Desert border should be worth less points (Actually it should be deleted)

[Riba.3271]

Recent skirmish scoring changes made clear that balancing philosophy is following:

More players => Worth more points

In currently ongoing matchup (EU) (Source: GW2Mists)

Green BL | Blue BL | Red BL

12 443    |  12 110   |  5 675 kills

total kills in T1 to T6.

We can see that desert borderland has less than half the kills and activity than either alpine borderland. Conclusion is that objectives there should be valued half. Or even better, the map could just be deleted if it is only played as last choice?

Edited July 20 by Riba.3271

[TheGrimm.5624]

That's a big no. It's time we remove a second ABL.

[CafPow.1542]

17 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Or even better, the map could just be deleted if it is only played as last choice?

I never get this.

you want another alpines? It’s not like it’s already there 2 times.

it‘s like a vegan that wants to force others to not eat meat so he wants to banish it from a restaurant. There are still kills going on in this map so there is a chance that some people like it. You don’t, which is fine, but you can just play in alpines then.

Edited July 20 by CafPow.1542

[Riba.3271]

28 minutes ago, CafPow.1542 said:

46 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Or even better, the map could just be deleted if it is only played as last choice?

I never get this.

you want another alpines? It’s not like it’s already there 2 times.

it‘s like a vegan that wants to force others to not eat meat so he wants to banish it from a restaurant. There are still kills going on in this map so there is a chance that some people like it. You don’t, which is fine, but you can just play in alpines then.

Reason 1: It is a competitive gamemode so all sides should have about as popular maps, and preferably with similar layout.

Reason 2: There are very few players who play desert. The few who play it, play it because they have to else enemies get free matchup win.

Reason 3: There is high chance most of the group dislikes desert borderlands, but they still have to attack/defend it sometimes. High chance of overall negative experience anytime a group decides to enter desert bl.

I never really get why this single player mentality is used to balance WvW. You have a group, you have enemies, there are allies, there is weekly score. It isn't same as GW2 PvE where there can be 1 extremely unpopular map. In WvW, the extremely unpopular map affects the amount of map choices and through overall score the other maps as well.

On the positive side if desert was popular, then I would be all for it being rotated every 2nd week with alpine, but it just isn't.

  

29 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

That's a big no. It's time we remove a second ABL.

I am all for having 3 different popular borderlands rotating weekly, but not having 3 differently balanced/popular maps for all teams of the matchup.

Edited July 20 by Riba.3271

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

Way to take it and run with it. Just delete all borderlands, have one EBG per matchup. When there is only one choice and its queued to high hell you can say "Conclusion: all players(even those in queue) love ebg. Wvw is saved and now working as intended, good job anet. 

 

Honestly with this, they might send a job offer your way today.

[Riba.3271]

1 minute ago, Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:

When there is only one choice and its queued to high hell you can say "Conclusion: all players(even those in queue) love ebg. Wvw is saved and now working as intended, good job anet. 

This has nothing to do with what I was suggesting. Actually you bring up great point that there are 2 alpine maps and only 1 desert map, but both alpine maps still manages to be way more popular. Almost everyone loves alpine and very few like desert.

[XenesisII.1540]

Makes sense actually. They wanna balance VP by population attendance, then do the same to the maps. 🤭

So in conclusion, delete all borderlands and run four ebg maps to finally bring balance to the force. 🤭

[Twilightzone.7452]

What do we have more of? Delete RED BL threads or remove GOB from WvW Threads? XD

[Gop.8713]

Weighting maps based on population could be an interesting concept but it would need to consider all maps, including eb. You'd also need an accurate metric for measuring population on each map, which anet presumably has but players definitely do not. Counting kills is an absurd attempt at measuring population. Desert is a huge map where players can more easily avoid detection. This makes it more appealing to players who are drawn to more strategic play rather than just banging into each other head-to-head, over and over, but it also yields fewer kills for the same number of players involved . . .

[CafPow.1542]

3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Reason 1: It is a competitive gamemode so all sides should have about as popular maps, and preferably with similar layout.

