How would you all feel if Borderland maps were redesigned to be a 2 Faction map instead of Three — Guild Wars 2 Forums

How would you all feel if Borderland maps were redesigned to be a 2 Faction map instead of Three

Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

Hear me out first.

EBG stays as is. The Three Teams battling it out.
But there would be 2 Boarderland maps for your faction (I am calling them Factions in this discussion, but we talking about Servers/Teams/Links/Alliance/whatever)

If you Red Faction for example, your Map Selection would look like this:
*Eternal Battlegrounds
*Red vs Blue Boarderlands
*Red vs Green Boarderlands
*Obsidian Sanctum

These two Faction Boarderlands maps would be redesigned for a North vs South approach with balanced designed for Structures, rather than how they currently are.

The goal here:

To designed a more interesting Boardlands map gameplay that would be equally as fun and rewarding to stay heavily populated as ETB normally is. Less Borderlands maps at once, will also help populated these Boarderlands maps.

Three Faction battles still will be the norm in Eternal Battlegrounds. Right now Boarderlands barely are populated on a consistent bases for most servers to warren it staying the Three Faction design that it is now.

Comments

  • How would that really effect anything? Like its not a bad idea but theres just alot of server stacking and population imbalance. Also alot of pugs i tend to find will just hug to ebg because theres and big large rod ;) in the middle of it.

    If band wagonning wasnt such a issue would really be a problem.

    Could also implent a tier based transfer cost..
    Eg (also affects link server)
    T1 = full
    T2 = 1800 gems
    T3 = 1000 gems
    T4 = 500 gems

    So to get the cheap transfer youd have to tank 4 weeks.. Maybe a idea, maybe a bandaid fix

    Or

    Increase rewards to make wvw more profitable again? Thatll be people back for sure if they know theyll get something from it

  • steki.1478steki.1478 Member ✭✭✭✭

    There will be more maps full with T3 objectives which simply isnt fun to play against considering that you need a full map blob to reliably get those.

    Deso's favorite FROG
    Master of afk and kiting
    The God of Pips and Gud Deeps
    Froggo himself

  • Terrible idea. And not going to happen as there isn't the team to do the work.

    Given the decline in population we'd be better off with less maps and more servers against each other, so instead of 4 maps 2 to 3 of which are dead, 2 maps with 4 servers on each would be better and make for more interesting play and more chance of epic battles- but then the servers can't cope with 3 ways so having 4 way battles would probably crash them unless Anet invested in more bandwidth for wvw.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    add tournaments.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    No, to me the reason EBG remains the most populated is that it feels the most like 3 sided and balanced. If we continue to have to have 2 alpines would prefer it be redesigned to feel more like EBG and then it would draw more fights.

    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/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 11, 2019

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    Hear me out first.

    EBG stays as is. The Three Teams battling it out.
    But there would be 2 Boarderland maps for your faction (I am calling them Factions in this discussion, but we talking about Servers/Teams/Links/Alliance/whatever)

    If you Red Faction for example, your Map Selection would look like this:
    *Eternal Battlegrounds
    *Red vs Blue Boarderlands
    *Red vs Green Boarderlands
    *Obsidian Sanctum

    These two Faction Boarderlands maps would be redesigned for a North vs South approach with balanced designed for Structures, rather than how they currently are.

    The goal here:

    To designed a more interesting Boardlands map gameplay that would be equally as fun and rewarding to stay heavily populated as ETB normally is. Less Borderlands maps at once, will also help populated these Boarderlands maps.

    Three Faction battles still will be the norm in Eternal Battlegrounds. Right now Boarderlands barely are populated on a consistent bases for most servers to warren it staying the Three Faction design that it is now.

    WvW is not wow AV or any other 1v1 war. WvW is a 3 server fight period. That’s how it was designed and that’s how it will stay. If you want 1v1 battles then play games that offer that design, because WvW will constantly disappoint you.

    And please take note before you decide to suggest 1v1 in our 3 sided mode...

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World

    “The inspiration for World versus World came from Dark Age of Camelot's realm vs. realm battles.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Age_of_Camelot

    “Dark Age of Camelot has three realms, allowing a unique dynamic of RvRvR gameplay.”

