Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Knighthonor.4061

Recommended Posts

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 BattlegroundsRed vs Blue BoarderlandsRed vs Green BoarderlandsObsidian 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 = fullT2 = 1800 gemsT3 = 1000 gemsT4 = 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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 BattlegroundsRed vs Blue BoarderlandsRed vs Green BoarderlandsObsidian 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.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 BattlegroundsandObsidian Sanctumdidnt 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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...

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

“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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

nhxcbb2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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 ServerMake 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Knighthonor.4061 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...

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

“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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

nhxcbb2.jpg

What this person said @Swagger.1459

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swagger.1459 said:@"Knighthonor.4061"

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...