Why 4 maps

If EB is only map where is some action. Every server own everything in home map anyways so why even keep these maps open?

@Junkpile.7439 said:If EB is only map where is some action. Every server own everything in home map anyways so why even keep these maps open?

That's so far from true.When I roam an enemy map, it is MY map.

This is what ebg lemmings actually believe.

This is a great point where most of the other maps are underutilized and empty. Don't expect anything to be done about it though.

Depends on Time. Sometimes everything is empty, sometimes zergs are on every bl

The Alpine maps cater more to group play, and with the dwindling population, it's difficult to find action on those maps outside of prime time. EB funnels all the skirmish activity to the center of the map, making it better suited for pugs and smaller groups. IMO, the only hope to repopulate Alpine during off-hours is if the balance patch actually fixes the trash large-scale combat and guilds/players return to the game (lel). If white knights adamantly defend Desert bl despite no one playing it, I can only imagine the tears over potentially removing Alpine; ANET will never do it.

Having said that, at this point, I wouldn't be opposed to ANET eliminating the borderlands altogether for a week-long event and having 3 instances of EB; each server can start at a different spawn in each instance (green/blue/red). At least it would shake things up for a week. I have some great memories on the Alpine maps but they feel just as dead as the pos Desert bl these days.

SM is love, SM if life...

Keep your filthy hobbitses hands off my precious!

@Junkpile.7439 said:If EB is only map where is some action. Every server own everything in home map anyways so why even keep these maps open?

So what exactly are you asking for here? to close alpines and desert and jam everyone into ebg?

Knowing Junkpile he is probably trolling :) But it does make for some interesting discussion, as I've long disliked how limiting the 4 map design is for WvW.

• If we have 500 players for each side (1500) we have 4 maps total.
• If we have 50 players from each side (150) we have 4 maps total.
• If we have 5 players from each side (15) we have 4 maps total.
• If A has 500 players, B has 50 players and C has 5 players (555) we have 4 maps total.

So we have an entire game mode where the amount of players will constantly change, and go from up to a thousand players on reset in some matches, to probably under 20 at times in middle of the night in weekdays. But we always have 4 maps.

A game that has such variety in player numbers, should be designed to dynamically adapt to the number of players, if for nothing else just to push players together on the same map for more activity. Instead of having 3 zergs of 20-30 each just cycling through 4 different maps avoiding each others or trying to look after each others.

Which is why I want ANet to remove the BL system (BorderLands), and re-adapt those maps into BG (BattleGround) maps, and add a system to scale the number of maps to the number of players (they have the tech for it already with EotM). Start with 1 EBG, Add Alpine, Desert, EotM, EBG each time they need a new map.

Some players might even like the chance to start on a "fresh map" when it spawns. And the Skirmish system means that it doesn't matter so much on the score either.

@"joneirikb.7506" said:Knowing Junkpile he is probably trolling :) But it does make for some interesting discussion, as I've long disliked how limiting the 4 map design is for WvW.

• If we have 500 players for each side (1500) we have 4 maps total.
• If we have 50 players from each side (150) we have 4 maps total.
• If we have 5 players from each side (15) we have 4 maps total.
• If A has 500 players, B has 50 players and C has 5 players (555) we have 4 maps total.

So we have an entire game mode where the amount of players will constantly change, and go from up to a thousand players on reset in some matches, to probably under 20 at times in middle of the night in weekdays. But we always have 4 maps.

A game that has such variety in player numbers, should be designed to dynamically adapt to the number of players, if for nothing else just to push players together on the same map for more activity. Instead of having 3 zergs of 20-30 each just cycling through 4 different maps avoiding each others or trying to look after each others.

Which is why I want ANet to remove the BL system (BorderLands), and re-adapt those maps into BG (BattleGround) maps, and add a system to scale the number of maps to the number of players (they have the tech for it already with EotM). Start with 1 EBG, Add Alpine, Desert, EotM, EBG each time they need a new map.

Some players might even like the chance to start on a "fresh map" when it spawns. And the Skirmish system means that it doesn't matter so much on the score either.You're right in that it would 100% be needed to have 3-way EB designs on all maps for this to happen, but that's also why it never will happen.