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Baldrick.8967 said:
    Terrible idea. And not going to happen as there isn't the team to do the work.

    Given the decline in population we'd be better off with less maps and more servers against each other, so instead of 4 maps 2 to 3 of which are dead, 2 maps with 4 servers on each would be better and make for more interesting play and more chance of epic battles- but then the servers can't cope with 3 ways so having 4 way battles would probably crash them unless Anet invested in more bandwidth for wvw.

    i think you misunderstand the idea. Since in my OP there would be less maps and likely more fights in borderlands maps. 2 borderland maps instead of 3.

    *Eternal Battlegrounds
    and
    *Obsidian Sanctum
    didnt get touched. they already in the game.

    4 servers would be terrible unless gameplay is scaled far down. That could be fun in a 20 vs 20 vs 20 v 20 SPvP mode though.

    Each Boarderlands would be designed for 2 factions instead of 3. Scaled down to be more suiting for that, which would lead to more fights and less emptiness. All Borderland maps would be balanced in design instead of server themed maps we have now since no server owns that map. This why there is only 2 instead of 3 Borderland maps.

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    Hear me out first.

    EBG stays as is. The Three Teams battling it out.
    But there would be 2 Boarderland maps for your faction (I am calling them Factions in this discussion, but we talking about Servers/Teams/Links/Alliance/whatever)

    If you Red Faction for example, your Map Selection would look like this:
    *Eternal Battlegrounds
    *Red vs Blue Boarderlands
    *Red vs Green Boarderlands
    *Obsidian Sanctum

    These two Faction Boarderlands maps would be redesigned for a North vs South approach with balanced designed for Structures, rather than how they currently are.

    The goal here:

    To designed a more interesting Boardlands map gameplay that would be equally as fun and rewarding to stay heavily populated as ETB normally is. Less Borderlands maps at once, will also help populated these Boarderlands maps.

    Three Faction battles still will be the norm in Eternal Battlegrounds. Right now Boarderlands barely are populated on a consistent bases for most servers to warren it staying the Three Faction design that it is now.

    WvW is not wow AV or any other 1v1 war. WvW is a 3 server fight period. That’s how it was designed and that’s how it will stay. If you want 1v1 battles then play games that offer that design, because WvW will constantly disappoint you.

    And please take note before you decide to suggest 1v1 in our 3 sided mode...

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World

    “The inspiration for World versus World came from Dark Age of Camelot's realm vs. realm battles.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Age_of_Camelot

    “Dark Age of Camelot has three realms, allowing a unique dynamic of RvRvR gameplay.”

    Inspiration for isnt the same thing as being a copy of. Because its not. This not taking anything away from that. RvR means Realm vs Realm, aka Geographical Factions fighting other Geographical Factions. Doesnt mean it has to always be 3 faction battles.

    The population is dying and boarderlands sit empty most of the time because there are too many of them for such a small population and they not even balanced maps, each one is tailored to favor one server or another.

    My Idea makes each boarderlands maps a equal design. Less of them, to condense the population, and smaller since it doesnt need to fit 3 servers in a map that rarely ever has big three way battles outside of EBG.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 11, 2019

    Well not a bad idea.. I would actually look at it as a west vs east type of split instead of north vs south. Just take out the home teams.
    So basically starting west swt swc bay nwc nwt, east set sec hills nec net, center 3rd team gone sc garri nc would be neutral and the extra deciding factor for points on the map like smc. Wouldn't even need to change anything on the map just take out access for the 3rd home team. With both teams starting on the bottom sides, you still need to push up to garri and even nc if you want the extra supplies for your north towers and garri.

    For map splits it would be green vs red, red vs blue, blue vs green (basically a triangle aeon of strife matching of sides). Every side gets access to two maps and a bay and hills side to keep it even. Ebg stays the same.

    You would still have the 4 main maps still, you effectively take out home bl concept, but also taking out access to one map for each side so you limit to 3 maps per side which is good as less playing space is needed for less population spread, or could even add in eotm now as a wvw map if population spread is fine. Going down to 9 host servers would also help at this point in time as well.