Says who?

or, freaky thought… some might just enjoy the game. 🤯

3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Reason 2: There are very few players who play desert. The few who play it, play it because they have to else enemies get free matchup win.

You asked them? I am sure some might enjoy DBL. and even if you’re right, there are still 3 other maps you can go. It’s not like you lose something.

 

3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Reason 3: There is high chance most of the group dislikes desert borderlands, but they still have to attack/defend it sometimes. High chance of overall negative experience anytime a group decides to enter desert bl.

Oh boy if only there is a chance to just don’t. You don’t like it? Don’t go there. There is no imaginary anet game dev with a gun point blank at your head that would force you to join there. Or is it? If it is, call the police pls.

 

3 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

I am all for having 3 different popular borderlands

Me too but i also include your last paragraph now with my answer.

guess what happens if there are 3 „popular“ maps. 1 will always be the most and one the least popular. You alone don’t decide.

imagine i don’t like justin bieber and would advocate to stop him making music by law. I would get lynched by a bunch of barely adolescent girls. 
but why i ask, why should i be worried about some barely adolescenct girls digging justin bieber? And why are you concerned about me enjoying DBL?

“but muh score“ … really i don’t give a single f*** about score.

[Mistwraithe.3106]

No. I like DBL.

[Santo.2419]

The DBL Garri lord is awesome for defending. Other keep lords are good too.

I love the Shrine jump pads for mobility in the map...ends up being easier and faster than ABL maps if you have them captured.

You get a lot fairer fights as a roamer and more 1v1's 

Terrain and shrine buffs are great, fear people off cliffs (even squads if you're lucky), have buffs that give you no fall damage, etc.

The DBL is a great map. I don't get the hate, you can end up with really good roaming sessions in DBL.

But I will say that I am mostly on the DBL map if I'm defending... there is less people there as OP says...can't deny that

But this mode def needs a map shakeup...either revitalizing existing maps or new ones, dynamic events of competitive metas... I dunno, but something...

[Custodio.6134]

5 hours ago, Santo.2419 said:

The DBL is a great map. I don't get the hate, you can end up with really good roaming sessions in DBL.

Why DBL gets so much hate is actually really simple. 

The map (opposing to ABL) does actually have something that remotely resembles mechanics. 

It is a very large map, with a LOT of paths, many of which are not immediately obvious and clear. 


Imo the biggest problem with DBL is not actually the map itself. Because despite being (at least pathing-wise) larger, there´s mechanics that counteract this. Haybales, shrine-traversal, and forementioned paths/"shortcuts" that drastically reduce travel-time. 
However: people are getting the "DBL bad" hammered in their brains from all sides (with especially newbies not even understanding why) that a lot of players don´t even TRY to play the map. 

And let me tell you: if you understand how to play the map, it is a fantastic map for both, PPT and PPK (the latter will, happen a lot more in objectives compared to ABL). And it´s also a map that allows roamers to work alongside zergs (especially the east/west shrines) that can do crucial preparation for their allied large groups. 

But well.... people are so extremely biased against DBL that they don´t even try and mindlessly tell themselves "DBL bad". And the more you tell yourself a lie, at some point you believe it to be the truth. 

Don´t get me wrong here: i think one DBL is absolutely enough, and í´d rather see another different border if we ever see a new map (which, considering the strong general opinion towards DBL, justified or not, is highly unlikely). 

 

22 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Reason 1: It is a competitive gamemode so all sides should have about as popular maps, and preferably with similar layout.

you´re not wrong about the popularity of a map, but that´s irrelevant from the competetive aspect. And about the layout-aspect: almost all competetive games have maps that are actually NOT perfectly symmetrical for all teams. LoL's Summoners rift is NOT symmetrical for both teams, and both teams have an advantage-point and a disadvantage-point on the map. All CounterStrike maps are not even REMOTELY symmetrical, and being on a different side requires different tactics. And btw: in their core, both ABL and DBL DO have in fact a similar layout. the biggest difference is mainly that the east-/west-tower for red team are in the north, instead of between north-camp and middle keep. 

