PvP Discussion: Maps

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

@Crinn.7864 said:Can we do something about foefire. It's inline layout is really bad to play on, particularly for low mobility class, it's points are far to easy to bunker, and the mechanic ridiculously favors teams with mesmers.We've talked about potential changes to Foefire before, but people got a little mad about. Reducing the size of mid to specially reduce bunkering was on our list of potential changes.We do have to be careful with changes to it, as in it's current state, it's one of the most popular maps. Even if I think it could be improved.

[TexZero.7910]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@TexZero.7910 said:General question about map thematics and design.

With the success of Colosseum do you feel there's a place in the game thematically that you as a team haven't explored and want to be it from lore or as an original concept new to GW2 ?

The new conquest map will be using desert assets. Is there a theme you'd really like to see?

I don't have a specific theme in mind, was just curious as to what the team thought of when it came to design and what limitations if any you have going forward.

There's a few i think might be nice but ultimately fall flat because of readability like Fractal/Mists concepts. There's Cantha (or more urban settings) that might do well but suffer from choke based designs. All in all it really was a general question though.

[Angeels.3269]

Arabian Nights theme would be sick (personal bias of course)

[blarghhrrkblah.3412]

Would it be possible to add test maps to the game and make an opt in/out option like the checkboxes for Conquest, Stronghold, and Deathmatch?

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

@bluri.2653 said:Maybe look over the port spots with pathing issues "no available path" occurs a lot and is very frustrating at times

I can ask our map artist to do another review.

[Helios.4506]

Any chance of reworking Kyhlo? That mid point was ruined by adding scourges. Make it bigger or something. Cant even get up to the point without condi "bursted" to 0

[Rufo.3716]

I must second that no available path thing. As for the map, would be interesting to see something where you can use your mounts. It may or may not end up working but it seems like it could be fun. Would really make things interesting for mobility and capturing points.

[EgyptRaider.3946]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@TexZero.7910 said:General question about map thematics and design.

With the success of Colosseum do you feel there's a place in the game thematically that you as a team haven't explored and want to be it from lore or as an original concept new to GW2 ?

The new conquest map will be using desert assets. Is there a theme you'd really like to see?

As someone who has only ever played sylvari, I really really miss a sylvari/HoT themed map! Ofc there's courtyard, but that's only custom mode :(

[ArthurDent.9538]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@Crinn.7864 said:Can we do something about foefire. It's inline layout is really bad to play on, particularly for low mobility class, it's points are far to easy to bunker, and the mechanic ridiculously favors teams with mesmers.We've talked about potential changes to Foefire before, but people got a little mad about. Reducing the size of mid to specially reduce bunkering was on our list of potential changes.We do have to be careful with changes to it, as in it's current state, it's one of the most popular maps. Even if I think it could be improved.

The problem with foefire isn't the large points, it is the fact that mid is directly between the two sides which makes it really hard to play sides since to go from far to home you need to go through mid or take a huge detour.

[witcher.3197]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

Is there a theme you'd really like to see?

Snow! Winter! Arctic!

Some more snow please? Temple is such a beautiful map, we could use more of those.

[Dodom.1760]

Ranked 2v2's would be awesome. An actual test of skill rather than the luck of the draw matchmaking we get now.

[Morwath.9817]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@TexZero.7910 said:General question about map thematics and design.

With the success of Colosseum do you feel there's a place in the game thematically that you as a team haven't explored and want to be it from lore or as an original concept new to GW2 ?

The new conquest map will be using desert assets. Is there a theme you'd really like to see?

Quggan would love to see Maguma themed map, with different high levels with some bouncing mushroms allowing to get there rather than teleport like abilities.

[Deathok.2914]

Stronghold is very similar to Gw1 GvG.There you also had to kill the guild lord and if he was dead you won.There wasn’t ever, never ever a single team who ever ignored the enemy team and straight rushed to the enemy lord. And in Gw1 there weren’t any doors or walls that would have stopped you, in fact you could have straight run into their base and killed their lord.That never happened though. The teams always teamfighted, there were splits obviously but the main focus in gvg was the teamfight and the team who won the fight in most cases won the match and killed the enemy lord.That is how stronghold should be.You should create a teamfight first and only then you should be allowed/able to push their base. This way people couldn’t ignore each other and play who rushes lord quicker.This game mode was big fun actually but too pve oriented since people started to ignore each other and decided to play pve.Also TDM has to make a comeback!4v4 no Respawns the first team to fully die loses. No stealth and not too big maps to be able to hide

[TheQuickFox.3826]

I would love to see a remake of the Fort Aspenwood map. I guess it could quite fit into the Stronghold game type. But it would require some more additions like a way to select to start on the offending or defending team. The 8vs8 player count was nice here as well.