    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon."
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WoAH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 12, 2019

    NO BRAINER FIX - Use Server Guesting for WvW


    I'd suggest keeping all 5 maps how they're currently configured, but change how waypoints function on how they let players enter a map.

    Waypoints are already Color Coded for players to enter a map.

    Give each WvW Server All 5 maps to own & defend.

    Make RED waypoints = Home Server
    Make GREEN & BLUE waypoints = Enemy Server

    Players enter a WvW map based on their chosen Home Server.

    Players use a modified "Server Guesting for WvW" to weekly pick 3 enemy servers to fight against.

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 11, 2019

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    Hear me out first.

    EBG stays as is. The Three Teams battling it out.
    But there would be 2 Boarderland maps for your faction (I am calling them Factions in this discussion, but we talking about Servers/Teams/Links/Alliance/whatever)

    If you Red Faction for example, your Map Selection would look like this:
    *Eternal Battlegrounds
    *Red vs Blue Boarderlands
    *Red vs Green Boarderlands
    *Obsidian Sanctum

    These two Faction Boarderlands maps would be redesigned for a North vs South approach with balanced designed for Structures, rather than how they currently are.

    The goal here:

    To designed a more interesting Boardlands map gameplay that would be equally as fun and rewarding to stay heavily populated as ETB normally is. Less Borderlands maps at once, will also help populated these Boarderlands maps.

    Three Faction battles still will be the norm in Eternal Battlegrounds. Right now Boarderlands barely are populated on a consistent bases for most servers to warren it staying the Three Faction design that it is now.

    WvW is not wow AV or any other 1v1 war. WvW is a 3 server fight period. That’s how it was designed and that’s how it will stay. If you want 1v1 battles then play games that offer that design, because WvW will constantly disappoint you.

    And please take note before you decide to suggest 1v1 in our 3 sided mode...

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World

    “The inspiration for World versus World came from Dark Age of Camelot's realm vs. realm battles.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Age_of_Camelot

    “Dark Age of Camelot has three realms, allowing a unique dynamic of RvRvR gameplay.”

    Inspiration for isnt the same thing as being a copy of. Because its not. This not taking anything away from that. RvR means Realm vs Realm, aka Geographical Factions fighting other Geographical Factions. Doesnt mean it has to always be 3 faction battles.

    The population is dying and boarderlands sit empty most of the time because there are too many of them for such a small population and they not even balanced maps, each one is tailored to favor one server or another.

    My Idea makes each boarderlands maps a equal design. Less of them, to condense the population, and smaller since it doesnt need to fit 3 servers in a map that rarely ever has big three way battles outside of EBG.

    The entire mode was coded and built with having 1v1v1 in mind. That is not changing.
    Also, 3 sides makes things more “balanced” for mass combat standpoint, not 2. Years of games have taught us that.

    Not trying to be a jerk, but your energy is best spent on how to make rvrvr better, not change any part on wvw into 1v1. Again, you are not getting 1v1 mechanics inside a mode designed for 1v1v1 period.

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 11, 2019

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Well not a bad idea.. I would actually look at it as a west vs east type of split instead of north vs south. Just take out the home teams.
    So basically starting west swt swc bay nwc nwt, east set sec hills nec net, center 3rd team gone sc garri nc would be neutral and the extra deciding factor for points on the map like smc. Wouldn't even need to change anything on the map just take out access for the 3rd home team. With both teams starting on the bottom sides, you still need to push up to garri and even nc if you want the extra supplies for your north towers and garri.

    For map splits it would be green vs red, red vs blue, blue vs green (basically a triangle aeon of strife matching of sides). Every side gets access to two maps and a bay and hills side to keep it even. Ebg stays the same.

    You would still have the 4 main maps still, you effectively take out home bl concept, but also taking out access to one map for each side so you limit to 3 maps per side which is good as less playing space is needed for less population spread, or could even add in eotm now as a wvw map if population spread is fine. Going down to 9 host servers would also help at this point in time as well.

    What this person said @Swagger.1459

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    That’s great, but it’s not going to happen.

    Cmon now swag. You know they would pore in all those resources to WvW to recreate 4 maps... 🥴

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • @Swagger.1459 said:
    That’s great, but it’s not going to happen.

    why are you taking him so literally? he's just throwing ideas around.

