Delete desert map

[Riba.3271]

Kinda self-explanatory comparing kill counts on that map. It is also much better to have 3 alpine maps for fair matchmaking.

 

And no, 2 alpine maps aren't enough. There are so many alpine mappers that we need all 3. This isn't about Desert map being unplayable, this is about 3 alpine maps being the fairest and most player catering choice.

 

Actually I would prefer if we also had 2 EBs but I don't think people are up for such a drastical, but absolutely brilliant, change.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Threather.9354

[Dopamine.6324]

+1 desert map is just not fun

[Forgotten Legend.9281]

-1 Alpine is more boring than watching paint dry.

[Salt Mode.3780]

10 years of alpine and people are not sick of it kitten....

[Dawdler.8521]

Deleting DBL on condition of EB being replaced by Tangled Depths remain a perfectly acceptable solution.

[SweetPotato.7456]

No, desert stays, should get rid of one alpine because there's 2 of them.

[Sylvia.4870]

       How about modifying one of the Alpine Borderlands maps to another style; for instance, the Canthan theme -  new defenders, new lords in each keep, each tower, each camp,  including each spot where the sentries watch and guard? 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Sylvia.4870

[SleepyBat.9034]

3 hours ago, Sylvia.4870 said:

       How about modifying one of the Alpine Borderlands maps to another style; for instance, the Canthan theme -  new defenders, new lords in each keep, each tower, each camp,  including each spot where the sentries watch and guard? 

Yes please lol

[Gorani.7205]

I wish every PvE player complaining about Gift of Battle would get one, when a WvW players wants DBL removed.
I wish every WvW player complaining about Gift of Exploration would get one, when a PvE players complains about Gift of Battle.

Best update ever 😂

But what would people write about on the forums then?

[Telgum.6071]

Sure, let's have full alpine borderlands. Delete EB too and let's have an extra alpine borderland.

[kash.9213]

5 hours ago, Sylvia.4870 said:

       How about modifying one of the Alpine Borderlands maps to another style; for instance, the Canthan theme -  new defenders, new lords in each keep, each tower, each camp,  including each spot where the sentries watch and guard? 

I sure I'll never get open world pvp but I had suggested before using the New Kaineng City map in place of Desert if they're not going to update that map. Kaineng City has some open areas for large fights but then a lot of multiple level urban areas to fight in a long with a lot of water, but we'd need to have skiffs available. And if that ever got old they could introduce a new map with a new expansion or something. 

It might just be another annoying map though if it's still cut off from the rest of the game with no functionality, no lived in features, and topical or thematic connection to the core world or other players. 

[Deniara Devious.3948]

I also vote for 3 Alpine maps + Eternal Battlegrounds.

Sometimes less is more. Desert borderlands is map, which is NOT fun to play and the distance between the towers and keeps make them tactically unimportant towards each other.

I have thousands of hours vested in WvWvW. No amount of hours in Desert BL makes it even remotely fun. It is pain to play it.

 

[TheGrimm.5624]

We need another or two alpine maps to go first then we can talk DBL. Till than, that map is why most people I know quit because it was un-imagined and stall after a year of game play. 

[smiiirf.3201]

The problem with Desert map is that is is too big. A bit bigger than the alpine one would be a sweet Spot. There is also alot of gimicky things on it.

 

But yeah i hope they will once redesign all maps. EBG is a bit to small. There is also unsused space on the alpine in the top right and left corner with PVE events. The ruins in the middle are lackluster and feels unnatural (i know in the past there was a lake) splashed into the landscape.

 

I hope for a cantha themed map so that we have Cantha, Elona and Tyria has Borderlands. EBG could also need some Biome(!) redesign. That Green swamp is getting pretty boring.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Leolas.6273

[Xenesis.6389]

Alpines is fine the way it is, it has a lot of fun areas to fight around, desert has unused space as well, so not much of an argument there.

The most important part is the play space between the three keeps. The biggest difference is earth keep you can hit from anywhere without warning, alpine garrison north actually has a warning system in place with the north towers. While desert north towers are utterly useless in the middle of nowhere and blocks nothing, these towers are suppose to be an advantage for the home team, not the village bicycle like their southern cousins.

The desert keeps are way too big with too many places to enter, this makes it hard for scouts to bother placing and upkeeping siege other than on inner, not to mention most of the objective sieges are in bad spots and pretty useless. A lot of inner cannons on the old maps can hit the outer gates and mortars can be used for cata spots, not so much for desert.

Again, I think they should just have all ebg type of maps and get rid of the home map concept. But it's never going to happen. The only change that could happen is if they go back to a 3desert/3alpine rotation and barely anyone wants that.

[Sansar.1302]

Realy hope they take out desert map and make a new wvw map that is actualy good.

 

I only play on alpine and it would be fun to have more maps, but only if they are good 

 

Desert map for me is a pointless wvw map , pretty but thats all.

[Hesione.9412]

I like the desert map. I kept hoping they would bring in a 5th, underwater, map.