 

22 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Reason 2: There are very few players who play desert. The few who play it, play it because they have to else enemies get free matchup win.

that´s irrelevant from a design-perspective, and an entirely player-based behaviour. It´s 100% the player's fault if they don´t want to learn or play the map, NOT the game's or dev's fault. 

22 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Reason 3: There is high chance most of the group dislikes desert borderlands, but they still have to attack/defend it sometimes. High chance of overall negative experience anytime a group decides to enter desert bl.

again, liking or disliking is a factor that is irrelevant for game-design, especially if the players are heavily biased without even attempting to play the map. 

Edited July 21 by Custodio.6134

[XenesisII.1540]

It's a fantastic map to get your capture keep weeklies done in less than an hour.

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, Custodio.6134 said:

Imo the biggest problem with DBL is not actually the map itself. Because despite being (at least pathing-wise) larger, there´s mechanics that counteract this. Haybales, shrine-traversal, and forementioned paths/"shortcuts" that drastically reduce travel-time.

I often play on DBL but it is a problem with the map itself:

DBL breaks the core design of WvW objectives.

Both ABL and EBG is based on this core WvW design. I am not talking about the size or shape but rather how they interact. To put it short, a tower threaten a keep or vice versa. For ABL it’s usually just one link, in EBG it’s multiple with SM and keeps as a central hubs.

This type of design leads to a constant escalation of the war, sort of speak. A “need” to fight back and forth. If SW tower on ABL is capped, bay is threatened. You can see everything going on between the objectives. I don’t think I even need to describe EBG.

Now hop onto DBL and cap SW tower. What do you threaten? Absolutely kitten nothing. You literally can’t see anything from the tower. The road into the camp? Completely safe coming from bay. It’s an island of its own. Every objective is the same. They all stand alone which means there is no urgency to cap the “next” objective and gameplay come to a screeching halt.

And that is the problem with DBL. It is, most certainly, the map itself. It’s not something that can be fixed by superficial tweaking.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[ArchonWing.9480]

Please delete EBG. Don't let the stats fool you; it's just  bots on my server ruining the KDR every minute. The KDR I fought hard to attain; like by ganking that ranger new to WvW or defeating that Cele Harbringer underwater.

Thank you.

Edited July 21 by ArchonWing.9480

[Leaa.2943]

I always find this discusston funny. Because when we talk about it people are like oh but i like red border a lot. No red border is ok, no you are wrong red border is awsome. Then NONE of you are showing up when called for defending or fighitng. It is always outnumbered or very few players, at the most 15 if that. And you litterally have to beg people to come. And dont tell me it is not like that on my server, it is exeactly like that on your server. I have accounts on most of them and there is only ONE, yes ONE server in EU that have the FLIP guild who is living on red border. The rest of  EU and NA it is a contant begging. 

And i tell you this. 6  weeks on red border with worldrestruction is making my brain rot. There is nothing to do, not even enemies are showing up so 6 weeks of WvW where i maybe all together had action during 3 hours. 

So where are all of you people who telling in every forum that red border is great even though it is actually not. It is actually harder to defend red border, it is harder to get people in time and if you do not have ewp or it is on cooldown it is litterally impossible to save something. And if you do not have waypoints or standing in camps it is impossible to save them as well. 

And to the person that is now hammering on the keybord because he/she saved a camp today so i am wrong, no i am not wrong. 

[Jobber.6348]

SMC should be worth less points, actually just deleted. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/20/2024 at 4:52 PM, Twilightzone.7452 said:

What do we have more of? Delete RED BL threads or remove GOB from WvW Threads? XD

I think the answer is remove Willie or Teef actually, but would have to go count. But since I need to count the tact pulls threads, not sure I have time to the do this. 🙂

How goes your sort? I am causing trouble on mine and seeing what mischief I can do since I am bad at sleeping and mixing pugs and havocs you can do a lot of damage to groups that just zerg it. Been interesting, but I need sleep, or more coffee, I guess that comes out to the same in the end. 🙂 Good hunting to you and yours!

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 7/21/2024 at 5:45 AM, Mistwraithe.3106 said:

No. I like DBL.

DBL, best BL. What is weird is NA will quite often queue it before ABLs, but based on EU they don't, so the differences are weird. 