    Te lazla otstra.

  • I have a question about this idea (that I don't find appealing, tbh): why Obsidian Sanctum is still a thing in WvW? It stopped having some sense to keep it long time ago. Remove it from WvW or rework it for being a GvG/duel map. No sense to keep it for anything else.

    Oh, and remove Stonemist, for the sake of God. No more stupidity about licking its walls the whole week.

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Swag come on. Many things in that video have changed. Do I need to dig up the Manifesto video? Things change. WvW is included.

    Times have changed. WvW didnt live up to the hype and population is lower than we would like. So time to make changes to bring more people in, or make it more fun and rewarding for less players. 4 maps just dont cut it anymore.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 12, 2019

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    Swag come on. Many things in that video have changed. Do I need to dig up the Manifesto video? Things change. WvW is included.

    Times have changed. WvW didnt live up to the hype and population is lower than we would like. So time to make changes to bring more people in, or make it more fun and rewarding for less players. 4 maps just dont cut it anymore.

    You should look up “treat the cause, not the symptom”...

    Dig it up all you want, but it won’t change the fact that wvw is a 3 server “war”.

    In detail, I want you to clearly explain (as If you were convincing the devs to spend the next year of time and money on your suggestion) exactly how your idea will “bring more people in”? How will your change “make it more fun and rewarding”? And how does using “4 maps” not “cut it anymore”?

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    You will have to excuse this section of the forums, because people will come in here clamoring for changes, up and down, swearing at anet to fix the game, but when actual reasonable suggestions from players come it's given no thought, just a no, and want to keep the game as it is, this is the manifesto! you have to keep the game exactly like this! Even though the manifesto was thrown out the door from the very first day of release.

    When changes from anet comes in they clamor about not liking or wanting them or it's still not enough! Don't touch my op class! don't touch my op mechanics! nerf all these other classes! give me more rewards! don't give me more rewards! delete desert map! don't change my map! fix eotm! delete eotm! don't give me gliders! don't give me mounts! improve siege! make siege useless! give us (yes us I speak for everyone now!) a giant flat map with a private tag and sticks to fight each other with no down state and reward 1gold per death!
    Hands out the pitchforks!

    Same ole story for 7 years, don't bother arguing with those that obviously don't care about wvw. Meme the really stupid kitten stuff(and there's more than a ton of that in the wvw section), but when an actual reasonable suggestion is made actually have a reasonable discussion about it.

    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon."
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WoAH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 12, 2019

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    You will have to excuse this section of the forums, because people will come in here clamoring for changes, up and down, swearing at anet to fix the game, but when actual reasonable suggestions from players come it's given no thought, just a no, and want to keep the game as it is, this is the manifesto! you have to keep the game exactly like this! Even though the manifesto was thrown out the door from the very first day of release.

    When changes from anet comes in they clamor about not liking or wanting them or it's still not enough! Don't touch my op class! don't touch my op mechanics! nerf all these other classes! give me more rewards! don't give me more rewards! delete desert map! don't change my map! fix eotm! delete eotm! don't give me gliders! don't give me mounts! improve siege! make siege useless! give us (yes us I speak for everyone now!) a giant flat map with a private tag and sticks to fight each other with no down state and reward 1gold per death!
    Hands out the pitchforks!

    Same ole story for 7 years, don't bother arguing with those that obviously don't care about wvw. Meme the really stupid kitten stuff(and there's more than a ton of that in the wvw section), but when an actual reasonable suggestion is made actually have a reasonable discussion about it.

    It’s not reasonable to ask for any maps to be 1v1 when the entire mode is 1v1v1. And anyone who has played mmos for a long time will tell you that 1 side vs 1 side is more unbalanced than 1v1v1. And reasonable would be making suggestion that improve this 3 sided mode, not try to change any part of it to a 2 sided mode.

    Your suggestion also talked about reducing things down to 9 servers, but apparently you’re unaware that servers will no longer exist when alliances drops.

    The manifesto was a PR projection of what the devs envisioned the game to be, but that doesn’t mean the manifesto was the exact box the game would fit in without change or variation. The difference is that wvw was launched as a 3 sided “war”, modeled after DAoC, not your plethora of 2 sided fight games. Some of you asking for wvw to be like WoW AV would be like me asking the devs of CU, a 3 realm RvR game, to make parts of the game 1v1...