[Forgotten Legend.9281]

so, warclaw was added partly because desert map felt too big, and now warclaw makes alpine and EBG feel too small.

the Keep shrines in Desert also make Alpine feel like it doesn't have enough (non-scoring) objectives.

The bloodlust mechanic with the ruins feels outdated on both borderlands maps, partly because the ruins feel like wasted map space that could be better utilized for open-field fights or additional large objectives.

the PvE metas on NE and NW Alpine and Desert maps feel like wasted space, since these PvE metas feel like they should be in-between objectives, not on the corners of the map.

Alpine can be cheese-sieged within the safety of towers and keeps, Desert cannot. (it feels like this should be an EBG-only thing)

Alpine garrisons have 5 (EDIT: GATE) entrances, 2 of which cannot be sneak-attacked because of tower placements. (EDIT:the siege-able walls on Alpine Garrison are also protected against sneak-attack by watchtowers) 

Desert Garrison (earth keep) only has 3 entrances, but feels more like EBG keeps, being able to attack from all directions, without being spawn-blocked on one side.

Alpine north camp just feels way out of place, being on the other side of spawn.

EBG has mercenaries, borderlands do not, but it feels like mercenaries could help fill in borderlands content, since borderlands feel like they're missing content.

Borderlands could have several mechanics in different areas to fight over, like combining things from different PvP maps onto one map. (like the beasts that give extra score, orbs to run around for points, patrolling champs that could give warscore, that would spawn only when zergs are running around to make large fights unpredictable, extra areas to be captured for warscore that are not walled)

 

right now, the WvW maps need to updated because they're getting stale without any new expansion mechanics since HoT.

 

I personally prefer Desert because it has at least some HoT design-Queues to it, while Alpine feels too pre-expansion in design. heck, i even prefer Edge of the Mists to Alpine, because it has more objectives, both PPT and non-PPT-but-still-warscore-for-capture objectives. If Alpine were updated to include more non-PPT-but-still-warscore-for-capture objectives, i would enjoy it a lot more.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Forgotten Legend.9281
garrison gate clarification

[Xenesis.6389]

50 minutes ago, Forgotten Legend.9281 said:

Alpine can be cheese-sieged within the safety of towers and keeps, Desert cannot. (it feels like this should be an EBG-only thing)

Alpine garrisons have 5 entrances, 2 of which cannot be sneak-attacked because of tower placements

Desert Garrison (earth keep) only has 3 entrances, but feels more like EBG keeps, being able to attack from all directions, without being spawn-blocked on one side.

You call that cheese, I call that an actual relationship between towers and keeps and is what makes those objectives more important to actually capture and hold for both defenders and attackers. The north towers actually protect your north side of garrison by providing that area of early warning, the defenders are more motivated to make the extra effort to protect and upgrade it, or lose it and potentially have it turned on them with enemy treb fire.

The north towers in desert are absolute garbage that serve no purpose, you only go there if you can get there in time for a fight, that's it. Just to be clear, garrison and the two north towers are meant to be the defensive advantages for the defenders on the home map, desert gives you two useless towers, and a garrison that can be approached and sneak attacked from any side.

Desert earth keep has the same amount of entrances as alpine garrison, water gate, two side gates, and two breakable walls, problem is the breakable walls are right next to the gates (unlike garrison it's separated by an entire cliff), which zergs barely bother to enter from unless they're using a golem attack for both outer and inner gates. On east side is almost a no brainer to enter through cata double wall every single time (to do that on alpine the attacks would have to take a longer way around, through a defensive objective).

At least the ebg keeps also have back towers around it for detection and counter protection at it's sides, where mortar and cannons make a difference for a lot of spots, desert keeps have no towers, and most of the siege is in useless spots.

For a map that's suppose to funnel zergs into chokes and be more defensive it does a really poor job of it at it's most important objectives. The only good thing about these keeps is if you agree with anets philosophy that the fighting should take place inside the objectives more often than not, then congratulations, they accomplished that with those keeps.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Xenesis.6389

[Forgotten Legend.9281]

EDIT: responding mostly to previous poster's comments

i wasn't counting walls with garrison, only gates, i guess i'll edit to clarify.  

the reason i call it cheese-sieging, is there's no way to defend-attack against the attackers unless you break the walls or gates to the other objectives, essentially removing counter-play. (promoting zerg play again)

as for the "early-warning" of the alpine towers being the only reason that people defend garrison... get a clue. during primetime around reset, people defend desert garrison without early-warning-watchtowers just fine. it only means that Scouts don't have to look there, which makes for lazy play. as does the sieging from inside a walled objective, which promotes zerg play .it works for EBG because of the zerg-festedness of the map, but for Bordelands, it simply promotes laziness: "everyone run with the zerg, don't need no scouts because we got watchtower at all the towers that covers all entrances to garrison so no one ever needs to watch it!" Alpine essentially is a zerg map, lacking small-group-objectives. making small-scale groups practically worthless, unless all the zergs are offline. it's kind of hard to take you seriously, considering that you like Alpine presicely for the same reasons it promotes mindless zerg play, which you apparently are against in your signature.