[CafPow.1542]

17 hours ago, Custodio.6134 said:

Don´t get me wrong here: i think one DBL is absolutely enough, and í´d rather see another different border if we ever see a new map

Yes.

alpine, desert and another new one.

Edited July 22 by CafPow.1542

[TheGrimm.5624]

13 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

I often play on DBL but it is a problem with the map itself:

DBL breaks the core design of WvW objectives.

Both ABL and EBG is based on this core WvW design. I am not talking about the size or shape but rather how they interact. To put it short, a tower threaten a keep or vice versa. For ABL it’s usually just one link, in EBG it’s multiple with SM and keeps as a central hubs.

This type of design leads to a constant escalation of the war, sort of speak. A “need” to fight back and forth. If SW tower on ABL is capped, bay is threatened. You can see everything going on between the objectives. I don’t think I even need to describe EBG.

Now hop onto DBL and cap SW tower. What do you threaten? Absolutely kitten nothing. You literally can’t see anything from the tower. The road into the camp? Completely safe coming from bay. It’s an island of its own. Every objective is the same. They all stand alone which means there is no urgency to cap the “next” objective and gameplay come to a screeching halt.

And that is the problem with DBL. It is, most certainly, the map itself. It’s not something that can be fixed by superficial tweaking.

Sorry for the rant.

 

You assume too much. You are assuming this all on ABL and EBG. Yet EotM and DBL countered this. This assumption is outdated. Get over it. Learn new tactics, Each map should have different tactics that need to be employed. Different maps should need different tactics and have different values. 

 

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

I love DBL. The ABLs are okish but also bland and boring. But DBL? You can be sneaky. You can maneuver. There is SPACE to exploit. ABL? meh. Good enough. A bit boring having two of those.

But if you have to delete one map - delete EBG. It is where the toxic t-chat warriors dwell who think clouding and clowning around SMC is doing anything good. Add the afk wall runners and there you go. A useless bunch on a useless map. Just remove it. 

[coro.3176]

On 7/21/2024 at 9:52 AM, Custodio.6134 said:

Imo the biggest problem with DBL is not actually the map itself. Because despite being (at least pathing-wise) larger, there´s mechanics that counteract this. Haybales, shrine-traversal, and forementioned paths/"shortcuts" that drastically reduce travel-time. 


And let me tell you: if you understand how to play the map, it is a fantastic map for both, PPT and PPK (the latter will, happen a lot more in objectives compared to ABL). And it´s also a map that allows roamers to work alongside zergs (especially the east/west shrines) that can do crucial preparation for their allied large groups. 

It kind of fails at this, unfortunately. The shrines only work if you own the keep objective, so only 1/3 teams can potentially make use of them. Also, they are mostly not useful for traversing the map.

The only times I find shrines useful are:

• As green, taking fire shrine from south to north to capture earth shrine and maybe head to north camp
• As blue, taking air shrine from south to north coming out of spawn to defend NE camp

Most of the other times, it feels like you have to go too far out of your way to get to the shrine, and you'd be better off not running that far, and the 10s it might save you is not worth the risk that one of the shrines gets flipped before you get there.

[coro.3176]

1 hour ago, VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig. said:

I love DBL. The ABLs are okish but also bland and boring. But DBL? You can be sneaky. You can maneuver. There is SPACE to exploit. ABL? meh. Good enough. A bit boring having two of those.

But if you have to delete one map - delete EBG. It is where the toxic t-chat warriors dwell who think clouding and clowning around SMC is doing anything good. Add the afk wall runners and there you go. A useless bunch on a useless map. Just remove it. 

DBL has so many fun quirks, like the pipe extending out of SE tower where you can hide if it gets flipped by a zerg, or jump down on groups below attacking from the rear.

Or the random terrain pieces, like the bridge/mesa gap by NWC sentry. I regularly jump across that one and use it to string out small groups chasing me. Have won several outnumbered fights with that map knowledge.

Or all the hay bale cliff jump spots, where a zerg thinks they've chased you off a cliff to your death, but you survive and get away!