    Read this and familiarize yourself with RvR...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_versus_Realm

  • I think the triumvirate of forces work out just fine. You can plan against one enemy....but two....no. IF we had large forces, we'd have enough body's on all maps to deal with whatever comes their way, and if the locations were properly reinforced, sieged and manned. A third party is nothing more than a wrench in your plans, and adds to the fog of war. While your off messing with one enemy, the third team would be taking advantage of the situation...whether that's in your favor or not is up in the air.

  • I'll try anything at this point

  • Diku.2546Diku.2546 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 19, 2019

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    Snip 8<

    Same ole story for 7 years, don't bother arguing with those that obviously don't care about wvw. Meme the really stupid kitten stuff(and there's more than a ton of that in the wvw section), but when an actual reasonable suggestion is made actually have a reasonable discussion about it.


    WvW - Plane without a Pilot - Passengers Decide How to Fly & Land the Plane


    This forum is a reflection of the WvW in-game community.

    We're going to be left with only veteran sharks feeding off each other.

    WvW Poll 21 May: World Linking (Closed) - Over 3 years ago
    2016-05-25
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-21-May-World-Linking-Closed/page/3#post6172707


    You can't argue against the ignorance, self-interest, and spiteful behavior that I've observed here.

    But, I'll keep trying...hoping my suggestions will be heard.

    "Ideas are like cream... Good ones, rise to the top!"

    Suggestion - Re-Purpose Server Guesting for WvW.

    Let players themselves weekly pick 3 servers to fight against. Assign servers a static home map to defend.

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Diku.2546 said:

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    Snip 8<

    Same ole story for 7 years, don't bother arguing with those that obviously don't care about wvw. Meme the really stupid kitten stuff(and there's more than a ton of that in the wvw section), but when an actual reasonable suggestion is made actually have a reasonable discussion about it.


    WvW - Plane without a Pilot - Passengers Decide How to Fly & Land the Plane


    This forum is a reflection of the WvW in-game community.

    We're going to be left with only veteran sharks feeding off each other.

    WvW Poll 21 May: World Linking (Closed) - Over 3 years ago
    2016-05-25
    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-21-May-World-Linking-Closed/page/3#post6172707


    You can't argue against the ignorance, self-interest, and spiteful behavior that I've observed here.

    But, I'll keep trying...hoping my suggestions will be heard.

    "Ideas are like cream... Good ones, rise to the top!"

    Suggestion - Re-Purpose Server Guesting for WvW.

    Let players themselves weekly pick 3 servers to fight against. Assign servers a static home map to defend.

    Yours truly,
    Diku

    Credibility requires critical insight & time.

    Interesting discussion you and @Swagger.1459 had in that thread there you linked.....

  • You had two teams. The third team being nothing more than a monkey wrench. You could plan all you wanted against a single enemy, and their tactics and strategy. But when you had to plan against two enemy forces, well, that through your well laid plans all to hell. It put pressure on any one team. We were Piranha. The minute we smelled blood on any one server...the other two teams would swiftly gobble up the territory of the one server we deemed to be weakest at that very moment.

  • avey.4201avey.4201 Member ✭✭✭

    Borderlands are 2 sided, you have defender, and invader, the enemy of your enemy is your friend, I play along side enemy's more than allies as I prefer invading alpine borderlands, and I enjoy the challenge of fighting an enemy while trying not to harm/kill my friend enemies.
    If I see 1 of the 3 servers are far behind in score, I will help their groups cap, by defending them from the other enemy while they cap objectives.
    WvW has a lot of strategy involved, if I see a lone enemy breaking into the dominant servers stuff, I don't kill him, and if I can rally a group we'll go cap, if he wants to sneak in for a back cap so be it, still slows the dominant enemy from reclaiming it.
    When our side is very low population, and I break into a place, I know I cant solo the lord much less the lord and any defender, so I find some enemies to cap it while I run distraction fighting the other team.
    For a dominant server red=dead, and they can blob their way through the maps easily, but for the smaller servers, it's beneficial to prioritize important enemies/objectives.