Because WvW as a design is pretty much set in stone. They're not going to change it now (no, not even the fabled alliances would noticably change the design of WvW, just how the populations relink every 2 months).

They missed this train when the megaservers where created and EoTM was concieved and implemented.

Well different amounts of players result in different playstyles needed to win a matchup (not that winning matters anything in wvw). When maps are full you need to be able to fight big scaled zergfights, when there are less ppl you need to be good in smallscale and defend/attack with small groups, completely different playstyles.If you cramp players into 1 group without an option for them to choose you will end up with just the same playstyle over and over again. Boring.

@"Jayden Reese.9542" said:It's because players are conditioned to go to ebg. You are supposed to def the stuff you start with after reset. That was the design but players [..]

Yes and no. Yes because the design is quite cool - that you have 1 thing on each of 3 maps, but the problem is that there is not instant access to those maps, there is a delay in getting in and sometimes queues. This makes defending those much more difficult - the coherence of the things you own at reset is disrupted and you lose the notion that those are the things you're supposed to keep. It's also quite tricky to form a complete picture of the whole the complex picture of your matchup all at the same time

• the developers certainly don't do it on their weekly Livestream, though I'd love to see them doing so, since THAT is the essence of WvW.

Anyway, that's why people focus on a "per-map" basis much of the time.

Mostly because EB has something to fight for, I guess.

Let's be honest, the other maps are pretty but not well designed, they defocus the combat so they're better for roamers than anyone actually trying to make war. Sometimes you do get a good fight there as a zerg, but almost all of mine have been roaming.

In comparison, EBG is bad for roaming and excellent for playing in a zerg, because it centralises combat.

I've said this before but I think the game would be healthier if instead all maps were slightly redesigned to be more similar to EBG, with everyone on equal footing and then cycle the maps in and out depending on population, in this way creating overflow maps as needed but instead of being instances of a single map they exist side-by-side and change up the landscape to make it more interesting

The maps should match the biomes of Tyria - alpine, desert and jungle, with EBG remaining as country (or whatever Kryta is). LIkewise, blue should own alpine, green should own jungle, and red should own desert, keeping a consistent theme.

I don't want to hear about how difficult it is, a WvW map isn't more difficult than the excessively large and grandiose PoF/LS4 maps especially considering they can recycle most of the assets like all the different fort designs by this point.

They repeatedly said they could never implement capes or dyeable backpieces, that it was "impossible", and well..

I'm done defending ArenaNet's lack of initiative.

@Dawdler.8521 said:You're right in that it would 100% be needed to have 3-way EB designs on all maps for this to happen, but that's also why it never will happen.

Because WvW as a design is pretty much set in stone. They're not going to change it now (no, not even the fabled alliances would noticably change the design of WvW, just how the populations relink every 2 months).

They missed this train when the megaservers where created and EoTM was concieved and implemented.

The BL maps doesn't need to be changed all that much, they don't need an SMC in the middle. Just adjust to make the sides a bit more even, even EBG isn't perfectly balanced. And considering how mixed the existing wvw maps are, I'd kind of like to see a map where Red did get a bit of an advantage anyways.

@RedShark.9548 said:Well different amounts of players result in different playstyles needed to win a matchup (not that winning matters anything in wvw). When maps are full you need to be able to fight big scaled zergfights, when there are less ppl you need to be good in smallscale and defend/attack with small groups, completely different playstyles.If you cramp players into 1 group without an option for them to choose you will end up with just the same playstyle over and over again. Boring.

Now amusingly this wouldn't change much, it would just change more often.

@Hannelore.8153 said:In comparison, EBG is bad for roaming and excellent for playing in a zerg, because it centralises combat.

While I don't agree that EBG is bad for roaming, so I'll avoid that.

I agree that EBG is the best map at centralizing combat, and I think that is why it is so popular. Compared to ABL for example that tries to spread combat out in almost a ring around the map, EBG works more like a 3 pronged star that all leads in to the center.

