost impossible to get into because of queues.

    well, this map could have multiple instances like eotm has. perhaps disable squads, but enable parties still? ppl will still naturally band together probably, but the chances of a server coming together (or just a couple of small teams) to take down a 20 person group (unrealistic, would most times be 10-15) would be much greater then taking down a 50+ group.

    you guys have good points. what if only 5 person groups were allowed in, the teams were sorted randomly, and there was a best of 5 or however many rounds? teams get locked after match start and theres no switching teams beforehand, so its sort of like ranked pvp. i'm not sure how scoring would work in relation to wvw warscore. maybe the winning server gets some sort of bonus when their side wins?

    The horror...…….the horror...…….the horror...…….

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭
    yes

    Alright. I'm gonna vote "Yes"... But only for "Small Teams"; not roamers.
    I see this turning into more of a GvG thing. As "20" spots shouldn't be too hard to fill on average; I'm assuming one would think.

    Ultimately, if that's how people want to/are able to play... Who am I to tell them "No"?
    Can't say I wouldn't be interested in giving it a shot myself from time to time, despite me being a roamer.

    Beside's... If people want to "Roam" in the "main" maps. I'm missing the part where this would take away their freedom of choice to do just that :)
    Ultimately, I just view this as preference of play.

    Should it be "20"? I have no idea... But seems like a fair point to start with.

  • Ben K.6238Ben K.6238 Member ✭✭✭

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:
    well, this map could have multiple instances like eotm has. perhaps disable squads, but enable parties still? ppl will still naturally band together probably, but the chances of a server coming together (or just a couple of small teams) to take down a 20 person group (unrealistic, would most times be 10-15) would be much greater then taking down a 50+ group.

    you guys have good points. what if only 5 person groups were allowed in, the teams were sorted randomly, and there was a best of 5 or however many rounds? teams get locked after match start and theres no switching teams beforehand, so its sort of like ranked pvp. i'm not sure how scoring would work in relation to wvw warscore. maybe the winning server gets some sort of bonus when their side wins?

    Sounds better than the way bloodlust was implemented. Sure, I'd be happy with that.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    yes

    @Celsith.2753 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:

    @Celsith.2753 said:
    I voted 'No' even though this is my favourite fights in wvw. Because to me the entire point of an open world player combat map is the different encounters that are possible and half the fun is trying to manipulate situations into your own advantage. Same reason I'm so vehemently opposed to the mount as anything other than a one hit dismount speed buff even though I generally love mounts. WvW isn't, to me, just roaming, or ppt'ng empty things, or huge fights or siege defense or small fights, its everything.

    Everything like mounts . . ?

    Mounts reduce player interaction, much like segregating people by map would.

    So now you are opposed to mounts AND bl's? Your idea of 'everything' is pretty restrictive :p

    For a more serious response, the mount does not reduce player interaction it only assists players in choosing their interactions. While in the past a player might get killed running back to their zerg and the mount now aids them in avoiding that 'interaction', the interaction isn't simply eliminated, it is also replaced by the player interactions that player has once they have returned to their zerg. Actually, given how much longer that player will survive and interact once they are back with their zerg vs. how long it takes a roaming build to kill a zergling mounts have greatly increased player interaction in this regard . . .

  • Tiawal.2351Tiawal.2351 Member ✭✭✭
    yes

    Of course this would have been great (when WvW was still alive, now doesn't matter anymore), even more, all our maps should have been limited to a maximum of 30-40 players per side instead the ~60-80 we have now: just double number of maps, like 5 EB maps, 1 Desert, 2 Alpine for regular WvW
    and one map with 3x size of Obsidian Sanctum Arena for 20vs20vs20 (just blank, empty, flat map, 0 dev time spent) just for fights, and allow switching sides too for when one side can't field 20

    maybe in Guild Wars 4, where won't be PvE anymore, just WvW forever and ever

  • no

    Err, no. As has been pointed out before, guilds would probably take advantage of this map for their raids and every roamer would be seen as a useless player taking up space on the map, hence making this map even worse/unplayable for roamers during prime time. And during off time you'd probably still have the same problem of some servers teaming up as a 20 man zerg whereas other servers would be represented by roamers. Does it matter if a solo roamer faces 20 people or 40+? Not really. You'd still want to make sure to sneak your way past the bigger group.
    A map like that could have been a huge success back in the old times when zerg busting was still much more possible. But not where wvw is currently at.