  • "Never play with your food."

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 28, 2019

    Would end up having the same issues as other content of similar design. Look no further than any of the WoW Battlegrounds and big fight maps for example. Those have had balance issues for close to 14 years by now. Some far worse than WvW in GW2 and that is WITH handing out gear goodies to players.

    The winning side steam rolls, the losing side leaves the game until reset.

    One of the best things ever since Dark Age of Camelot about 3 sides has always been: even as underdog, you might get fights or be useful. An otherwise stale matchup has a chance to become interesting when place 1 and 2 or place 2 and 3 have to fight it out. Which means even with a clear winner or loser point wise, the matchup isn't necesarily lost for the week.

    In a duo map system, this possibility is removed.

    Duo side system have big problems too, just different ones. To ignore those or pretend they do not exist is not healthy nor does it make a good idea.

    That is without even going into details what issues would arise from changing a 3 sided matchup community to 2 sides.

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Would end up having the same issues as other content of similar design. Look no further than any of the WoW Battlegrounds and big fight maps for example. Those have had balance issues for close to 14 years by now. Some far worse than WvW in GW2 and that is WITH handing out gear goodies to players.

    The winning side steam rolls, the losing side leaves the game until reset.

    One of the best things ever since Dark Age of Camelot about 3 sides has always been: even as underdog, you might get fights or be useful. An otherwise stale matchup has a chance to become interesting when place 1 and 2 or place 2 and 3 have to fight it out. Which means even with a clear winner or loser point wise, the matchup isn't necesarily lost for the week.

    In a duo map system, this possibility is removed.

    Duo side system have big problems too, just different ones. To ignore those or pretend they do not exist is not healthy nor does it make a good idea.

    That is without even going into details what issues would arise from changing a 3 sided matchup community to 2 sides.

    We had 3 sided battles for 7 years now and clearly balance is still an issue if not bigger than it ever was in Battlegrounds in WoW.

    Hence Alliance system is begged for around these parts.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 28, 2019

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Would end up having the same issues as other content of similar design. Look no further than any of the WoW Battlegrounds and big fight maps for example. Those have had balance issues for close to 14 years by now. Some far worse than WvW in GW2 and that is WITH handing out gear goodies to players.

    The winning side steam rolls, the losing side leaves the game until reset.

    One of the best things ever since Dark Age of Camelot about 3 sides has always been: even as underdog, you might get fights or be useful. An otherwise stale matchup has a chance to become interesting when place 1 and 2 or place 2 and 3 have to fight it out. Which means even with a clear winner or loser point wise, the matchup isn't necesarily lost for the week.

    In a duo map system, this possibility is removed.

    Duo side system have big problems too, just different ones. To ignore those or pretend they do not exist is not healthy nor does it make a good idea.

    That is without even going into details what issues would arise from changing a 3 sided matchup community to 2 sides.

    We had 3 sided battles for 7 years now and clearly balance is still an issue if not bigger than it ever was in Battlegrounds in WoW.

    Hence Alliance system is begged for around these parts.

    You are the first person I have heard who wants a two sided alliance system. Literally the first.

    Players wanting more balanced servers or matchups has literally nothing to do with two sided fights (especially since it doesn't fix the issue, as seen by 14 years of WoW).

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Would end up having the same issues as other content of similar design. Look no further than any of the WoW Battlegrounds and big fight maps for example. Those have had balance issues for close to 14 years by now. Some far worse than WvW in GW2 and that is WITH handing out gear goodies to players.

    The winning side steam rolls, the losing side leaves the game until reset.

    One of the best things ever since Dark Age of Camelot about 3 sides has always been: even as underdog, you might get fights or be useful. An otherwise stale matchup has a chance to become interesting when place 1 and 2 or place 2 and 3 have to fight it out. Which means even with a clear winner or loser point wise, the matchup isn't necesarily lost for the week.

    In a duo map system, this possibility is removed.

    Duo side system have big problems too, just different ones. To ignore those or pretend they do not exist is not healthy nor does it make a good idea.

    That is without even going into details what issues would arise from changing a 3 sided matchup community to 2 sides.