I think there are other ways they could have made maps that would have worked in similar ways, or otherwise but still lead the fights towards each others. The simple wheel system could work well as well, if they changed slightly how it worked to force a 2 front war system. The question is rather what the average players wants/looks for, and in most cases that will be just an easy way to get into the big action, and ignore the rest (Which is why I think a 2 front wheel system would be popular).

The main reason people play the EB is because its a simple map, easy fluid map. The other battle ground maps are so packed with crap that if you go the wrong way enjoy the 15 min run you half to make now cause the only way back up is to start at spawn again, or run all the way around again. I know people will say play the map and you will learn it but it not the point a map should be easy and fun to play and the other battle ground maps are not fun or fluid.

@"Junkpile.7439" said:If EB is only map where is some action. Every server own everything in home map anyways so why even keep these maps open?First up, my signature. As far as keeping them open it's likely because it is too much work to close them down, closing them down would involve doing work on WvW and tying up lose ends. Tying up lose ends means doing more work than has been done for ages.

The continued existance of the maps is quite interesting though since in the original design WvW essentially had two modes rolled into one which they likely put in to test with EBG being a typical RvR and the borderlands being home-defense types of maps with the orbs of power on them. With the orbs gone the maps had already served the purpose even if the idea of the maps lived on socially on the servers. To this day there are still servers that half-jokingly play home defense on reset nights. In the olden days (even some good time after the orbs disappeared) there were entire large guilds dedicated to home-defense play. That was their identity.

Internally all of it is likely down to some sort of "if it doesn't break, don't fix it (or even if it breaks don't fix it, server pairing, lul)" approach. The original system was likely a testbed to see where players took it and what remained popular. The original WvW developers left very early on though and it is highly likely that they were never replaced and so started the spiral of the mode. In my experience it's never just one thing that determines direction within a company. Metrics and management perspective obviously has a hand in it but people often overlook the secondary fallout of management decisions such as losing competence or drive to continue to work on certain things within the devbase. Two people can have the job title of "game designer" but be extremely different from a seasoned and experienced core developer who builds systems and shapes visions to a content writer fresh off some half-arsed college degree who adds to an echo chamber of how awesome they are at story telling.

Sorry, getting a bit chippy there at the end but I'm sure you get my point. I've made it in more amiable terms before about the challenges in the hiring market in the games industry and the balance of building up your workforce :) .

Ed. If we're talking map design we can see that on the maps too where the more recent maps were clearly not designed by anyone with a broad scope on the mode. They are probably awesome maps assuming that we're all guests solo- or small exploring maps with inherent life on them. Maybe some sort of metric even supported such a perspective but it misses the grand scope of the original design and the whole reason for having a separate game mode for WvW as that is about the scalability and coexistance of different approaches to playing WvW with the common denominator of playing WvW: a grand scale war of map dominance. If this was all about adding exploration and impromtu PvP into inherent content they would have created some form of world PvP in PvE instead as that perspective is simply anathematic to a separate game mode with no other content than the WvW gameplay of capture and PvP.

That's pretty evident when you see how ganking just tends to send people afking in spawn, waiting for whatever preferred content to be accessible. That goes for every map but the new maps made it more evident. Anyway, I'm musing into details now that probably goes swoosh over most people's heads. Point being, WvW is only objectives and scalable PvP so maps should be conducive to that. EBG is and that sparks this discussion. The borders are remnants from no longer existing types of objectives within that larger idea of content whereas the new maps were out of touch when they launched, they were never designed within the larger idea of WvW content, more likely designed by people who were not WvW designers and did not understand WvW gameplay (or lured by poor metrics on WvW gameplay, the same kind of bad metrics that fails the developer to realise the potential of the mode; looking at what they have or what others have instead of looking at what they could have; or occassionally hearing the playerbase but rarely listening to it as there were, for example, talk before EotM and DBL about the difficulty of fighting undermanned or punching above your weight or how objectives were too much like musical chairs, but simply littering the place with bottlenecks, unecessary obstacles and only a roaming perspective is hardly a solid approach to adress those issues). That was a long parantheses but it's just spontaneous musing anyway, take it for what it is.

I have pointed this out many times before.