  • Samug.6512Samug.6512 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2019
    no

    Give a man opportunity to troll and he will do it. Small map with very limited number of players? Plenty of players find it amusing to kill the fun of others, and would be standing there to block some members from entering. Beside, lots of people like to spectate GvGs. OS & EotM arenas already exist. I'd rather see ANet make a 3rd full-blown border so we could get 1 desert, 1 alpine, 1... space station border.

    [NUKE]

  • Loosmaster.8263Loosmaster.8263 Member ✭✭✭✭
    no

    Pointless. They already have EotM map they can go to. And since when is a 20 man group considered roamers?

    Fàther - Create a mount then kill it until it's more useless than PvE. "Smart"
    Tactical Killers
    Server(DR)

  • Celsith.2753Celsith.2753 Member ✭✭✭
    no

    @Gop.8713 said:
    assists players in choosing their interactions.
    assists players in choosing their interactions.
    assists players in choosing their interactions.

    Thankyou for taking several sentences to basically say exactly what I did. You don't need to add the hyperbole, simply say that you prefer it if that is your choice :)

    885k+ WvW kills
    Diamond No Life
    [HUNT] Predatory Instinct

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 12, 2019

    @Tiawal.2351 said:
    Of course this would have been great (when WvW was still alive, now doesn't matter anymore), even more, all our maps should have been limited to a maximum of 30-40 players per side instead the ~60-80 we have now: just double number of maps, like 5 EB maps, 1 Desert, 2 Alpine for regular WvW
    and one map with 3x size of Obsidian Sanctum Arena for 20vs20vs20 (just blank, empty, flat map, 0 dev time spent) just for fights, and allow switching sides too for when one side can't field 20

    maybe in Guild Wars 4, where won't be PvE anymore, just WvW forever and ever

    @Loosmaster.8263 said:
    Pointless. They already have EotM map they can go to. And since when is a 20 man group considered roamers?

    your posts made me edit the OP based on a convo I had with other people in this thread. with that info, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, do you think something like that could work?

    The horror...…….the horror...…….the horror...…….

  • primatos.5413primatos.5413 Member ✭✭✭
    no

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    I'd love to see DBLs old center event come back as a stand-alone

    If it would have been scaling somehow with the ppt score it might have been usefull in a way .. but this event thing failed by far not only by the horrible lags which it caused ^^

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭
    no

    No. We need collision. Want to run in a zerg ball, ok but be ready to bounce off people. Don't care how it impacts latency, that's up to the programmers and servers to handle. Run with more you had better move well together else pay the price for having so many in one small spot.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/CU/AoC

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    No. We need collision. Want to run in a zerg ball, ok but be ready to bounce off people. Don't care how it impacts latency, that's up to the programmers and servers to handle. Run with more you had better move well together else pay the price for having so many in one small spot.

    only if a boing sound procs when you run into someone, and if youre an asura who gets squished in the middle of the zerg you get launched 1000ft into the air.

    The horror...…….the horror...…….the horror...…….

  • DanAlcedo.3281DanAlcedo.3281 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Why would roamers go to a map without zerglings.

    Killing zerglings is their job.

    If they want to fight other roamers, then they can play PvP.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    yes

    @Celsith.2753 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    assists players in choosing their interactions.
    assists players in choosing their interactions.
    assists players in choosing their interactions.

    Thankyou for taking several sentences to basically say exactly what I did. You don't need to add the hyperbole, simply say that you prefer it if that is your choice :)

    That is my mistake then and I apologize. I misunderstood your post to say that you felt the mount decreased player interaction while I was pointing out that player interaction was actually increased by access to the mount. I did not realize that was what you were saying as well. Perhaps if you had used more sentences your meaning would have been more clear :)

    Also it was more sarcasm than hyperbole which I tried to indicate both with :p and by starting my actual response with 'for a more serious response'. It was meant in jest but if you chose to take offense then again I apologize . . .

  • Ryudnard.2587Ryudnard.2587 Member ✭✭
    no

    20vs20vs20 pvp

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 13, 2019
    no

    @Stand The Wall.6987 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    No. We need collision. Want to run in a zerg ball, ok but be ready to bounce off people. Don't care how it impacts latency, that's up to the programmers and servers to handle. Run with more you had better move well together else pay the price for having so many in one small spot.

    only if a boing sound procs when you run into someone, and if youre an asura who gets squished in the middle of the zerg you get launched 1000ft into the air.

    These are not mutually exclusive, sold! :)

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/CU/AoC

©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.