    We had 3 sided battles for 7 years now and clearly balance is still an issue if not bigger than it ever was in Battlegrounds in WoW.

    Hence Alliance system is begged for around these parts.

    You are the first person I have heard who wants a two sided alliance system. Literally the first.

    Players wanting more balanced servers or matchups has literally nothing to do with two sided fights (especially since it doesn't fix the issue, as seen by 14 years of WoW).

    Not sure why you keep bringing up WoW. That's has nothing to do with this. 2factions in WoW has nothing to do with balance. GW2 has three factions and worst balance than WoW's Pvp by far. Wow doesn't have Perma Combat Stealth bombers that can tank, last I checked.

    Again that has nothing to do with whether a game has two or three factions. WvW debunk that myth that three factions balances itself out, otherwise we wouldn't be whining about Alliances getting added.

    The population is too small for 4 maps built around 3 factions.
    Should stick to one map for 3 factions and two 2 Faction borderlands maps. No home borderlands, just all neutral boarderland one for each match up as explained in the OP.
    I am beyond the hype of the three Faction pvp. It was cool where it works most, aka EBG. But didn't live up to the hype and now population is low and will get lower as competition comes out soon. Need less spread out right now not more

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

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Would end up having the same issues as other content of similar design. Look no further than any of the WoW Battlegrounds and big fight maps for example. Those have had balance issues for close to 14 years by now. Some far worse than WvW in GW2 and that is WITH handing out gear goodies to players.

    The winning side steam rolls, the losing side leaves the game until reset.

    One of the best things ever since Dark Age of Camelot about 3 sides has always been: even as underdog, you might get fights or be useful. An otherwise stale matchup has a chance to become interesting when place 1 and 2 or place 2 and 3 have to fight it out. Which means even with a clear winner or loser point wise, the matchup isn't necesarily lost for the week.

    In a duo map system, this possibility is removed.

    Duo side system have big problems too, just different ones. To ignore those or pretend they do not exist is not healthy nor does it make a good idea.

    That is without even going into details what issues would arise from changing a 3 sided matchup community to 2 sides.

    We had 3 sided battles for 7 years now and clearly balance is still an issue if not bigger than it ever was in Battlegrounds in WoW.

    Hence Alliance system is begged for around these parts.

    You are the first person I have heard who wants a two sided alliance system. Literally the first.

    Players wanting more balanced servers or matchups has literally nothing to do with two sided fights (especially since it doesn't fix the issue, as seen by 14 years of WoW).

    Not sure why you keep bringing up WoW. That's has nothing to do with this. 2factions in WoW has nothing to do with balance. GW2 has three factions and worst balance than WoW's Pvp by far. Wow doesn't have Perma Combat Stealth bombers that can tank, last I checked.

    Again that has nothing to do with whether a game has two or three factions. WvW debunk that myth that three factions balances itself out, otherwise we wouldn't be whining about Alliances getting added.

    The population is too small for 4 maps built around 3 factions.
    Should stick to one map for 3 factions and two 2 Faction borderlands maps. No home borderlands, just all neutral boarderland one for each match up as explained in the OP.
    I am beyond the hype of the three Faction pvp. It was cool where it works most, aka EBG. But didn't live up to the hype and now population is low and will get lower as competition comes out soon. Need less spread out right now not more

    Nothing in wvw is changing to 1v1. I’d stick to suggestion for a 3 sided mode instead.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 28, 2019

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Would end up having the same issues as other content of similar design. Look no further than any of the WoW Battlegrounds and big fight maps for example. Those have had balance issues for close to 14 years by now. Some far worse than WvW in GW2 and that is WITH handing out gear goodies to players.

    The winning side steam rolls, the losing side leaves the game until reset.

    One of the best things ever since Dark Age of Camelot about 3 sides has always been: even as underdog, you might get fights or be useful. An otherwise stale matchup has a chance to become interesting when place 1 and 2 or place 2 and 3 have to fight it out. Which means even with a clear winner or loser point wise, the matchup isn't necesarily lost for the week.

    In a duo map system, this possibility is removed.

    Duo side system have big problems too, just different ones. To ignore those or pretend they do not exist is not healthy nor does it make a good idea.