This was grandfathered from the original hype around WvW, but after a bit the hype died down and certain features were removed yet this aspect of those old designs remained.

There is no need for 3 Borderland maps, especially the three way Faction design for Borderland maps.

There should be just two Borderland maps per Faction. No more Home Maps.

Two 2 Faction Maps and One 3 faction map(EBG).

Would look like this:

*EBG map (All Three factions fighting on same map)

*Red vs Green map (Just Red and Green fighting. All these new Borderlands maps are redesign around this concept)

*Green vs Blue map (Just Green and Blue factions fighting. All these new Borderland maps are redesign around this concept)

*Blue vs Red map (Just Blue and Red factions fighting on this map. All these new Borderlands maps are redesign around this concept)

These Borderlands map would be designed around Objective based gameplay while EBG can stay the open ended no winner or loser model we have today in which players just roam and capture stuff.

This way the borderland maps can be designed to be fun for players outside the Zergs while condensing the player base on the maps.

This how WvW should have originally been made. But too late for that. Anet can't even make new content due to how bad the legacy coding in the game was done apparently.... Smh

@"joneirikb.7506" said:The BL maps doesn't need to be changed all that much, they don't need an SMC in the middle. Just adjust to make the sides a bit more even, even EBG isn't perfectly balanced. And considering how mixed the existing wvw maps are, I'd kind of like to see a map where Red did get a bit of an advantage anyways.Thats not how map making work. You cant just "adjust" alpine to make the 3 sides "more even". Because that is basicly a new map. You would have to change both terrain and objectives. The problem here is the foundation. Alpine is a rectangular map which cant yield a proper 3-way, because they are designed to give the home side the advantage. And if you're not giving home an advantage... you're giving it to someone else. Because again, rectangle. 2 sides will always be closer.

Using the EBG 3-way design does not necessarily mean that the center would be SM. You could easily remove SM, reshape the central terrain and put bloodlust caps there - and now you have a border. Or you could move the towers around and squeeze in 2 more keeps (ie "hills" and "bay"). There is lots of things you can do with the basic EB design as you maintain the 3-way.

Now you may ask "well how do you define a 3-way" and for GW2 thats actually pretty simple:

• All three sides get a "home keep"
• All three sides start at roughly equal distances
• The map must be able to stand alone as the only playable map at that moment

And thats pretty much it. Now you see the problem for alpine even if you start imagining redesigns. For DBL and EoTM, this is possible - even DBL was originally designed with the "home keep" in mind as the southern towers where supposed to be much more "home owned" with waypoints. For DBL it would be a massive redesign and basicly a new map, but you could still squeeze in more stuff. Alpine gonna be tight. Currently only EB and EoTM match this.

Edit: missed an important point with regards to such a system

Because when the game launched, there were 150-300 man ques on ALL maps, with EBG having the highest que. Even then it took anywhere between 2 to 5 hours BEFORE you got into a map sometimes. Wait times were ATROCIOUS. Now, some servers on reset night have little to absolutely NO ques, and in some cases on reset night are Outmanned for the rest of the night. We don't have the manpower we used to have. Think most of that was due to boredom of the breed. Same maps. Same tactics. Mustard or mayo, mustard or mayo, mustard or mayo. The only reason for the 4 maps now is tactical. You have your home map, and it's a matter of pride that you at least attempt defensive or offensive operations on your home map. The minute you IGNORE an enemy map completely, is when you basically hand over the keys to the enemy, and allow him to lock you in the trunk of the car as they go wherever they want, whenever they want. Reason BG had uninterrupted attacks for SO long, because everyone STOPPED attacking them on their Borderland. And because of that...they had complete control to go on the offensive on any map they wished.

Who knows. If and when we do get Alliances, maybe WvW will have a renaissance . Hell, when they announced alliances couple years ago, the Guilds started doing GvG in Obsidian Sanctum....to find out which guilds they wanted to hook up with. Those guilds in the last couple years have had breakups, civil wars, and literally have been destroyed by complete boredom. Variety is the spice of life. I always said they needed more maps, and have those maps randomize during reset night. Would have added a more randomness. Deal with maps you love or detest....