and yes, i actually really like that you can have zerg fights in bigger areas in the desert keeps. it makes it more interesting than the cheesy "siege the walls / gates and the defenders attack from up on the walls" all-the-time snoozefest. 

sure, EotM offers more chokes for fighting than Desert (which is why i referenced it above) and actually offers for siege placement during open-field fights (like arrow carts that almost never show up in open fields on Alpine or Desert, i again attribute this to laziness)

Edited March 31, 2022 by Forgotten Legend.9281

[Xenesis.6389]

1 hour ago, Forgotten Legend.9281 said:

the reason i call it cheese-sieging, is there's no way to defend-attack against the attackers unless you break the walls or gates to the other objectives, essentially removing counter-play. (promoting zerg play again)

 

Then don't lose the tower in the first place? duh? they have to break walls or gates to get into the objective too.

 

1 hour ago, Forgotten Legend.9281 said:

as for the "early-warning" of the alpine towers being the only reason that people defend garrison... get a clue.

 

What? I never said that was the only reason people defend garrison, get some reading comprehension. Obviously no point talking to you about this, enjoy your map I'll enjoy mines.

 

I've always defended having desert in the rotation, even though I have no love for that map, because everyone deserves to play on the map they like, including eotm, but after all these years think I'll be changing my view now.

 

DELETE DESERT MAP.

[Nymthalas.4019]

21 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Alpines is fine the way it is, it has a lot of fun areas to fight around, desert has unused space as well, so not much of an argument there.

The most important part is the play space between the three keeps. The biggest difference is earth keep you can hit from anywhere without warning, alpine garrison north actually has a warning system in place with the north towers. While desert north towers are utterly useless in the middle of nowhere and blocks nothing, these towers are suppose to be an advantage for the home team, not the village bicycle like their southern cousins.

The desert keeps are way too big with too many places to enter, this makes it hard for scouts to bother placing and upkeeping siege other than on inner, not to mention most of the objective sieges are in bad spots and pretty useless. A lot of inner cannons on the old maps can hit the outer gates and mortars can be used for cata spots, not so much for desert.

Again, I think they should just have all ebg type of maps and get rid of the home map concept. But it's never going to happen. The only change that could happen is if they go back to a 3desert/3alpine rotation and barely anyone wants that.

 

But that makes a lot of sense, and it could even make wvw a pvp game mode, 1 ebg 3 sides all fighting, you can have your full guild join together or just go random, you win you get positive rating, you loose negative. So you don't need ppl to play it a lot and dont incentive the servers that doesnt play wvw, and just avoid fighting and connect when there is no one.

[KeoLegend.5132]

AGREED.

It takes ages to do anything in DBL.

It should be 3 Alpines. I don't even bother fighting in Deserts, unless its an emergency waypoint.

If i have to walk over 2 minutes from spaw to a local of interest to capture something or find a roamer to fight im not doing it. Time is precious

[ArchonWing.9480]

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

You call that cheese, I call that an actual relationship between towers and keeps and is what makes those objectives more important to actually capture and hold for both defenders and attackers. The north towers actually protect your north side of garrison by providing that area of early warning, the defenders are more motivated to make the extra effort to protect and upgrade it, or lose it and potentially have it turned on them with enemy treb fire.

Yea, that actually gives value to taking towers, and reasons to actually keep them. When towers are lost in desert BL, it's like "who cares, it's a daily". On the other hand, your Bay will see no end to trouble if you don't make an effort to contest SW tower sometimes. Added to the fact that every tower in DBL has multiple walls, it brings home the sense of "who cares?'

Alpine has strategy. Desert BL encourages capping it when nobody else cares.

There were actually systems that encouraged you to hold places in DBL, but those were the annoying barricades and that infamous laser event.

Edited March 31, 2022 by ArchonWing.9480

[Forgotten Legend.9281]

pretty much all the arguments i hear about how great Alpine is, and how poor Desert is... is comparing Alpine at prime time to Desert at times of low population. Desert at prime time is just like Alpine at prime time. when the map is Q'd on all 3 sides. the towers are just as defended as on Alpine. 

 

i've played both maps during high population and low population times. and the only time that "no one cares" about objectives on any map, is during low population times. 

 

I've seen 3-way zergfest fights on both maps for single objective, like garrison, that lasted for well over an hour, at friday reset.

I've seen middle of night dead in the middle of the week, where there weren't enough people to defend objectives against 3-player havoc groups, on both maps. I've been part of 3-player groups that took every objective on every border land in one night,  because nobody defended any of the objectives. I've been in mapblobs on weekly reset that fought over a single garrison for 3 hours, too, on Desert some nights, on Alpine others.

 

sure, Desert has a higher learning curve, but enough with all these calls to delete a map that 70% of WvW population is too lazy to learn. especially considering how many places there are to place siege in very defensible positions that still allow counterattack by smaller-than-zerg groups.

 

i still don't see any strategy in Alpine... it's basically just one mapblob zerg can defend anything quickly, forcing you to cheese siege inside of walled objectives, where EWPs are more for calling people in from other maps, than for use of on-map zergs.