    That is without even going into details what issues would arise from changing a 3 sided matchup community to 2 sides.

    We had 3 sided battles for 7 years now and clearly balance is still an issue if not bigger than it ever was in Battlegrounds in WoW.

    Hence Alliance system is begged for around these parts.

    You are the first person I have heard who wants a two sided alliance system. Literally the first.

    Players wanting more balanced servers or matchups has literally nothing to do with two sided fights (especially since it doesn't fix the issue, as seen by 14 years of WoW).

    Not sure why you keep bringing up WoW. That's has nothing to do with this. 2factions in WoW has nothing to do with balance. GW2 has three factions and worst balance than WoW's Pvp by far. Wow doesn't have Perma Combat Stealth bombers that can tank, last I checked.

    None of what you wrote has to do with 3 sided factions when it comes to class balance and I'm bringing up WoW because it has a track record of unbalanced battlegrounds for 2 sides with over 10 years in duration and going, with many attempts at balancing 2 sides to no avail.

    As far as genral balance and perception:
    You are rather new to WvW. I doubt you have inside knowledge of how balanced WvW was or is.

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    Again that has nothing to do with whether a game has two or three factions. WvW debunk that myth that three factions balances itself out, otherwise we wouldn't be whining about Alliances getting added.

    and I'd argue that WvW would have been far more unbalanced with a 2 sided system as far population goes.

    People want alliances due to general population dropoff. Not due to 3 sided fights, the only aspect which makes WvW in any way interesting currently.

    What I do know is this:
    Once again someone wants to remove a USP to make this game a tad more similar to another game costing GW2 once again uniqueness.

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    The population is too small for 4 maps built around 3 factions.

    Seemes to have worked fine for 7 years. Performance issues can be managed differently than scrapping a perfectly fine game mode.

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    Should stick to one map for 3 factions and two 2 Faction borderlands maps. No home borderlands, just all neutral boarderland one for each match up as explained in the OP.

    Says someone who has 0 clue as to why some people invest hours upon hours into this game mode, even at rank 10k.

    I'm sorry but the vast majority of veterans do not play WvW to simply farm rewards. A neutral WvW border with 2 sides would literally kill the game mode for most.

    @Knighthonor.4061 said:
    I am beyond the hype of the three Faction pvp. It was cool where it works most, aka EBG. But didn't live up to the hype and now population is low and will get lower as competition comes out soon. Need less spread out right now not more

    and your WvW rank is what exactly? You are over content which others have spent playing thousands of hours on after how long?

  • 1v1v1 has the same problems 1v1 has: population and coverage. alliances will hopefully fix population, but coverage will still effect things. straegens idea to solve this is a great one I think.

    it only makes sense to have a 1v1 thing with some sort of 20v20 gvg type map.

    Te lazla otstra.

  • DeadlySynz.3471DeadlySynz.3471 Member ✭✭✭✭

    In theory this sounds good; however, it completely defeats the purpose of why a 3rd server exists in the match-up (to double-team down the larger server).

    Can you imagine if this idea actually existed with this games current population? What do you think those maps would look like in T1? We would have the "obvious server" (because I'm not naming servers), completely painting each 1v1 map green. But because, there is no 3rd server to back-cap anything, all it would take is a couple of scouts per map to completely stop any attacking force from capturing anything.

    Even if this idea was implemented since day 1, T1 had grossly larger populations than the rest of the servers, and in T2, we had a server that had the population that was considered to be a "T 1.5 server". Even throughout the rest of the tiers, there were mostly obvious winners who would basically paint the maps green, while not having to worry about the 3rd server back-capping all their objectives.

    It wouldn't have worked then, it wouldn't work now, and if it got introduced with alliances, it won't work then either (because of the constant transferring and stacking issue). You have to realize, many commanders currently will not engage fights unless they have considerably more players, so their only option is to map hop and avoid. There would be no point in maphopping to avoid a group, if that large group can easily port over and defend without having to worry about any 3rd server back-capping their objectives in their absence.

    The idea sounds good on paper, but in practice it would fail miserably (that is unless Anet can force even numbers on all sides), but also change the mentality of all these commanders who won't engage unless they grossly outnumber their opponents.

©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.