@KeyOrion.9506 said:Because when the game launched, there were 150-300 man ques on ALL maps, with EBG having the highest que. Even then it took anywhere between 2 to 5 hours BEFORE you got into a map sometimes. Wait times were ATROCIOUS. Now, some servers on reset night have little to absolutely NO ques, and in some cases on reset night are Outmanned for the rest of the night. We don't have the manpower we used to have. Think most of that was due to boredom of the breed. Same maps. Same tactics. Mustard or mayo, mustard or mayo, mustard or mayo. The only reason for the 4 maps now is tactical. You have your home map, and it's a matter of pride that you at least attempt defensive or offensive operations on your home map. The minute you IGNORE an enemy map completely, is when you basically hand over the keys to the enemy, and allow him to lock you in the trunk of the car as they go wherever they want, whenever they want. Reason BG had uninterrupted attacks for SO long, because everyone STOPPED attacking them on their Borderland. And because of that...they had complete control to go on the offensive on any map they wished.

This became irrelevant in 2014 though, as Anet both fixed the broken queue system and added EoTM. The queues where also already largely gone by that time, which is why EoTM was a solution to a problem that no longer really existed.

So lower population and queue-less maps is not exactly something new.

@Knighthonor.4061 said:I have pointed this out many times before.

This was grandfathered from the original hype around WvW, but after a bit the hype died down and certain features were removed yet this aspect of those old designs remained.

There is no need for 3 Borderland maps, especially the three way Faction design for Borderland maps.

There should be just two Borderland maps per Faction. No more Home Maps.

Two 2 Faction Maps and One 3 faction map(EBG).

Would look like this:

*EBG map (All Three factions fighting on same map)

*Red vs Green map (Just Red and Green fighting. All these new Borderlands maps are redesign around this concept)

*Green vs Blue map (Just Green and Blue factions fighting. All these new Borderland maps are redesign around this concept)

*Blue vs Red map (Just Blue and Red factions fighting on this map. All these new Borderlands maps are redesign around this concept)

These Borderlands map would be designed around Objective based gameplay while EBG can stay the open ended no winner or loser model we have today in which players just roam and capture stuff.

This way the borderland maps can be designed to be fun for players outside the Zergs while condensing the player base on the maps.

This how WvW should have originally been made. But too late for that. Anet can't even make new content due to how bad the legacy coding in the game was done apparently.... Smh

nah,a map can go dead with just 2 sides if one gives up. However if there are 3 sides but only 2 are fighting and one gives up, the 3rd faction will often start pressing as well. Thats the magic of 3 faction maps.

@"Dawdler.8521" said:

I do agree with your points. But I still think it would be possible to adjust Alpine into working "fairly close" to a BG type map, though it would obviously never work as well as EBG for that. I just wish they designed them that way from the start, can't help but feel the BL system been a clear limitation to the system from the start.

Garrison could be worked around by altering the time it takes to get to it from Citadel spawn (even if they just slap on some barricades and no passing zones around the edges of the cliffs, wouldn't be pretty but would work) to adjust the time to get there to be in line with the other sides to get to their respective keeps.

If it wasn't for North camp, you could honestly fit the active playable part of Alpine into a square map, the entire north side is essentially useless from a WvW perspective outside of North Camp. But since I don't expect to see actual big map changes, I got no idea how to change it.

Obviously I think it would be better if they had the time and resources to make a thematically similar map built more around an EBG model, and make it perfectly 3way etc.

To argue the point of each having a "home keep", I think it could be completely viable to skip that part, and rather put keeps in the middle between each teams starting position, and make them point of conflict. Might actually make for an interesting map (Somewhat like Bay and Hills work like in Alpine).

@Svarty.8019 said:

@"Jayden Reese.9542" said:It's because players are conditioned to go to ebg. You are supposed to def the stuff you start with after reset. That was the design but players [..]

• the developers certainly don't do it on their weekly Livestream, though I'd love to see them doing so, since THAT is the essence of WvW.

Not sure if you feel the same vibe from the dev WvW stream as I do, but I got a feeling they do not like WvW at all. Seems like they are forced to play it and they can't wait for it to be over.