[Ben Phongluangtham.1065]

@ArthurDent.9538 said:

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@Crinn.7864 said:Can we do something about foefire. It's inline layout is really bad to play on, particularly for low mobility class, it's points are far to easy to bunker, and the mechanic ridiculously favors teams with mesmers.We've talked about potential changes to Foefire before, but people got a little mad about. Reducing the size of mid to specially reduce bunkering was on our list of potential changes.We do have to be careful with changes to it, as in it's current state, it's one of the most popular maps. Even if I think it could be improved.

The problem with foefire isn't the large points, it is the fact that mid is directly between the two sides which makes it really hard to play sides since to go from far to home you need to go through mid or take a huge detour.

Adjusting that was also on our list of potential changes. We felt that not having home close to spawn contributes to the snowball potential.

[Kuya.6495]

A map set in a domed area underwater would be nice. A map set underground with fire and lava. Map set high above the clouds. Can also do a map set in a very large airship. I think those might be nice themes to maps.

[Ivantreil.3092]

Adding to the idea of making Champion's Dusk bigger, experiment with the team's size for this game mode, bring it to the old 8v8, or make it 6v6, or 10v10 see how the game fairs with more players rather than with 5, i would argue that this way, efforts for defending the Base or the Champion aren't left with completely 0 control of the rest of the map.

[otto.5684]

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@ArthurDent.9538 said:

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@Crinn.7864 said:Can we do something about foefire. It's inline layout is really bad to play on, particularly for low mobility class, it's points are far to easy to bunker, and the mechanic ridiculously favors teams with mesmers.We've talked about potential changes to Foefire before, but people got a little mad about. Reducing the size of mid to specially reduce bunkering was on our list of potential changes.We do have to be careful with changes to it, as in it's current state, it's one of the most popular maps. Even if I think it could be improved.

The problem with foefire isn't the large points, it is the fact that mid is directly between the two sides which makes it really hard to play sides since to go from far to home you need to go through mid or take a huge detour.

Adjusting that was also on our list of potential changes. We felt that not having home close to spawn contributes to the snowball potential.

Please no. It is the primary reason I like this map. Not every thing should be changed to make it fit into specific mold that is considered "ideal." Foefire is the most popular map specifically because it does not allow you to switch from side A to side B.

The only change Foefire needs, is the lord being harder to kill.

[Morwath.9817]

@otto.5684 said:

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@ArthurDent.9538 said:

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@Crinn.7864 said:Can we do something about foefire. It's inline layout is really bad to play on, particularly for low mobility class, it's points are far to easy to bunker, and the mechanic ridiculously favors teams with mesmers.We've talked about potential changes to Foefire before, but people got a little mad about. Reducing the size of mid to specially reduce bunkering was on our list of potential changes.We do have to be careful with changes to it, as in it's current state, it's one of the most popular maps. Even if I think it could be improved.

The problem with foefire isn't the large points, it is the fact that mid is directly between the two sides which makes it really hard to play sides since to go from far to home you need to go through mid or take a huge detour.

Adjusting that was also on our list of potential changes. We felt that not having home close to spawn contributes to the snowball potential.

Please no. It is the primary reason I like this map. Not every thing should be change to make it fit into specific mold that is considered ideal. Some things work for the exact opposite reason, and Foefire is the most popular map, probably for the exact reason you want to make the change.

The only change Foefire needs, is the lord being harder to kill.

Quaggan agrees, please don't change Foefire.

[EgyptRaider.3946]

@otto.5684 said:

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@ArthurDent.9538 said:

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 said:

@Crinn.7864 said:Can we do something about foefire. It's inline layout is really bad to play on, particularly for low mobility class, it's points are far to easy to bunker, and the mechanic ridiculously favors teams with mesmers.We've talked about potential changes to Foefire before, but people got a little mad about. Reducing the size of mid to specially reduce bunkering was on our list of potential changes.We do have to be careful with changes to it, as in it's current state, it's one of the most popular maps. Even if I think it could be improved.

The problem with foefire isn't the large points, it is the fact that mid is directly between the two sides which makes it really hard to play sides since to go from far to home you need to go through mid or take a huge detour.

Adjusting that was also on our list of potential changes. We felt that not having home close to spawn contributes to the snowball potential.

Please no. It is the primary reason I like this map. Not every thing should be changed to make it fit into specific mold that is considered "ideal." Foefire is the most popular map specifically because it does not allow you to switch from side A to side B.

The only change Foefire needs, is the lord being harder to kill.

I agreed with you until the lord remark. I think the balance is quite okeey. Make it too hard and the entire feature won't happen anymore...

[Darek.1836]

Hey Ben.I'm a pro/ESL player who's really interested in map design. Like if you ever hold a meeting with your PvP team/designers invite me on Skype because I'll talk for hours on the implications of every change. That said Im going to give some concise feedback on how the conquest maps are right now.

