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

@"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 ago2016-05-25https://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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 ago2016-05-25

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
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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...