First I wanna state what points think makes a good map:

1. Uniqueness - no point in just having the same reskinned maps
2. Node layout - a good node layout is the foundation to a good map, and they should mostly be unique to other maps
3. Terrain/LoS - every map needs good terrain to promote proper gameplay, instead of open world brawling
4. Side objective balance - an unbalanced side objective can easily ruin a map by making it too different from the rest of the game

Now onto the state of each map and any changes they need in my opinion.

Forest Pretty much a perfect map. The node/spawn layout is so nice, being able to get to any point from spawn relatively fast. The side objective is well balanced, allowing for point bonuses during a snowball even though the map helps stop snowballs due to the spawn exit points. No changes needed to this map.

LegacyA classic map, but as you guys posted a while back, it is not balanced. The spawn-node time is long and makes snowballs very easy, especially when it's impossible to push mid on a regroup. Spawns need to be moved, probably about half way through the base in the direction of home. Mid could use a change, but id focus on spawn first. The side objective is balanced. A good come back mechanic but is actually harder to get after you wipe the enemy than otherwise.

KhyloThis map is relatively ok. The changes to mid are alright, though some suggest a size increase on the node. I think the side nodes need to have added terrain near the nodes. Right now it's one of the most open areas. Just a stack of boxes similar to colosseum would work. Also the side objectives clearly need a change, though I'm not sure on a good solution. My opinion is that a weak side objective is much more preferable to a strong one, though.

TempleA very unique map. I think overall it's balanced, but it starts tilting heavily in favor of specific comps once tranquility appears. Therefore I think a tranquility nerf is needed. My suggestion is make it decap nodes owned by enemy teams, and full cap decapped nodes. Also probably nerf the CC a little in duration.

The following changes to these maps are the most important imo. They are by far the worst maps but very close to being loved by the competitive scene with some changes.

ColosseumThis map is sooo close to being really good. Side objectives and map layout are good. It uses the same layout as legacy, but it's unique enough otherwise that it's okay.There just needs to be more LoS around mid. Like I know they wanted some sort of brawling area but it's sooo anti-GW2 spirit. Just get some designers to make mid more terrain dense. Maybe make it so those ledges right now have direct LoS, but add more terrain the perpendicular way.

CapricornThis map is tough to fix because I think the node layout is flawed, similar to Spiritwatch. We should move the nodes a lot close and add a more linear path from sides to mid. It should basically be Forest but with Bell and the spawns on the opposite side. The map is already unique enough due to the side objective that making it a lot smaller shouldn't be bad. Just look at Forest spawn to node and node to node run times and make it as close as you can. Now you have a freaking amazing map.

Let me know if you think any of these changes aren't feasible, and I'll come up with good compromises.

Moobs

[Cynz.9437]

Every single map (skyhammer especially) suffers from same issue: no valid path on basically flat terrain. It includes areas around the point and on the point. Example: mine and waterfall points are bit elevated. The slope on those points causes port skills to go on Cd or making skills not usable. Side points on skyhammer have same issue. I can't use shadowstep or steal there because one plate has different texture than plate on point???? Halp?

I would post video of those but can't use my PC atm T_T

[Saiyan.1704]

@Trendy.1694 said:I generally like Kyhlo, but would love to see Treb being reworked. Several options:

1. Treb now have ammunition and [partially] decaps points. Ammunition is neutral item, so teams must both fight for it and shot.
2. You must bring 3 ammuntions, that spawns pseudo-randomly through course of time. For example, on min 12 - 1 ammo in midle. On min 10 - 2 ammos next to each team. So teams must decide either go for both, get safe one etc. Once you brough all 3 ammuntions, similarly to skyhammer, treb shoots to all points and decap them.

I second this idea.

Battle of Champion’s Dusk:I have nothing to add because... I would have wanted this game mode to be 100% a moba but GW2 style.

In Conquest, if you lack midfight potential then you would generally stick to side points or fallback to a party member pushing home/far. Heck, even being a bunker and holding a point is a plan for those who aren't mechanically savvy. Stronghold has no secondary strat alternative. There are no "creature farm" strat like a Moba, or a Gank +1 strat, or a node-holder strat. Best bruiser zerg team wins. No other strategy to fall back on.

[Xillllix.3485]

Stronghold could be adapted to 10v10 or 15v15 gvgs with bigger maps. It was even announced as being GvG...

[yeelowsnow.4893]

First of all I would just like to say thank you for these threads and the chance to hear about what is in the works for PVP.Since you said the next is a desert I would love for us to get another snow theme.As for the secondary objective I have a few ideas:

• A snowstorm that limits your max view distance until it is just snow.
• The points get covered in black ice that removes stability every X seconds
• A giant avalanche that slides you down of the points. This is actually just skyhammer 2.0 maybe leave behind some snow that slows players walking back to the points to change it a little bit.
• Another snowstorm but it gives you chilled every blank seconds if you aren't inside or near a source of fire. Braziers could be near the points or could even be what you fight over to give your team immunity to the chill.